JW Insider

I do, and I know many other couples who do.

Pretty much exactly what anyone else does. Listen to a talk and think about the deceased, the sadness of death in general, and the potential joy in the resurrection hope.

Yes.

The Catholic Chuch still handles several aspects of it wrong, even though they have also put in place (on paper) much better processes that are more just and proper. An ex-JW who was involved in exposing the wrong aspects of our own processes was invited to the Vatican and met with several people there who were involved in the job of fixing their broken processes. The Australian commission found the JWs to be the slowest of several religions to take action, but the JWs finally did what other religions they investigated had already begun to do. So I'd be more careful about these claims that use expressions like "nobody" and "never."

Loved this. Spot on. It's the very thesis of what I am trying to say with this entire post. Also, of course, Knorr said nothing really wrong in this talk. It was heavier on politics than we are now. And it still identified Babylon the Great with the religion of the Pope and the Vatican. Otherwise, I found the talk very interesting and informative, and perfectly situated to the conditions and interests of the time. I also believe that the idea of a UN-like organization is a pretty good solution to figuring out what a modern-day interpretation of Revelation 17 would look like. Not necessarily definitive, of course, since "new light" can come out at any time. But it's a very reasonable interpretation that has withstood the test of time for several decades.

The two-witness rule is a brilliant piece of jurisprudence. It actually forms the basis for a large part of scientific inquiry, too. Past discussions here have already brought out some of the inequities and inconsistencies in the rule's application. I won't rehash them here. Read any of the first old "Flock" books carefully, however, and you'll see it easily. I'm not against the two-witness rule. Also, some news sources who have picked up on the issue have it completely wrong and have evidently thought that there has to be two separate witnesses to the crime, not including the victim. The two witness rule needs to be updated to consistently include the "witness" of a previous crime of the same nature, the "witness" of strong circumstantial physical evidence, even (within reason) the "witness" of professionals outside the congregation who can confiscate computers, cell-phones, clothing, and understand all the types of evidence, including the strengths and weaknesses of each. The two-witness rule in an open congregational setting such as in the Jewish city gate would have been quite different than the secretive version of congregational justice we have now. There should still be both "clergy" discretion and the rights of congregation members to "confess" in secret. Certain crimes rise to a level that should override the secrecy however. Many cases of child abuse are actually cases of incest, and often we hear about the danger of publicizing a crime that will likely, even if inadvertently, "shame" the victim, too. Again, however, some crimes rise to a level that will necessarily override even the privacy rights of victims. Of course, if a congregation came close to the style of an open forum like a Jewish city gate, everyone in the congregation would know the accused child abuser. All parents would be wary and protective even if there was no second witness to bring closure to the case. But the entire congregation would also openly know the accuser and might know of reasons that the accusation could be a false one. Everything is open to a court of public opinion. A second accusation in front of the entire congregation, brought by someone else with no ties or biases toward the first accuser, however, would result in everyone in the congregation being even more clear about their suspicions, even if again there was no second witness to bring closure to the case. The openness cuts both ways, but will almost always result in more eyes upon the future suspicious activities of an accused abuser, which will either make his future crimes impossible, or result in a second witness for future crimes. The two-witness rule without an open justice system is not the same thing it was Biblically when it is ripped so far out of context.

