JW Insider

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Here is a thought I just had ... different races are affected differently by different practices .... could it be that this is a very severe problem for some races, leading them to criminal activity and degradation

Please watch your racism checker!

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I wonder how he justified it, especially when sitting on judicial committees and disfellowshipping people for immorality. The mind boggles....

This is an excellent point. I often wonder about the same. I even wonder, for example, what goes through a Catholic priest's mind when he has an affair with a parishioner or what goes through the mind of the parishioner when (she or he) has an affair with a priest. So you can imagine my wonderment at the state of affairs in the congregation.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Anything that is hidden will be revealed, sooner or later.

It's a bit of comfort to know that our faith itself and our dependence on Bible training will sharpen our conscience and sense of morality. Undoubtedly these factors help bring the majority of such issues to light.

• (Hebrews 4:12, 13) 12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is not a creation that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account.
• (1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. 25 In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.
• (Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light.

But why not all things in this life? Why 10 years? The following verse in 1 Cor 4:5 says that some "secret things of darkness" won't become revealed until "the Lord comes."

• (1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God.
• (1 Corinthians 3:13) 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire; and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is.
• (Hebrews 4:12, 13) [especially v. 13 already quoted above.]

I have struggled with whether Ephesians 5:11 quoted above is saying that we each have a personal responsibility to reveal. I think it creates a divisive spirit in the congregations when everyone is ready to turn others in, yet it seems that sometimes it is up to us to "be reproving them" because the "things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light."

When the ARC was active, I discussed the potential fallout with a friend of mine still at Bethel and he told me that one of the dangers or fears was going to be whether or not the name or position of one of the perpetrators was going to be revealed. In one of the very cases used as an example this brother in New York said that the perpetrator was a well-known brother who had also been the Australian Branch Overseer for decades. The brother seemed to have no doubt of his guilt, although I personally would not know, but I still think that using this particular case in the process was purposefully intended to put a kind of fear and humility into the WTS there, because it showed who had the upper hand and who held the "moral high ground." But hearing this, and knowing how the brother who told me was deeply concerned that the truth not come out, I wondered the same thing. I thought maybe it should come out. (Per Ephesians 5:10-13)

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One loop. These are Unitarian pretzels

That thought crossed my mind as I saw the picture, but then I held back from saying anything so that no one would get the idea that SuziQ's pretzel stick favorites were actually just "bite-size torture stakes." (Somehow "hot cross buns" seems like a much easier name for a marketing team to promote.)

By the way, some people might think that when Space Merchant mentioned that he was a unitarian, that this was the same as claiming to be a non-Witness Unitarian. Witnesses are Unitarian believers.

Found this: http://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/mrn/episodes/1477/index.html

• Fred Rogers' religious foundation becomes apparent in this episode as he hears an explanation of what a pretzel represents: Originally, pretzels were "given to children for knowing prayers" in Germany. As they are made, pretzels are first shaped "like a great big U. Take one [side] and cross it over the other. This is to represent children's arms praying to God. Then we take one and fold over the other. That represents your parents -- mom and dad. We pick up the ends and fold them on back." When Mister Rogers asks if there always has to be three holes in a pretzel, he is told that the three holes represent the Holy Trinity.
• Unlike other episodes from the post-1979 era, the opening does not show text of the week's topic.

8 hours ago, The Librarian said:

Maybe @JW Insider?

I personally don't remember anyone mentioning that rumor until near the end of his TV show run.

I do remember a controversy in the 1980's about an episode where Mr.Rogers visits a pretzel factory and the episode presented the idea that the pretzel was initially a treat for children who said their prayers and it was twisted into a shape that supposedly represented a child saying his prayers, and when completed, the final shape had three "separate but equal" spaces (not his words) to represent the Trinity. I vaguely remember that this caused some controversy not just among local Witnesses, but that some Mid-Western church had brought it up.

I didn't see the episode until my own children watched it in the 1990's. To their credit the WTS did not ban pretzels, although now I always look at them a bit like "hot cross buns."

5 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

If you know of such a thing within scripture, feel free to elaborate, since that kind of includes 99.2% of Christianity in just this one point, alone. So, what good does it do to be admirable or exemplary in charity or love, if in the other hand you cancel all that humanitarian good with one evil action?

