JW Insider

So sorry for the abuse and extended trauma of your relatives. Quite true that secular authority was much more dismissive in the past. Some secular authorities are still dismissive today. Even US Attorney Acosta broke the law by hiding the plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein (wealthy hedge fund manager) after at least 30 underage female victims came forward. There are indications that the actual number of victims may have been in the hundreds along with rumors that he escaped prosecution for years by flying recruited underage girls to a private island Epstein owns. Acosta claims that his actions, although obviously illegal, were signed off by 'all levels of government.' That's an odd or even loaded expression when there are pictures of Trump and Clinton with Epstein. I don't think either of them ever denied flying to his personal island with him. Trump even made Acosta his Labor Secretary after the Epstein cover-up. Of course, this doesn't mean criminal behavior by Trump or Clinton. It could just be a coincidence. But this is just a high-level case. I've heard of high school students molesting younger students and schools trying to hide the case from police, even recently. When it's a teacher, or coach, there is often a network of their peers and administrators who will cover for them. I know of a local case where police declined to arrest/investigate a coach when the crimes seemed obvious. Hopefully this is changing for the better everywhere. I'd have to agree that sometimes in the past, this dismissive attitude by secular authorities has limited how far a congregation felt they could reasonably investigate a case, too. Just in case this supposed "good friend and confidante" was me, I'll weigh in. The truth is I had no idea what you were talking about with Knorr weighing in on a case about child abuse. It seemed quite possible, so I don't doubt that he may have involved himself in one one or more such cases. But I googled some of the content you included about that case and only found it on watchtowerdocuments.org which is a site run by ex-JW Barbara Anderson. I looked at the particular case and see that you are mistaken about it. This is not a case about child abuse. It's a case where the Astoria, Queens, NY congregation had a Bethelite (Brooklyn) assigned to it who had broken off an engagement with a sister there, and admitted to loose (brazen) conduct during the engagement. He had evidently done something similar (broken 'promises' to a sister along with loose conduct) back in his 'home' congregation before being invited to Bethel. He was dismissed from Bethel as of September 19th 1970 (and replaced as Book Study servant by a 19 year old brand new Bethelite in the next couple of months). The Astoria, NY congregation had announced his "probation" and quoted the direction they got from Knorr to the South Carolina congregation where the brother had just moved, letting them know about the case and that it would be OK to announce that he had been dismissed from the Bethel family (per Knorr's letter).

Disgusting.

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data. I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

Funny how the words of old commercials were repeated so many times in front of us who are now 60-plus. I can rattle off the slogans from about 10 different cigarette commercials (and ten old beer commercials) even though I never smoked and never drank. There was no restriction on TV or radio or magazines to plaster the commercials constantly. I take it that your name "salem" is just coincidental to your interest in Winston. Or perhaps you are from Winston-Salem, NC. Also, this particular little take-off on "Winston Tastes Good" strikes me as a match to a very old 'parody' of their slogan. It makes fun, not of cigarettes and cigarette smoking in general, but specifically of the Winston brand, as if Salems, or Marlboros taste better, and that's the reason to make fun of the bad taste of Winston. (Of course, the term "cotton pickin" is a bit dated, too, as most people now recognize the racist elements in the term.)

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim. That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great. No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too. I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking. Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things. But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here. The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.