LOL! I'm sure no one thinks it's ever a complete surprise. (Although that has supposedly happened, too, in rare cases.) Jesus said that the "synteliea" [which can mean a "destructive final end"] would come upon Jerusalem within one generation, within the lifetime of some of those disciples who heard him speak. So it could not have come as a complete surprise. They knew the "season" just as anyone who sees a fig tree blossom knows that summer is near. But apparently Jesus himself didn't know how long long this judgement event (proto-parousia) upon Jerusalem would have to wait. He only knew that the kingdom was not going to manifest itself instantly and that there would be a need for patience and endurance, that there would be a seeming delay, and that they should not be misled by great earthquakes, or international wars, or persecution, or famine. They would go through a period of time that would allow for preaching to be done all around their known world. Jesus knew that the Gentiles would be preached to during that same generation. The good news would be preached in all the known nations of their world before that end came. Paul did not declare that this had happened until the 50's or 60's when he told the Colossians: (Colossians 1:23; New Living Translation) But you must continue to believe this truth and stand firmly in it. Don't drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God's servant to proclaim it. Only after the actual first sign, the parousia and synteleia upon Jerusalem (the "sign" they asked about) could the parousia and synteleia for the world now occur at any time "instantly." Matthew 24:30-36, New Living Translation: And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.h 31And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the worldi—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven. 32“Now learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branches bud and its leaves begin to sprout, you know that summer is near. 33In the same way, when you see all these things, you can know his return is very near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generationj will not pass from the scene until all these things take place. 35Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear. 36“However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.k Only the Father knows.

I think you have done some great work on the topic, which I have read in your book, and I hope you continue to share more widely. I've told you I don't agree with all your implied statistics, but I think you are on the right track and the trend of the numbers favors your ideal conclusion (about where the numbers probably point). I think that the specific problems in this matter are being cared for as well as possible under the circumstances. Our big problem is historical. And we have to do better in justifying why we are so adamant about the two-witness rule for this crime, but not for other crimes and sins. Actually we have to work on being more just. I have never dealt with a sexual abuse case, but know persons who have. (I have dealt with a physical abuse case and emotional abuse.) I have also spoken with a person (a circuit overseer uncle) who dealt with a few, sexual abuse cases and he admits that elders were ALWAYS told not to contact outside authorities, and ALWAYS to advise victims and their families not to go to outside authorities. But this is not the case any more. We finally have this part fixed from the perspective of policy, at least. But the two-witness rule is still a real problem. If you have a child who is abused, and you absolutely know the child was abused, but didn't witness it, and the abuser didn't admit it, then the congregation can do nothing. But neither can you tell anyone in the congregation. (Technically, this is true even if went to the authorities and the evidence was not clear to them.) Typically, after about 10 to 15 years of living with the guilt and shame and repression and multiple psychological issues, the child will finally need to say something to someone -- and they are now guilty of slander from a congregational perspective. It's a trap that effectively pushes the victim out of the organization. It's easy to see why there are cases where it would be better for a millstone around the neck of such a person who stumbles these little ones.