Your post was worth an up-vote just for this one point alone (about not participating in warfare). In general, it's my own favorite when discussing why Witnesses have a right to claim "authority" and "high ground" over other religions who feel we should have no right to try to convert others, or imposing our own view of the Bible as better than theirs. Other doctrines like Trinity and Hellfire are up there too, but this one should appeal most closely to the true practice of Christianity. Wisdom is proved righteous by its works.

32 minutes ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Is it I that question God’s authority?

No, I've never seen you do that. Nor have I seen myself do that. What I wrote was that you are often seen "opposing some small bit of truth that shouldn't even matter that much in the long run" and that you don't actually deal with the evidence. You often just throw out unrelated points in response to evidence. Even if these unrelated points are perfectly true, they have nothing to do with the evidence you are opposing and denying. In this case, you are even opposing the Watchtower's version of events.

32 minutes ago, AllenSmith34 said:

At what point did this become unclear, that ALL arrangements would have been set in place by the end of the millennium.

If that question was directed at me, I never thought any of these particular points were unclear (about ALL arrangements being set in place by the end of the millennium), nor did I ever say they were. Perhaps you are referencing the fact that earlier you said: "I [Allen] think I [Allen] have been quite clear . . . " After you said that, I pointed out that on this particular topic you have been very clearly opposing the evidence, and the Watchtower, too. Your method of responding to evidence by throwing out a lot of unrelated points is clearly typical for you, but it's also very clear what you are likely doing. From past experience interacting with you, I'm guessing that you find it impossible to admit a mistake. That's OK with me. I don't particularly like that style; it's not for me, but it's one I've seen a lot. I wouldn't judge you over this, but for your sake, I hope it's not a reflection of your offline persona.

In the meantime, I'll assume you still have found no evidence for your theory about Russell's teaching regarding the "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9-17.

On 9/19/2018 at 4:48 PM, JW Insider said:

I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this particular point about Russell's supposed "initial thinking" that only the 144,000 would go to heaven. It is clearly not true, and I'm sure you saw the evidence from what Russell himself said.

Your answer:

On 9/19/2018 at 6:06 PM, AllenSmith34 said:

Probably because no one has come to understand the beginning ideology of Pastor Russell since you keep insisting he erred in judgment when he didn’t have all the facts and God’s guidance that he eventually received.

I certainly don't claim to understand everything about Russell's ideology. I'm actually not even insisting that he erred in judgment. He may very well be right when he claimed that the great crowd of Revelation 7:14 will be in heaven. Our own current teaching on that particular verse could change. Of course, this would not change the Scriptural fact that a great crowd of people would survive the great tribulation and live on earth. And it would not change the fact that Russell also knew --from places outside this particular verse-- that there would be a great crowd of people on earth, which you and I already accept.

But it makes no sense for you to complain about a claim that Russell might have erred if you also admit that there was a time when he didn't have all the facts and would only eventually receive God's guidance in certain matters. I'm sure that you yourself would also admit that he might have erred in judgment before having all the facts. But you haven't been clear if this means that his "initial" judgment was wrong and he eventually came around to seeing that the "great crowd" would NOT be in heaven, or if he never believed what he said, and/or meant something different all along.

Neither choice would explain why Rutherford also believed the "great crowd" would be in heaven . This was something Rutherford believed up until at least 1933, and probably up until closer to 1935.

On 9/19/2018 at 6:06 PM, AllenSmith34 said:

So, it is NOT I that make those claims, they come from you. That’s where the revision comes from for the great crowd, and the little flock, not before. So, as far as you can tell, it merits further analyzes in your part.

I'd be happy to change my opinion about what Russell said, if you could show the evidence that he meant something else, or didn't mean what he said, or changed his opinion on this matter over time. That's not just for you, but for anyone who can show any evidence.

Based on years of interaction, I have a feeling that you dig in your heels and insist on making claims without evidence because you seem anxious to prove your own superior knowledge about Russell and the Bible Students. On certain points, I think you have provided valuable references and resources. On this point however, it's not just Russell's own words you are up against, but you are also opposing the more current understanding of the Watchtower when the beliefs of Russell and the Bible Students are reviewed:

*** w64 12/1 p. 724 Out of the Tombs to a “Resurrection of Life” ***

• For many years Christian Bible students understood the “resurrection of life” to include (1) the church or congregation of the 144,000 joint heirs of Christ, and (2) an unnumbered “great company” of spiritual Christians not included in the 144,000 but serving under them in heaven

I think you've seen evidence that the Watchtower is correct here, and that your claim is incorrect. Bible Students held this belief from as far back as the 1880 Watchtower, and put it in print as recently as 1933. I didn't double-check the Watchtowers of this period, but I see it in Vindication (1932) and Preparation (1933). (When the Jonadab class was still considered separate from the "great multitude.") It's possible that it was even repeated up until the doctrine was changed in 1935.