The New Creation, Studies in the Scriptures, is not so different than what was continued until the 1970's and proposed again in the 1980's: We believe our readers will agree that although the length of these epoch-days is not indicated, we will be justified in assuming that they were uniform periods, because of their close identity as members of the one creative week. Hence, if we can gain reasonable proof of the length of one of these days, we will be fully justified in assuming that the others were of the same duration. We do, then, find satisfactory evidence that one of these creative "days" was a period of seven thousand years and, hence, that the entire creative week would be 7,000 x 7 equals 49,000 years. And although this period is infinitesimal when compared with some geological guesses, it is, we believe, quite reasonably ample for the work represented as being accomplished therein—the ordering and filling of the earth, which already "was" in existence, but "without form [order], and void [empty]." . . . Evening and morning, Day Six, at its close, 42,000 years after "work" began, found the earth ready for man to subdue. . . . Edited to add that the December 1912 Watch Tower also explained it similarly: Six great Thousand-Year Periods or Days have passed since Adam was created, according to Bible chronology. We are now in the dawning of the great Seventh Day or Sabbath Day of human experience. God has promised that this Seventh Day of a thousand years will be very different from the preceding Six Days, in which mankind has experienced a reign of Sin and Death. The Seventh Day of a thousand years is Scripturally called the "Day of Christ," and by many it is styled the Millennium. In it Satan and Sin are to be overthrown, righteousness is to be established by the Redeemer, and mankind, purchased by the precious blood at Calvary; are all to have full opportunity for arising from present degradation to re-attainment of the image and likeness of God, lost in Eden by Adam's disobedience. The Seventh Day of the Creative Week began with Adam's creation and has already lasted six thousand years, and is to be completed with the thousand years of Christ's Reign. The Seventh Creative Day will be seven thousand years long. Whoever sees this to be a reasonable deduction can easily suppose that the six preceding Days of the Genesis account were, likewise, seven thousand years each. Reckoned thus, the total period from the time that Divine Energy began to operate upon the waste Earth down to the time when the whole work of creation and Restitution will be fully completed, would be 7 times 7,000 years, or 49,000 years. According to the Bible, that time will be a thousand years hence, when The Christ shall have accomplished His work for mankind to the full and shall deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father. At that moment the fiftieth thousand-year period will begin, with every creature in Heaven and on earth ascribing praise to Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and to the Lamb, forever. How appropriate this will be, especially when we recall that in God's arrangement fifty is the greatest climax of numbers! In Bible usage the number seven is symbolical of perfection, and 7 times 7 represents a completeness of perfection; and the fiftieth or Jubilee following is climacteric.

It's my impression that we both enjoy the back and forth. I hope it's not just me.

LOL. I got so confused when both TTH and I used the word "shrill" within a couple days of each other. I started thinking maybe Allen Smith was right after all when he used to say I was the same person as TTH, among several others. I think Allen could have tried to convince me that it was just him and me running the entire forum. I never said it doesn't matter. You either forgot what I said, or made it up, or I forgot what I said. Or I could have said something you misunderstood. Even so, I accept that it matters very much to me that we don't "do dates." But I would only impose this on myself, I don't think it matters so much that I should impose my view on others in the congregation. But I'm happy to present how much it matters to me if called upon to do so. The "Clarification of Our Beliefs" does not have anything to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to specific admissions of past errors about dates in several other specific places in the Watch Tower publications. In addition, I was also referring to specific things that the Watchtower admitted can be dangerous and un-Christian, including 'serving with a date in mind.'

FelixCA, Just in case anyone gets the impression that this is true, it might be interesting to look at what the Watch Tower publications said, which makes me question your claim. It sounds like you are claiming that the Watch Tower publications do not state any one given time, and this is no different from the way the "parable of the ten virgins" was described in the Bible Student era. Feel free to correct me if it is wrong. It's not too far off topic. It even references the 6,000 years from Adam and its relationship to the beginning of the Millennium, etc. As I understand it, the Watch Tower publications initially thought that the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins was based on the criteria that the foolish virgins had foolishly given up on chronology after the Great Disappointment of 1844. A "Midnight Cry" went out at some point in the "night" between 1844 and 1874, initially thought to be at the midpoint, around 1859, when Nelson Barbour first recognized and thereafter declared that William Miller had been off by 30 years. The lamps of the virgins had to burn for another 30 years. But the foolish virgins who gave up on chronology had let their lamps run out of oil, which was obvious because they wouldn't believe in 1874. It seems to me that the parable was considerd to be all about the time period from 1874 to 1881, the seven years period before the "door was shut" on October 3rd, 1881. (A door of "mercy" could still be open, even if the full number of Christ's Bride would have been chosen by October 3rd 1881.) I'll quote from one of a few articles on the topic from the Bible Student era Watch Tower magazines. The following, until the end of the post, is from the October 1881 Watch Tower (ZWT), beginning on page 288: "AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT." . . . The parable of "The Ten Virgins" (Matt. 25) . . . "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,) they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come. While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . . The disappointment of that company of Christians (which was composed of many of the best Christians from all denominations) all are well aware of, but it was foretold in the parable: "While the Bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept." As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept . . . . The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present. As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother, B[arbour]_ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874. We do not here give the time, arguments or proofs. They are familiar to many, and can be had in more convenient shape. We merely notice here that the Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. And if all these things are due during this thousand years which commenced in 1873, surely one of the first things due and on which the others all depend, is the coming of the Bridegroom, who must first exalt his church [establish his kingdom] before it can bless, restore or bind. Bro. B[arbour]_____ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. These began again to search the Scriptures for the time of the Bridegroom's coming. But the disappointment had served an intended purpose in casting a reproach on the subject of "time," and the prudent ones had reached the worldly-wise conclusion that having been disappointed once and consequently had the finger of scorn pointed at them, they would be more prudent in future, and not expose themselves to contempt; so there was a division of the company; some could see it and others could not. ("Thou hast hid these things from the (worldly) wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.") Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place. When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general re-examination of all the arguments upon which the "Midnight Cry" was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the manner of Christ's coming, and it was soon discovered that the expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second advent was the mistake; that the human nature had been taken for the purpose of giving a ransom for humanity, and that the human nature remains a sacrifice forever; that Jesus, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened or made alive in spirit—Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body, &c., and that all spiritual bodies can be present unseen. . . . It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.) . . . To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it. "How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word." . . . The going in, like all other features of the parable, is a work of time, and we understand that it has been in progress during the seven years from 1874. . . . The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality.