I referenced the idea of solving a mystery because the Revelation book includes this event under the heading (Chapter 34): "AN AWESOME MYSTERY SOLVED." I listened to Knorr's talk recorded in Cleveland, found here (https://archive.org/details/PeaceCanItLastByNathanKnorr)while following along in the "Peace -- Can it Last?" booklet which says inside the booklet that it is a transcript of the talk. It is not actually a transcript, although it's possible that it was intended as one. The booklet states: The above is the text of the speech "Peace — Can It Last?" delivered by the president of the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY, Sunday, September 20, 1942, at the public meeting of the New World Theocratic Assembly. This unique Assembly included more than eighty simultaneous conventions in cities in America, British Isles, Sweden, Central and South America, West and South Africa, and Hawaii. The president spoke at the key convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and his speech was conducted by a network of telephone lines direct to like conventions in fifty-one other cities in the United States, besides being radio-east over WBBR. The combined attendance in the United States at the lecture was 126,000. The speech is here published in behalf of the millions of persons of good-will who did not hear. But the transcript contains many items of interest that were either skipped by Knorr, or were not part of the original transcript he read from. I'll mark in red the portions that were skipped in the speech. But the war precedes a peace; and in a radio address at Philadelphia, broadcast around the world, concerning postwar leadership, the attorney general of the United States said (July 3, 1942): "It seems to me a wholesome thing that men are thinking in 1942 of ways to win a peace, and acting on their thoughts — yes, even now, while the war is yet to be won. It means that at last the realization has come to us that world war and world peace cannot be dissociated as parts of the same great upheaval. The problems of peace and of war are interdependent." (New York Times, July 4, 1942) Shortly thereafter the ex-president of the nation said in a broadcast from San Francisco: "Whatever the modifying views of our associates in war may be, Americans should have formulated the kind of peace that THEY want. They must make up their minds BEFORE the war ends; otherwise others will make the peace, and not us." (New York Times, July 13, 1942) And in his recent book, on "The Problems of Lasting Peace", it is written: "The purpose of this war, the most terrible of three centuries, is to make a lasting Peace. We must first win the war. But we will not win lasting peace unless we prepare for it. And we can prepare only by full and free public discussion, by the cold surgery of analysis." In May it was revealed that thirty-five government agencies were then engaged in postwar planning. (Stated by T. E. D., May 9, 1942) International discussions, and likewise public forums, are being held on postwar problems. Therefore the question is a timely and urgent one, "Peace — Can It Last?" The answer depends upon how the peace problems are solved. The greatest religious head in "Christendom" claims it his right to hold the world domination, and he is moving to exercise his power and influence in the peace conference, even offering the Vatican in which to hold it. By reason of his concordat with the Fascist dictator of Rome in 1929 he is now a temporal ruler as well as a religious one. The Hierarchy and the religious population which he rules as god declare that the Peace Treaty of 1919 failed because the pope was not in on it. He now appears in a peace role, pluming himself for a suitable place or voice in the coming Peace Conference. If he gains it, and if the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 is followed as to primacy of diplomatic representatives, then he or his official representative should preside as the "dean" of all the conferees. Says one of his American archbishops: "The only enduring peace that will restore the world to sanity and to a sense of the dignity of human personality is the peace of Pope Pius XII." And a monsignor in a radiocast from Washington, D.C., says: "He [that is, Pacelli] whose name is rooted in peace will be the one who will restore peace to the world; for when peace does come it will come, not in the way the world expects or plans it, but in an utterly unsuspected way." — Mgr. F. J. S., February 8, 1942. A United Press dispatch of July 15, from Vichy, France, was therefore of peculiar interest to Americans who