Here's a mention of that in 2003 and elsewhere:

*** w03 2/15 p. 19 par. 9 What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You? ***

• But on May 31, 1935, in a discourse given at a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., it was Scripturally explained that the “great crowd” (“great multitude,” King James Version) refers to the “other sheep” who live during the time of the end. (John 10:16) After that convention, some who had previously partaken of the Memorial emblems stopped partaking because they realized that their hope was earthly, not heavenly.

*** w98 2/15 p. 20 par. 8 Glorious Freedom Soon for the Children of God ***

• In 1935 the “great multitude,” or “great crowd”—formerly thought to be a secondary spiritual class that would be “companions” of the bride of Christ in heaven

*** w95 2/1 p. 13 par. 16 A Great Crowd of True Worshipers—From Where Have They Come? ***

• For a time Jehovah’s servants believed that the great multitude (or, great crowd) of Revelation 7:9, 10 . . . Because the Bible says that they are “standing before the throne,” it was thought that they would be in heaven, not on thrones, ruling as joint heirs with Christ, but in a secondary place in front of the throne. They were viewed as less faithful Christians, ones who did not show a spirit of true self-sacrifice. In 1935 that view was corrected.

On 9/19/2018 at 6:06 PM, AllenSmith34 said:

Therefore, the one that has been wrong about Pastor Russell, and Rutherford, along with their initial views is yourself. And that’s been the problem here that you can’t seem to accept, along with your followers.

You said that following a quote from Volume 2 of "SiS" The Time is at Hand. Unfortunately, that quote and that book also does not support your opposition to Russell's clear statements, and your opposition to the Watchtower's more recent statements quoted above. That book was written when Watch Tower publications were still consistent that both the 144,000 and the "great multitude" would go to heaven. 

After this you quoted quite a few things from Volume 3 of "SiS" Thy Kingdom Come, especially the portions about the wheat and tares. If you read more of Russell's words on the subject you will see that the portion you quoted was not relevant to his understanding of Revelation 7:9-17. Russell did have a confused belief about the tares, but this was necessary because if you read the contemporary Watch Tower articles on the subject you will see that he actually did tie the tares to other Christian groups and religions of Christendom, and he therefore had to try to remove the idea that being "burnt in the fire" referred to their destruction. After all these "burnt" ones were still going to heaven in Russell's view. Watch carefully how Russell managed this amazing feat, in the same book you quoted, Thy Kingdom Come:

• Is not this a most remarkable agreement between this stone "Witness" and the Bible? The dates, October, 1874, and October, 1881, are exact, while the date 1910, though not furnished in the Scriptures, seems more than a reasonable one for some important event in the Church's experience and final testing, while A.D. 1914 is apparently well-defined as its close, after which the world's greatest trouble is due, in which some of the "great multitude" may have a share. And in this connection let us remember that this date limit--A.D. 1914--may not only witness the completion of the selection and trial and glorification of the entire body of Christ, but it may also witness the purifying of some of that larger company of consecrated believers who, through fear and faint-heartedness, failed to render acceptable sacrifices to God, and who therefore became more or less contaminated with the world's ideas and ways. Some of these, before the end of this period, may come up out of the great tribulation. Many such are now being closely bound in with the various bundles of tares for the burning; and not until the fiery trouble of the latter end of the harvest period shall burn the binding cords of Babylon's bondage shall these be able to make their escape--"saved so as by fire." They must see the utter wreck of Great Babylon and receive some measure of her plagues. The four years from 1910 to the end of 1914, indicated thus in the Great Pyramid, will doubtless be a time of "fiery trial" upon the Church  . . .

What Russell did here, of course, was to replace the fiery destruction of the tares (weeds) with the idea that these actually represented the place from which the "great multitude" would be saved from. The "fire" became a time of "fiery trial" with a purifying effect. It becomes 4 years of a great tribulation (from about 1910 to 1914) that would come on the Church. The "great multitude" would be saved out of this "great tribulation." This fire would evidently also burn some of the tares, but notice how he turns the focus of that fire to purification and salvation: "burn the binding cords of Babylon's bondage" and being "saved so as by fire" and "the purifying of some of that larger company." This particular sleight-of-hand interpretation was soon dropped from Russell's teachings, and the tares began to refer only to those fit for destruction, while the less worthy "great multitude" continued to be seen as having a heavenly destination. (See the full article from the February 1916 Watch Tower, for example, quoted in a previous post.) 