I certainly hope you can be more specific. Otherwise, your accusation is just another empty claim.

I gave two reasons why it does matter. Like TTH I don't do dates. There have been several persons who came on the forum to advertise their predictive prowess with prophecy. I think the same thing about all of them. I think it's both dangerous and un-Christian to do dates. It's not my personal opinion. It's a fact. The Watchtower has claimed that they erred on this matter. So if they didn't err, then they erred in claiming that they had erred. You have a much overblown opinion of my opinions. There could be some truth in that. This is why I am always happy to have any supposed "facts" checked. It's a good reminder that even when I quote the Bible or the Watchtower publications or any reference work, I am still presenting an opinion overall as I might not understand the actual meaning of what I'm quoting. This is true no matter how much it might look like facts, and no matter that it makes use of actual facts. Based on the nature of many of the topics that I choose to discuss, I should probably remind everyone, again, that I only consider my posts to be my opinion about things. And often it's just an opinion about someone else's opinion. I might express my opinions strongly when I have no doubt about it for myself, but this doesn't mean that anyone else needs to take my opinion so seriously. So, yes, these are conclusions on what I personally think the Watchtower publications are conveying. You are correct. I can't say that I know exactly what an "overdrawn" conclusion is. It's an expression I had never heard until a conversation with Allen Smith, but I never asked him what it meant. Perhaps you can tell me. If not, perhaps BillyTheKid could tell me, since he just used the expression less than two months ago.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters." Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter: (Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . . for I will not declare the wicked one righteous. (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah. The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others. The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?" It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

JWI may have misattributed? Them's fighting words! Snarl. Hiss. 😉 Yes, You had referred to it, too. My response to something Outta Here said was based on him saying the same thing last year, because he seemed to tie it to the old thinking about the timing of Adam and Eve's creation and the potential obsolescence of the once all-important gap between them. Here was the context of his words:

The latter part of your theory is still based on trying to defend a chronology system that attempts to put the times and the seasons in our own jurisdiction. It could be dangerous to our Christianity besides being presumptuous. Also, the premise that Peter was speaking about the period between the day of creation and the day of the Lord is without foundation.

The same 2011 Watchtower article, pointed out earlier, makes some good points on this topic, note how the footnote can also be appied: *** w11 7/15 p. 24 par. 3 God’s Rest—What Is It? *** First, consider Jesus’ words to opposers who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath, which they construed as a form of work. The Lord said to them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” (John 5:16, 17) What was the point? Jesus was being accused of working on the Sabbath. His reply: “My Father has kept working” answered that charge. In effect, Jesus was saying to his critics: ‘My Father and I are engaged in the same type of work. Since my Father has kept working during his millenniums-long Sabbath, it is quite permissible for me to keep working, even on the Sabbath.’ Thus, Jesus implied that as regards the earth, God’s great Sabbath day of rest, the seventh day, had not ended in his day. [Footnotes] The priests and Levites performed work on the Sabbath in connection with the temple and ‘remained guiltless.’ As the high priest of God’s great spiritual temple, Jesus could also carry out his spiritual assignment without fear of violating the Sabbath.—Matt. 12:5, 6.