believe only in peace by victory, and no negotiated peace with a gangster, and which dispatch reads: "Diplomatic circles said tonight that the Vatican was preparing a peace encyclical, to be published in mid-August, defining Pope Pius XII's ideas of a basis for a negotiated peace and postwar world planning." "An earlier United Press dispatch from Vichy, which apparently had some bearing on this report, was completely censored out except for the statement that 'there was a noticeable rapprochement of the Vatican and non-Catholic powers' recently." (New York Times, July 16,1942) Whom these "non-Catholic powers" include can be surmised, when this fact is remembered, that despite the break between Italy and the United States the secretary of the personal envoy of the president is meantime acting as the representative of this country to the Vatican. The political statesmen of the world are also looking ahead to the peace, anxiously. Some fear the peace worse than they do the war, fearing for a great postwar slump, unemployment, dislocation of industry, communications' breakdown, international debt tangle, anarchy and revolutions in various places, famine and pestilence, and other evils. They hope that the mistakes and blunders of 1919 and following years will not be repeated. A great struggle is foreseen to "lift the living standards from one end of this planet to the other". The Nazi dictator has led his hordes on in world aggression Math the promise of, to quote him, "a social state which must and shall be a model of perfection in every sphere of life"; and the pope has published to the world a five-point program for world peace. Those of a democratic mind hope for a United States of the world, a "family of nations", a "world association" based on the United Nations, including a "world legion". Says one spokesman: "An international constitution and government will be a postwar necessity." Others argue for a "World Bill of Rights". Others say the evidence shows that the hopes of the world are for the League of Nations again; and one college official says that the World Court for international arbitration must be made the key in a revived League. One of the president's own cabinet members says: 'A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers.' Those rulers and representatives of the people charged with the task of arranging the postwar conditions have a tremendous responsibility, not only before the people, but also before the great Universal Ruler, Jehovah God. One thing to notice, too, is that this is the part of the speech about the victor in the war. Yet, the speech itself doesn't really come close to mentioning who will be the victor of the war. It even apparently chides the United States for thinking that a peace can only come if the Allied Powers are the victor. And he chides the harlot, Babylon the Great, whose capital is in Vatican City for being ready to ride on the back of whomever shows himself as victor. But it might not have been noticed that Knorr was merely reading various quotes about how various leaders planned to be involved in a post-war peace. Rightly, Knorr never took sides in this -- even in another spot when he mentioned the king of the north and king of the south, he didn't predict which side would come out on top. More importantly, when Knorr uses the expression "based on the United Nations" he is referring to an existing entity, not one that only appears first in planning stages in 1944 and then shows up for real in 1945. That's why he can quote a cabinet member in the next sentence who already refers to the United Nations as an existing entity when he says: "A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers." Knorr did not predict that the allies would win; allied powers predicted (of course) that the allied powers would win. I think it's fair to say that Knorr probably thought the allied powers would win. But a "United Nations" of some kind would be the only hope of a more lasting peace no matter who won. The United Nations was actually named by F.D.Roosevelt at the Arcadia Conference and adopted on January 1, 1942. It was already in the news, and it was obvious that the writer of this speech was well aware of these various proposals in the news. (The writer was not Knorr, apparently, as evidenced by the way Knorr reads and misreads several items which sometimes indicates a lack of understanding as to the intended meaning.) But Knorr does not commit to any particular one of these names or organizations as the particular one that would end up reviving an organization like the League of Nations after the war.