On 9/19/2018 at 6:06 PM, AllenSmith34 said:

By understanding who Pastor Russell was referring to in proper English, which fails modern people.

Understanding who Russell referred to doesn't have to fail modern readers. There are people who can even read Shakespeare, or the KJV of the 17th century and understand it. Reading Russell's English is relatively straightforward compared to older English.

I hate to have to point it out again, but I get the feeling you are doing something that you have become infamous for doing in the past. Your name has become almost synonymous with opposing some small bit of truth that shouldn't even matter that much in the long run. And then when you are shown that you are opposing the evidence, and even opposing the Watchtower in this case, you dig in your heels and start going on about things that were not really related to the question. And another favorite tactic, apparently, is to copy quotes from somewhere that might seem relevant and might make some people believe that you found "evidence" you were right. Perhaps it even convinces some people. But it's very difficult for me to see how you can look at evidence of something and just oppose it or deny it without responding to the evidence and without giving any counter-evidence.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling I read somewhere in our publications (not too long ago) that it will be too late for those at Armageddon to repent.  There are plenty of scriptures that make it clear that only those who put faith in Jesus will be saved....but I don't think there is anything that puts a time frame on it.

Yes. We know that the Bible itself says that for many, a time will come when it will be too late for some to repent. But as you say, we don't know when, exactly in the timeline this point occurs. We know that it would be "wicked" for any of us who truly know God's undeserved kindness to use it as an excuse for badness, using the idea that we could always repent at the last minute. But there are so many things we don't know about God's judgment. For example, what if the Great Tribulation goes on for three months, and Armageddon goes on for 25 seconds? What if the Great Tribulation is 100 years long and Armageddon is 200 years long? I think most Witnesses anticipate a period shorter than the common 3.5 and/or 7 year speculation that is often attached by fundamentalists and literalists to either or both of these events. But we have no direct knowledge from the Bible about these timelines, except from Revelation, a book which we usually interpret non-literally. Therefore I don't think most of us would be deeply offended if the Watchtower someday taught that the Great Tribulation turns out to be the entire history of mankind. I don't expect that, and I don't believe it, but there is a lot of flexibility available in the interpretation of symbols.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Also it might be easy for those who live in Christian countries to put faith in Jesus at the last minute, but what about those in non Christian countries, who don't know much about Jesus or the requirement for salvation.

For that matter, who is to say whether any great majority in Christian countries have faith in the same Jesus who taught "undeserved kindness" and heart motivation as opposed to those who think Christianity is about a reward for righteous works? Allen Smith has previously questioned whether it is, in fact, only a smaller minority of Jehovah's Witnesses who are really Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesus said at Luke 18:8:

• (Luke 18: 6-8) 6 Then the Lord said: “Hear what the judge, although unrighteous, said! 7 Certainly, then, will not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, while he is patient toward them? 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

The "type of faith" here is in a God who gives justice, not based on our own merit or works or legalistic requirements, but based on our petitions and desire, as he loves us enough to patiently "put up" with us in our sinful state. This is a difficult concept for most works-based organizations promoting Christianity. There could be an implication that those in supposedly Christian nations are in pretty much 'the same boat' as those in nations who have barely (or never) heard of Jesus.

8 hours ago, Anna said:

What of those over 3 billion people, does the org. believe we will reach all those people before Armageddon, I doubt it.

And speaking of patience and those "3 billion." Every year that goes by brings an even greater number of people who are not being reached. If as Peter says, that the patience of our Lord means salvation to more people, then there is no evidence that this salvation is related to our efforts to preach to more people. The number of persons alive who will have effectively never even heard of Jehovah's Witnesses (or Jesus) goes up every year. If the end comes today, this might be, as you say, "3 billion." If the end comes in 10 years, the number of persons alive at that time who will never have heard of us (or Jesus) might be "3.5 billion." If the end comes in 20 years, the number of persons alive at that time who will have never heard of us (or Jesus) might be "4 billion." So if it were based on our efforts as Witnesses to reach these persons, then the patience of our Lord would mean greater death and destruction to billions more people.