As I believe I made clear, the Watchtower has never presented anything like a belief that the 6 creative days are the same as the 1000 years. So this idea should cause you no worries, since no one said it, and no one implied it. So hopefully you can rest a little better now. This reminds me of some of the logical problems we just looked at, where something is admitted to be probable or possible in some of our prior publications, but then within the space of a sentence or two, what initially "appeared" to be true, actually becomes "totally" true, and a supposedly solid conclusion is drawn from the false premise. You have made several other mistakes just like this, so that a reasonable person would likely have already dismissed many of those conclusions you drew about R.Franz, too. And if you really thought that what 'this person' was saying was the false idea that only you had brought up, then I think that a reasonable people would also not be able to automatically trust conclusions you derived elsewhere from reading the Watchtower, reading anything written by R.Franz, or perhaps even other people on this forum. When a person needs to resort to making up things out of thin air as you apparently just did above, then you also lose credibility when it comes to your stories and anecdotes that reveal supposedly hidden personality traits that no one else who knew these people for years has ever reported before today. To disprove what about 1975? 1975 could still be the end of 6,000 years of man's existence, and since the Bible puts no particular significance on 6,000 years, it could also have been the same year Eve was created, just as the Watchtower once said (that Eve too had also been created that same year in 4026 B.C.E.). I fail to see what this might DISPROVE about 1975, that wasn't already disproved by the Watchtower articles. Anyone should realize what Peter was saying from the very context of these words: that Jehovah's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways are higher than our ways, and that his determination of the times and seasons will always be in his own jurisdiction, not ours. We shouldn't be toying with chronology if we think it can somehow be the key to becoming prepared for something that will come as a thief in the night. Chronology will never be the key to helping us become the kind of persons we ought to be while we await the end of this system. If anything, it would much more likely be a detriment to our true Christian conduct. We might be motivated by a time or season instead of by love for Jehovah, his patience, and of love for our neighbor. That's absolutely correct. The Watchtower said there might be up to a two-year gap between the end of the 6,000 years of "man's creation" and the end of 6,000 years of "creation." (Both Adam and Eve.) Of course, at one point the Watchtower did actually slip up and say that Eve was also created in 4026, the same year as Adam. That was another example of the premise being built up with words like "apparently," "evidently," and "possibly" and then, within a few sentences, what was possible became supposedly demonstrable, declarative and dogmatic. But even this slip-up that said Eve was also born in 4026, was never given as a guarantee that the Millennium would begin that same year. At that point, we only taught that it would be "appropriate" for God to act that year. The time period for the beginning of the Millennium was still relegated to the: entire decade of the 1970's, then by the end of the 20th century, then by the end of the lifespans of currently anointed persons whose anointing overlapped with persons in an earlier group of anointed persons who saw the sign in 1914 and understood what it meant. Rather than distort, we should want to see the truth and make sure that it keeps us humble enough to avoid further error. Israel was humbled by failures, too. That didn't automatically mean they were no longer God's people. It just meant that what befell them should be used as examples to learn from. The people that make up spiritual Israel are also human, and will also fail many times. We can learn from these examples to improve, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. We can also show all potentially interested persons that we are not so cult-like that we would defend what is wrong. We would not want to hang onto false reasoning that might blind us to what is right. This is one way that even apostate views might help us to improve: (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. In all seriousness, I saw that reaction coming as soon as I pointed out some of the more obvious errors you had recently made here. For some reason, I have never seen you simply acknowledge an error, or even try to address one. Instead, you seem to repeatedly just "lash out" with new diversions you appear to just make up. I still hope to show that most Witnesses have much credibility and honesty. It's true I point out errors from our past, and some of these still effect traditional doctrines of the present, but more and more of these have been humbly acknowledged. From those taking the lead, to those of us in the "rank and file" we have made great strides in humility and made great improvements over those days of so much illogical dogmatism. We should be able to compare the brighter present with some of the actual darkness of the past. This exercise will highlight the ways in which the "dross" is filtered to keep making the gold more and more refined. I'm not trying to make fun of the dross, but I'm surprised and find it disappointing when someone thinks it necessary to keep defending the dross.