What the Baptist Church is doing here, reminds me of something similar that Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to do wherever it was possible, but on a more local level. U.S. Supreme Court cases include times when Witnesses refused to register under any local law because we wanted to assure our more universal right to go anywhere we could get to. On a nation by nation basis, however, Witnesses register in order to "legally establish" the right to preach there.

Not so as explained in the post. Yes, I actually agree with your point here. Here is what you explained in the post: I agree with this. I was too anxious to jump off on a tangent to focus on a specific area of disagreement, so that I never even responded to what you were saying. Jesus does indeed seem to imply a potentially longer period of time for the labor pains, and it does give the impression that there is even nothing wrong with saying that the "labor pains" he speaks of sound as if they can start even at the very beginning of a pregnancy. It's not what the word usually refers to of course. In fact, you probably knew that the real source was the Watchtower magazine on jw.org, not just the Internet in general when I said above: The original-language word rendered “pangs of distress” refers to the intense pain experienced during childbirth. [Source: Internet] Our current doctrine puts the beginning of the labor pains at WWI, at the very beginning of the generation. Jesus implies this is possible. After all, who is to say that one of those wars or earthquakes would not occur in the year 34 CE just a year after Jesus gave the prophecy, at the very beginning of that generation? Some persons, perhaps even some apostles, were bound to be misled into thinking that a war or earthquake or some other event was a "sign" that the expected Parousia was imminent. This must be why Paul said in 2 Thess 2:1,2: However, brothers, concerning the presence [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christa and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. [Can't help but notice that Paul apparently equates the "Parousia" here with the "day of Jehovah." And this is not the only place.] It's a very similar discussion of the Parousia from the end of 1 Thess 4 to the beginning of 1 Thess 5 which includes of course: we the living who survive to the presence [Parousia] of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet . . . Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 . . . just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4 I come at this with the idea, of course, that both Paul and Jesus are dealing with the question of "When can we expect the Parousia?" and "Will there be any kind of sign, or advance warning?" Since I think that Jesus was referring more directly to the situation of the first generation of Jewish Christian disciples who would still be around Jerusalem, he knew that there would be wars and events and even teachers that might influence them to mistake the sign to get out of Jerusalem. There would be all kinds of ideas about how this or that teacher, or apostle, or another Messiah could mislead them by convincing arguments, or by saying to pay attention to this or that major earthquake, or major war. Paul was more addressing people around Greece, Macedonia and Thessalonika who would not be as much affected by the Romans trampling through Jerusalem. But the question was still the same, because it was still assumed that the same destruction of the Temple would be instantly followed by the end of all things, worldwide. To me of course, I think Jesus is saying that these things (wars, etc) are NOT related to the Parousia (the highly visible royal judgment event), but are things that people will easily mistake as signs of the impending judgment event. And another danger, of course, is that disciples might think it necessary to begin counting these as part of the Parousia and then wonder why the real Parousia is delayed, being thus disheartened and discouraged, as "expectation postponed is making the heart sick." In the previous post I showed how Jesus theme was also the suddenness and unexpectedness of the end [Parousia/Synteleia]. It was primarily in this sense that I meant that Jesus and Paul were covering the same subject matter. You say that Jesus uses the aspect of their heralding the start of a period or stage leading to an inevitable conclusion. This is true, but not necessarily so different from what Paul is talking about, although I agree that Paul focuses on the suddenness and unexpectedness (as a thief in the night). Jesus also mentions the unexpectedness and suddenness of course, but attaches the word pangs to events could occur earlier, long before the end. [Hopefully, this covers enough of the separate questions you posted, too.] I think there is still an important point to repeat for clarity, which is that while Jesus does indeed speak of the pangs even at the beginning instead of just at the end, Jesus does not attach these early pangs to the Parousia/Synteleia. He clearly divorces these early mistaken/misleading signs from any kind of useful sign that might answer their question about the end. I'm sure that's the specific point where we still disagree.