7 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

As for Pastor Russell’s beginning research into Bible Truth. He started from scratch to willfully understand scripture as God intended. . . . Therefore, Russell’s first thoughts were apparent.

Yes, I agree that Russell's first thoughts were apparent. Which is why Russell made it clear from the start that he believed not just the 144,000 would be anointed and go to heaven but that the great crowd would also be anointed and go to heaven. (Although of a less worthy class.)

The book you are quoting, above is Divine Plan of the Ages, also known as "Studies in the Scriptures" (or Millennial Dawn), volume 1. That book also shows that Russell believed the "great crowd" would go to heaven. Quoting from page 214:

• They will have everlasting, spirit life as angels have it, . . . . They will serve God in his temple, and stand before the throne, having palms in their hands (Rev. 7:9-17); but though that will be glorious, it will not be so glorious as the position of the "little flock" of overcomers, who will be kings and priests unto God, seated with Jesus in the throne as his bride and joint-heir . . .

7 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

I believe I have been quite clear

I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this particular point about Russell's supposed "initial thinking" that only the 144,000 would go to heaven. It is clearly not true, and I'm sure you saw the evidence from what Russell himself said. And now you are quoting another of his books, "SiS V.1," and hinting that this unrelated quote has some relevance to that question. But "SiS V.1" is just another book that shows that Russell was consistent. But I don't get why it's so important to you anyway. If Russell's "initial thinking" was right, and he later changed it to something wrong, then how does this prove that "God gradually opened up his truth," which you also quoted above.  At any rate, Russell was consistent on this point, as far as I can tell.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith34 said:

However, you must be referring to the account of Noah and the flood, where people did have time to reform and repent before judgement would come upon them.

No. I was referring to what Melinda quoted about Abraham and Sodom, and what Jesus said about how the men of Sodom "would" have repented if they had seen the types of works/signs that Jesus gave to some in the first century.

51 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

My understanding from reading the Bible and Bible publications provided is that those who do not cooperate with the Kingdom government after Armageddon (resurrected ones) will be cut off. If they reach the end of the 1000-year reign

Yes. This is right. This is why I said "some" would remain until the end of the thousand years before being destroyed.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith34 said:

I am unaware I was giving any timeline for the discussion.

True, I only meant that if you agree we are are now living in a time near Armageddon that your statements would apply at a time near Armageddon. Not intending to read into it anything more specific, but wondering just how close to Armageddon your words might still apply (for some).

1 hour ago, AllenSmith34 said:

C.T. Russell’s first inclination was only the 144, 000 would inherit the heavenly kingdom of God.

The "great crowd which no man was able to number" were to become "spirit creatures" in heaven. The 144,000 were "more than conquerors" but the "great crowd" (great multitude) were also conquerors, yet unworthy to become "more than conquerors." Page 297 of "What Pastor Russell said" includes the question and his answer:

• Does the Great Company receive life direct from God on the spirit plane? Answer -- Yes, they receive life direct in that they have been begotten of the Holy Spirit, and when they are begotten they are just the same way as the little flock, because we are called in the one hope of our calling. They do not make their calling and election sure, but not being worthy of second death, they therefore receive life on the spirit plane."

I don't know how we would know Russell's "first inclination" even if you are right. One of the very first issues of the Watch Tower that Russell published included the following, in November 1880, p.4 (R156):

• As the exemption from the seven last plagues in Goshen preceded the final deliverance from Egypt, so it seems that the "sea of glass" condition which is "mingled with fire" precedes the final entering of the temple in heaven of this "great multitude" of victors.

And one of the last issues of the Watch Tower that he published, February 1916, page 75-76 states virtually the same thing.

• Here, then, we see the difference between two classes in the Church, all of whom are spirit-begotten, all of whom are called with the same High Calling . . . But although they cannot be recognized as the Bride class, we praise God for His mercy in indicating that they all belong to the company of virgins, the Bride's companions who follow after her. . . . The water of life which Jesus will give the second class will be everlasting life on the spirit plane like unto the angels. . . .

Rutherford repeated this same position about the "great crowd" (great multitude; great company) going to heaven up until at least 1932.

22 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Oh! I think we can expand on this to mean a more forceful literal decision that is placed upon humanity, of their choosing.