Trump made the same mistake in implying (a tweet) that snow and cold temperatures somehow contradict the idea of global warming. Global warming is currently a fact of life. The question, as you indicate, is how much of the global warming is man-made and how much we could do about it at this point, even if it is. There are some silly beliefs about global warming. Some ignore the typical cycles the earth is still expected to go through over the next millennia and further, assuming there are no catastrophic interventions of any kind. Others ignore the massive increases in "greenhouse" gases that are produced by corporations, and act like regulating the the rate of reduction in some areas and regulating the rate of growth in some areas (of environmental damage) is the answer. Others try to put all the guilt on the aggregate total of private consumers and automobile owners as the problem, when this is so minor compared to effects of business manufacturing and distribution. But another kind of silliness is the denial that greenhouse gases can produce a now-predictable influence on climate, and that the current excess of man-made greenhouse gases provides the most likely explanation for the average yearly rises in global temperature.

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment: 1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower: *** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? *** God’s Rest—What Is It? During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th: *** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26. So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.) Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically: *** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? *** Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years. Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades: *** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath *** Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . . *** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age *** We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length. Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943. Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.

I have absolutely no obsession with the 6,000 years. Pointing out that F.Franz had an evident obsession with something unscriptural, is not the same as having an obsession myself. I see that the only support you offered about the 6,000 years was not from the Bible, of course, but from "HA 1423." (For anyone who is not aware, this is from Horae Apocalypticae, an infamous source of several of Nelson Barbour's chronology mistakes, that he passed along to a chronologically naive Charles Taze Russell.) HA1423 Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c. The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration, continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards. An apocryphal writer, from the era of apostasy, as @Outta Here has elsewhere pointed out, had an obsession with numerology and gematria. He clearly misinterprets scripture by claiming that the words "he finished them in six days" means that in 6,000 years, the Lord will bring all things to an end. I'm not saying that Barnabas did not get some things right, or that the anti-premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries did not get some things right. But it's never a good idea to depend on a non-Biblical, apocryphal misinterpretation to impose an idea on scripture when absolutely no support for anything like it is found anywhere in the Bible. It's actually a good thing that you pointed out that this is ultimately where the Watch Tower Society got this unscriptural idea from.