Sometimes, the Watchtower publications have pointed back to a time when the Watchtower predicted World War One (WWI) in 1914 and then also predicted that the United Nations would rise up to replace the League of Nations. These two "predictions" have even been paired together and presented nearly back-to-back in our publications. They were even brought up again at the 2014 convention and the 2009 convention. The reason the Watchtower has reviewed these two ideas from our history is probably already obvious and clear, and it has been clearly stated, too. One of the most recent reviews of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses contains very similar claims, and is found in one of the videos, now also available on tv.jw.org: https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgHistory/pub-ivfa2_x_VIDEO These online transcripts appear fairly accurate: Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 1 Out of Darkness.pdf Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 2 Let the Light Shine.pdf Here is the relevant part about 1914: —Geoffrey W. Jackson— They realized that 1914 had a significance, —Gerrit Lösch— When World War I broke out in July, they felt vindicated and it strengthened their faith in the Bible, and in JehovahÂ’s prophetic Word. Also, it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others. —Anthony Morris III— Just looking at the sign of the times that Jesus told us to look at is enough, but it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal. Here is the relevant part about the UN and League of Nations: —Narrator— . . . And soon, they would boldly proclaim a Bible prophecy that pointed to the outcome of that war. ——Chapter 4: "Taught By Jehovah"—— —Narrator— The year was 1941. Having taken the lead for 25 momentous years, J. F. Rutherford had become seriously ill and was about to make his final public appearance. . . . The second World War was raging. Some felt that these events could lead directly into Armageddon. In spite of this, in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr—the one next appointed to take the lead among Jehovah's Witnesses—spoke at a convention about a Bible prophecy that indicated that significant events had to occur first. —Knorr (reenactment)— This international war is not 'the battle of the great day of God Almighty.' Before Armageddon comes, the Scriptures show, a peace must come. —John Wischuk— There was no peace on the horizon, and yet we said, "Peace—Can It Last?" —Narrator— Knorr centered attention on Revelation 17:8, which indicates that a figurative wild beast would come into existence, would cease to exist, but then would come back to life. Knorr then drew his listeners' attention to the defunct League of Nations. —Knorr (reenactment)— The League is in effect in a state of suspended animation and needs to be revived if it is ever to live again. It has gone into the abyss of inaction and ineffectiveness. It "is not." Will the League remain in the pit? Again the Word of God gives answer: The association of worldly nations will rise again. —Narrator— That association did rise again three years later as the United Nations. —Anthony Morris III— They didn't know it was going to be called the United Nations, and we don't make that claim. But they knew it was coming out.  [Should be noted that Morris is claiming something that they "KNEW" in advance but he is also correcting a common claim that not only did Knorr predict the rise of the League of Nations three years ahead of time, but that he even used the term "United Nations." As one person writes on a website "Knorr prophesied in 1942 that the League of Nations would rise out of the abyss. Knorr used the expression 'United Nations.' How could he have known the exact name of the new incarnation, when it wasn't established until 1945?"] Witnesses got these ideas about a correctly predicted prophecy from an article published a few years later under Knorr's administration in 1960. These quotes should be compared with the actual transcript of the speech Knorr made on September 20, 1942, which was made available as a booklet, and can be found here: http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/peace.html The July 15, 1960 Watchtower, page 444, said this: "In 1942 the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by JehovahÂ’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up." You can also see a reference to the 1942 event in the Revelation book (p.248) on WOL at jw.org: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034 You can also read the following about it in the April 15, 1989 Watchtower, p.14 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034 By divine providence, JehovahÂ’s Witnesses received enlightenment on that mystery in 1942. . . . Nathan H. Knorr, president of the Watch Tower Society, gave the public talk, “Peace—Can It Last?” Therein he reviewed Revelation 17:8, . . . . Was that Bible-based forecast fulfilled? Truly it was! In 1945 the international “wild beast” emerged from its abyss of inactivity as the United Nations. See also the Kingdom Come book kc chap. 17 pp. 162-173 and and interesting version of events found in a 1981 Watchtower about why this "insight" was given w81 12/15 pp. 28-30 The Proclaimers book states it like this on page 192-3 ( jv chap. 14 pp. 188-201 ) This time, it involved the United Nations, successor to the League. While World War II was still under way, in 1942, JehovahÂ’s Witnesses had already discerned from the Bible, at Revelation 17:8, that the world peace organization would rise again, also that it would fail to bring lasting peace. This was explained by N. H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society, in the convention discourse “Peace—Can It Last?” Boldly JehovahÂ’s Witnesses proclaimed that view of the developing world situation. In 1993 the idea was stated as follows: “The Disgusting Thing” 12, 13. What was “the disgusting thing,” and—as foreseen by the faithful and discreet slave—when and how was it reestablished? 12 When the end of the second world war was in sight, there was another development. “They will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation.” (Daniel 11:31b) This “disgusting thing,” which Jesus also mentioned, had already been recognized as the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that according to Revelation went into the abyss. (Matthew 24:15; Revelation 17:8; see Light, Book Two, page 94.) It did this when World War II broke out. However, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr, third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, discussed the prophecy of Revelation 17 and warned that the beast would rise again from the abyss. 13 History bore out the truth of his words. Between August and October 1944, at Dumbarton Oaks in the United States, work was begun on the charter of what would be called the United Nations. The charter was adopted by 51 nations, including the former Soviet Union, and when it came into force on October 24, 1945, the defunct League of Nations in effect came out of the abyss. There are several more examples, but this should suffice. I am struck by how often the point is emphasized that these were Knorr's words, "his words" and that they were a Bible-based forecast "foreseen" and "discerned" and "known" in advance through "divine providence" and "enlightenment" and men being "guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit." This is an odd focus on the insights and discernment of men. These expressions are also dangerously presumptuous in that they are so often applied to the one or two times when it seems something was foreseen correctly, but there is no balanced way of discussing the reasons that literally dozens of predictions were made incorrectly and have been dropped as "old light." But, as many Witnesses already know, there is something even deeper that is wrong with these claims of accuracy in discernment. The claims are inaccurate! It turns out that this was not really even predicted in advance. A close look at the original transcript of Knorr's talk actually solves the mystery of why he used the term United Nations in his speech. It's because he gave the speech AFTER official work on the United Nations had already begun.