I'm sure you are correct. And speaking of the time near Armageddon as a literal decision point might be very appropriate, too. But none of us knows exactly when that final decision point would be for those who do not yet know better. Jesus is given authority to judge the heart, and we might wonder why Jesus said what he did about those in Sodom. (See the comment about Abraham and Sodom from @Melinda Mills.) He said that if those persons in Sodom had seen the miraculous signs that Jesus was then giving persons the opportunity to see, that those men in Sodom would have repented. Jesus was here claiming that he could judge the heart condition of the men of Sodom. Why?

Around Armageddon, which could be a literal time for that final "decision point" we envision that there will be clear signs from heaven. Will any persons at this time, who see these signs from heaven, have a heart condition like those persons in Sodom, who would have repented? Does this have any meaning to the one who judges the hearts? The same could go for the billions of unrighteous who are expected to be resurrected. Our teaching about them says that many of these will be kept around and remain alive for 1,000 more years and then finally destroyed at the end of that 1,000 years. But won't many of these billions of unrighteous persons see the obvious signs from heaven that are transforming the earth during this time?

If a person sees this and still doesn't want it, their heart condition is clear. Many persons, we expect, will be so steeped in their wicked lifestyle at Armageddon that they will prove their inability to repent and deserve a judgment of eternal death. They receive this judgment because Jehovah and Jesus, righteous judges who can read the heart, will make that judgment -- knowing in advance how they would react even if offered an opportunity for 1,000 years of signs from heaven. But some of the billions who are resurrected will be allowed to stick around for up to 1,000 years, even though it is therefore clear that they too could have been judged again almost immediately upon resurrection, long before they get destroyed at the end of the 1,000 years. If our view of the 1,000 years is right, there is some other reason that they are treated differently or even judged by a somewhat different set of criteria. This is not something for us to worry about now. Just as it is not something for us to try to judge in place of Jehovah.

Historically, C.T.Russell envisioned all the millions or even billions of Christians going to heaven, and only 144,000 of them chosen to be Christ's bride. But he also expected about 20 billion "worldly" non-Christians to stay on earth through resurrection or survival where, over the years, they would be transformed into perfect subjects of God's kingdom. Russell, as you know, sometimes said things that made people believe he supported nearly a "universal salvation."

Rutherford, too, as part of the argument for "Millions" of "worldly" people then living being able to survive Armageddon into God's new world, also saw post-Armageddon as a time of transforming the minds of billions of persons who would see these signs from heaven and repent. Rutherford, in the "Millions" campaign, argued that a person could hardly be expected to want to go back to their "worldly" wicked ways once he has seen this transformation to paradise in the Millennium.

Even with the scriptures you quoted, we don't know the final time when you could say of these persons, "but that is what some of you were." It's also clear that many have already had opportunity to transform their lives based on knowledge of God and Christ and have already had opportunity to present themselves as either "sheep" or "goats."

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am addicted to DiHydrogen Monoxide, (DHMO) also known as "hydroxyl acid".

At airports, three times now, I have been caught by the TSA at airport security with several ounces in my possession. Each time they let me go, but it was confiscated. Embarrassing.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Isn't it believed by jw's that between your #3 sub points and your #4 is when God will sweep clean and destroy all who are not jw's at that time?

Yes. Some Witnesses would take that literally. But in the last couple of decades, there has been a toning down of the talk about who will be destroyed and who will survive. JWs expect to survive as a people, but there has been a lot more talk about Jehovah's justice and how we can't predict just how many others will survive, based upon their circumstances, age, mental capacity, opportunities to know about true Christianity, or even to know about Christianity in general. Witnesses rarely say they will be the only ones to survive Armageddon. We are not the judges. We don't know if thousands of other persons will survive, or millions, or even billions. Jonah, we recall, thought he was calling down destruction on the capital of a world empire, in effect, therefore, the entire world -- and for a while he was disappointed when Jehovah saved all the people he expected would die. 

From another perspective, #3 in that list was Armageddon, which we believe will be an obvious display of Jehovah's purposeful and selective judgments through his chosen King and Commander, Christ Jesus. This will not simply be a completely chaotic time of destruction. A scenario similar to the one Witnesses envision is that Gog/Magog will attack, and Jehovah will selectively protect the persons he wishes to protect.

Many persons will no doubt witness such spectacles of Jehovah's selective judgments, and realize they are not random, but purposeful. This would have to be interpreted as a true and spectacular judgment message from heaven. That means that, in effect, EVERYBODY who witnesses Jehovah's judgments will now be one of Jehovah's witnesses at this point, even prior to the spectacular and miraculous resurrection of persons brought back from just recently and long ago, with their memories intact. The newly resurrected, too, therefore, become witnesses of Jehovah's judgments, power, purpose. 