I can't tell for sure who you are talking to here. You addressed the post with the Op-Ed to @TrueTomHarley, but this current post that I'm quoting from directly responds to some points that I made. So if it's all the same to you, I'll try to address some of the points you made with reference to the Op-Ed especially. It could only add clarity if it were made clear what you had presented. The July 8 1931 Golden Age referred to in the Op-Ed had already made clear that no Bible Student/JW should be listening to the Frank & Ernest radio program that had previously been on WBBR and which was now being broadcast by Dawn Bible Students in 1931. The president of the Dawn Bible Students was Norman Woodworth, and the editor of the Golden Age was Clayton Woodworth. This bit of confusion had led some to need more clarity, as the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was not yet so well known, and both groups were still called Bible Students, and both continued to sell Millennial Dawn books, and both had a famous "Brother Woodworth" as an editor. The Dawn Bible Students published a brochure called "Bible Students Radio Echo." Brother Norman Woodworth was its editor, not the Watch Tower's Golden Age editor, Clayton Woodworth. The July 8 1931 Golden Age (Clayton Woodworth) published a lengthy article about this "Bible Students Radio Echo:" . . . He will to accomplish His purposes; and we have full confidence that the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society is the one and only instrumentality which the Lord is using to proclaim the kingdom of God in the earth at this time. As respects the dialogues of "Frank and Ernest", it is a matter of record that these dialogues were broadcast for several years from Radio Station WBBR, the WATCHTOWER; and it is as apparent that during those years "Frank and Ernest" were greatly used and highly honored by the Lord . . . But those who are wise toward God will now have nothing to do with "Frank and Ernest" or with the "Bible Students Radio Echo", now that these men have ceased their association with the instrumentality God is using in the earth to perform his work at this time, and this regardless of what they broadcast, whether it be good, bad or indifferent. We are publishing this notice so that the feebleminded (1 Thess. 5: 14) may not be deceived. So the openness that you point out from Russell's day is contradicted by the Golden Age in 1931. You point out that Russell had said: "and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society." [Emphasis yours.] But until recently, even during your own and my own lifetime, we continued to refer to the Dawn Bible Students as the "evil slave" and Witnesses were not trusted to even pick out what parts were good and what were bad or indifferent. The opening paragraph of the Golden Age article of July 8th had compared the "Dawn Bible Students" to the demons, and the article continued putting them in the Haman class, the Korah class, etc. The response to that article is, of course, the Op-Ed you presented, and it was from Norman Woodworth's "Dawn Bible Students." It was actually from Norman Woodworth himself speaking out against these statements from the Watch Tower Society. It was in a publication called "Witness Bulletin" in its very first issue in October 1931 (released in September, I believe). Clayton Woodworth published a response to it in the October 14, 1931 Golden Age. The very title of the article is indeed an echo of some of the points that Raymond Franz made in the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." C.Woodworth's response complains that the term "Christian liberty" (Christian Freedom) was used so many times that it's obvious that the writer of your Op-Ed preferred Christian liberty over obedience. The Golden Age response was titled "Liberty or Obedience -- Which?" It's easy to guess which side the Watch Tower publications would favor here. (In truth, of course, we should never seek unlimited freedom, which is a point that R.Franz makes, too. Obedience to Jehovah and Jesus are actually a part of our Christian freedom, even though Jesus said "his load was light." It's proper obedience that produces the joy we find in the freedom for which "Christ set us free.") Only a portion of that Op-Ed was ever reproduced in the WT publications. The response was to clamp down and denigrate, even to literally "demonize" the persons who continued to remain in a "cult" to Russell. Of course, Dawn made many valid points, too. And Rutherford was correctly trying to move "Jehovah's witnesses" away from this "cult" status, at least for those Bible Students who would remain loyal and obedient to the Watch Tower Society. Quite the opposite. It is a monument to the close-mindedness that had developed, and which was already developing in Russell's time as president of the WT Society. The real differences between Rutherford's and Norman Woodworth's views could have been easily explained. There was no need to just simply demand "obedience" and demand that this "Dawn" group be called "evil." A major problem, too, was that there was a financial issue in the way, and it was causing a division among brothers especially after the "Crash of 1929" and the Great Depression. Rutherford had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Russell's books in warehouses and he wanted to continue with several months' worth of selling campaigns to recover the money from these. (The WTS had continued to print them by the hundreds of thousands up until 1927, and for a few years, they still sold better than Rutherford's books.) Both groups, "Dawn" and the WTBTS, were competing to sell Russell's books, even though Witnesses were beginning to question this practice, asking why they were selling books that were full of known falsehoods (and exactly the same books being sold by the "evil slave). Of course, Rutherford demanded obedience. The "Bulletin" would say, in effect: 'If the Lord wants us to sell Russell's books, then that's what we'll do.' It even added that if one were to be disobedient to Rutherford, it would be the same as being disobedient to the Lord. The ka book says, simply: *** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” *** Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. What it doesn't mention however, is that it actually entailed many months of campaigns over a period of several years --even past 1933. Here's an example from the Bulletin of December 1931:

I hope they'll let me eat some of the cake.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph. It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here. This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning. I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching. Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider: 24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal. The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this: John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ================== So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled: (Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been. (Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd." Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications: The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

When you juxtapose those 3 verses as you have, it helps to make a case for the idea already presented that the little flock might be Jews and the other sheep might be non-Jews, that is: people out of every tribe and nation. In fact you stopped just one verse shy of verse 9: (Revelation 7:9) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. So we already know that in some sense the 144,000 refer to Israelites, and the great crowd refer to Gentiles. The question is whether the reference is literal. We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not. In fact, we teach that people of every tribe and nation are a part of that 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel, and that even many who are fleshly Israelites can end up being a part of that great crowd from all nations. Saying these expressions are NOT literal might appear to some people to be the equivalent of adding and subtracting from the Bible. If the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning. At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000. R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16. The best argument the Watchtower uses for our current view of John 10:16 is that Christendom teaches they are literal Jews and Gentiles. This is not a real argument because we use Christendom all the time as evidence that we are right when Christendom's commentaries and scholarship agrees with us.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980. But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others? And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written: *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time. Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb. So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower. This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him. Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication. Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own. If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness. That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.