You will have to ask other Witnesses if they anticipate God's judgments working out differently. For me, this is a personal opinion but it can still fit the range of variations possible from current Witness teachings. It might have been difficult to allow for such variation even 25 years ago.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What could be simpler?

The way we understand it is a way that makes "simple" sense when we have already accepted the entire context of all that we aleady teach about the end-times. By end-times we can start from the the Russell-related messenger of the late 1800's preparing the way, and up to 1914 when Jesus is crowned king, along with a 1914 battle where Satan and his demons are released for a short time to wreak havoc on the earth and persecute God's people, along with a "first resurrection" that we say might have begun around 1918 or at least probably somewhere between 1914 and 1935.

So it is due in large part to accepting these beliefs about the "recent" past, that we believe the next things that will happen must include the following, in this order:

1. Great Tribulation
2. Gog of Magog surround God's people to attack (before the 1,000 year reign)
3. Armageddon
   • Destruction of Gog of Magog (before the thousand year reign)
   • Binding of Satan and his demons
4. The 1,000 Year Reign
5. Release of Satan (at the end of the 1000 years)
6. Gog and Magog surround God's people to attack (at the end of the 1,000 years)
7. Destruction of Gog and Magog (at the end of the 1,000 years)
8. Satan and demons thrown into lake of fire

This is spelled out in text and in "charts"  here:

• *** w15 5/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
• https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150515/gog-of-magog/

So from the viewpoint of someone who has already accepted a different solution to the order of these events, our "simple" solution, might seem rather confusing.

I'm not suggesting that we have it completely wrong, or that we should adopt a completely different solution. But I know that many persons might be confused as to why we (or the Bible) speak of Gog/Magog poised to attack God's people twice, and even more confusingly, why Gog/Magog is destroyed twice.  One of the alternate solutions even seems to remove the need to add parentheses to a portion of the verse in Revelation 20:5, as if it's an interruption to the order of events. Those parentheses are not in any of the original manuscripts of the Bible, so someone might wonder if it can make sense without seeing them as an interruption.

I don't think most of these other solutions are any more convincing than our own. Ours has a couple flaws, but so do some of the other solutions in my opinion. I'd be interested in Shiwiii's opinion on this whole end-times scenario to see if it can be made to fit any better.

I also don't think flippant reporters who make fun of cats and dogs on the same page that reports deaths:

"Hundreds of dogs and cats defy mandatory evacuation order"

along with Florence leaves at least 9 dead further down the page.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For sure, we can find the truth on various places, among all sort of group of people. We can find the truth  even on the African plains, where the lion must eat the zebra to remain alive. And a zebra must exist so that a lion may have something to eat. And this "evidence" is a "proof" how The Truth looks like on this level. From this example, i am sure, you can understand where my thinking goes sometimes.

You are a thinking person. I'm sure that spending time in prison for reasons of conscience or religion will do that to you. I don't believe that Jehovah will forget the good works of all persons and religious persuasions. And I'm not one who believes we as Witnesses are handling every possible Christian ministry in the world that helps attract persons to Christianity. We are Christians, and we try to be the best we know how to be. We handle a particular ministry of evangelizing and teaching spreading knowledge and appreciation of the Bible, and of doing good for one another, especially those related to us in the faith, and we look for others who will share our particular faith and hope (paradise earth, etc.). Others may handle some of the charitable ministries in a better way, we constantly try to improve our teaching ministry. This takes nothing away from Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry or Tyndale or Wycliffe etc, who were key players in the past, and I would not doubt that there are many  individuals who excel at Christian teaching today, too. As you know the Watchtower often quotes from scholars and experts in many fields, including history, theology and Biblical studies, manuscripts, ancient languages, etc. 

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This could mean that JW should give life not only for his brother in faith but also for a brother who is not in faith.

True. That's when we prefer to invoke Galatians 6:10:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999442#h=1

Love Toward Those ‘Related in the Faith’

GENUINE Christians have a familylike bond among themselves. Indeed, since the first century C.E., they have referred to one another as “brother” and “sister.” (Mark 3:31-35; Philemon 1, 2) These are not just words; they constitute a description of how worshipers of God feel about one another. (Compare 1 John 4:7, 8.) Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:35.

Such love was evident in July 1997 when a prolonged drought was followed by torrential rains and flooding in Chile. Suddenly, many were in need of food, clothing, and other items. In disaster situations, Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to follow Paul’s admonition to the Galatians: “Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.”—Galatians 6:10.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"You can find the ‘waters of truth’ at your local Kingdom Hall"

Even if everything we taught doctrinally was incomplete or tainted with some error, I could still find truth in this statement just quoted. You can find waters of truth at your local Kingdom Hall, because there are people of varying backgrounds and age and former beliefs who have come together to learn and be motivated by Christian activity and a Christian lifestyle. It's the "heart" (desires/motivation) of the individuals that makes it pure. Morally, we are a very clean people, and we give morality a very high priority.

There is a kind of joy in the oneness of purpose of the worldwide association of brothers and sisters. Racism and ageism is reduced to a minimum. Anyone would be willing to help out any other one. We are built up and encouraged by the experiences of others. In dire circumstances, we know we will be offering extra support to our brothers, and we can expect support from our brothers. We have come very close to recreating the first-century Christianity (even with its expectation flaws) in the twenty-first century.

Of course, I know there are specific exceptions here and there to all the good things we could say about Witnesses in general. And if we have been in other churches, religions or ideological associations, then we probably know that many of the things we cherish about the worldwide brotherhood are available even in a secular social club or band of brothers in an army platoon. But I think ours can go a little wider and deeper, meaning that we have support in a wider array of life situations and circumstances. And as to "depth," ideally, we should be willing to protect one another, or even give our life for one another as if we were all members of the same literal family.

As to doctrines, 85% or more appear absolutely correct to me. We still thirst for Bible knowledge from trusted sources. We assemble not just for the association, but because we hope to learn something new or be fortified anew by something we have nearly forgotten. But it's true we are often ready to believe all things to the point of excessive gullibility. Yet, if it were really true that the negative/positive ratio were 85%-15% then we'd be 'of all men most to be pitied.' But even on a day when I'm most ready to "make sure of all things," I can still run through one of the most recent Watchtowers and find very little that moves the needle on my "Beroean" sensors. I think it's our duty to point out where something seems unreasonable to us (or if the "food" might be spoiled now and then) but this should have almost no effect on our relationship with our brothers and sisters.

I'd love to see us remove what appears to be some of the more obvious errors from our doctrine, and that's my focus on this forum of course. We don't have that ability to discuss on jw.org or in the congregation.

22 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.

Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:

Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.

1. One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree.
2. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord.
3. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.)

Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.

For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:

*** 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.

In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

2 hours ago, Gone Away said:

proof
1.evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

evidence
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Yes. Not worth an argument. I would gladly admit that I [evidently] use the terms a bit differently than you, and that there can be a close relationship between the two terms. I skipped the synonyms since those are not intended to be equivalent definitions. I can also see that those two definitions you provided might not be saying anything different from the point I was making. I take that above definition of "proof" to mean that proof is not the same as evidence, but it is only the evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement.

I went to OED and must admit that there was nothing at all wrong about the way you used the word, and therefore I'm sorry I overreacted on that point. Although I never found the word "proof" in any of the current definitions of evidence, until I got to a special definition #5, I did see that the word "proof" can sometimes be synonomous with evidence. (Also, even the 5th definition of "evidence" is the idea of facts tending to prove.)

EVIDENCE

I. 1.I.1 The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.

• b.I.1.b in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous.

†2.I.2 Manifestation; display. Obs.

• II.II That which manifests or makes evident.

3.II.3 An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also †to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications.

• b.II.3.b In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation.

†4.II.4 Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs.

5.II.5 Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.

But the definition of "proof" in the OED was more generous to your view, allowing even contributing evidence to be called proof:

PROOF

Signification. I.B.I From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true.

1. a.B.I.1.a That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).

2.B.I.2 The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration.

4. a.B.II.4.a The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof.

-------------------

Also, I mentioned that Rutherford sometimes wrote of the idea in the way I was using it: that it should take multiple instances of good, solid evidence before we can truly say we have proof. But Rutherford didn't always use it this way either. But I still think it's clear that Rutherford reserved the word "proof" for his own idea of "definiteness" and strength of the evidence. For example, Rutherford made several statements to the same effect as this one about the year 1799 in the book: "The Harp of God" (1921)

• "Twelve-hundred sixty years from A.D. 539 brings us to 1799--another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end." (p.230)