I should add that it's very possible for the disciples in 33 CE to hear these words on their own without the context and understand them to say that wars, food shortages and earthquakes would be signs that the end would be nearly upon them. We can't be blamed for seeing them the way the Watchtower explains them, because the Watchtower has always relied on re-translations of the words in Matthew 24 which tend to remove the meaning in context. There is a good example of this mistranslation in the Matthew 24:8 above, where it supposedly says "All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress." The KJV is often followed as closely as possible by at least half of the modern English translations whenever the differences do not seem that important. So about half of the English translations are very similar to ours. But a little more than half, from a check of 40 translations, include a translation of the Greek particle "de" which the KJV and the NWT skips here. In other words we translate it as if it said: πάντα ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων when it really says: πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων Why is the word important? It changes the meaning from: "All these things are a beginning of birth pains" to: "But all these things are but a beginning of birth pains." In other words it emphasizes that something is missing or even wrong in the natural understanding of the previous statement about wars and earthquakes and famines. Here's why. All the Greek lexicons mention something like the following: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1161&t=KJV δέ dé, deh; a primary particle (adversative or continuative) STRONGS NT 1161: δέ δέ (related to δή, as μέν to μήν, cf. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 2, p. 355), a particle adversative, distinctive, disjunctive 1. universally, by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opposed to a preceding statement: ἐάν ὀφθαλμός κτλ. Matthew 6:23; ἐλεύσονται δέ ἡμέραι, Mark 2:20; it opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned It's true that it isn't ALWAYS translated, but when the context repeatedly refers to the possibility of a misunderstanding then it is an important part of the meaning and must be translated. (Matthew 24 repeatedly and explicitly mentions the possibility of misunderstanding or being misled.) This is why, when we bring in the meaning of context with the original Greek meaning of the words (including: parousia, synteleia, de, etc) we would have a meaning that more likely fits the following scenario: Disciples: Please, can you tell us when this destruction of Jerusalem's Temple will occur? Can you tell us the sign that we should look for when we know that the final end and your final manifestation is about to happen? Jesus responds: Look out that nobody misleads you. Many people will come around, even on the basis of my name, saying they represent me, yet they will mislead many. [You could easily be misled by the fact that] there will be wars, earthquakes and famines. Don't be tempted to raise the alarm based on such things, because these kinds of things will keep taking place [as they always have]. All these things are but a beginning of the birth pains, [not the end of all things that you are asking about]. The reason Jesus said this becomes clear in the rest of the chapter when he mentions the suddenness and unexpectedness of the end. It can't be predicted. It's as if two persons were going about their business grinding at a mill, and one was taken and one wasn't. It's the way it happens with most pregnancies, when the mother-to-be can be going about her business, and suddenly and unexpectedly a pain comes upon her. It's the way it happens with a bolt of bright lightning that suddenly happens. It's the way it happened in Noah's day when people didn't really believe or expect it to happen and suddenly the flood sweeps them away. It's the same way it happened in the days of Lot and Sodom when, without warning, fire came from heaven and destroyed them.

Of course there is, but this escalation usually lasts from a few hours to a few days. Remember, too, that you already had to posit that the two uses of the same word, once by Jesus, and once by Paul, were for two different purposes even thought the subject matter was exactly the same. That might be a hint that you got something wrong, based on what is sometimes called "special pleading." If there was any question about the actual meaning we merely need to look at the way that both Jesus and Paul used the word "instantly" in this context. So even if we pleaded that the word CAN sometimes refer to the longer-term process, we have the evidence from Jesus and Paul that they were referring to something that comes "instantly" upon them. (Luke 21:34; 1 Thess 5:3 -- αἰφνίδιος, unexpected, sudden, unforeseen. [Source: Strong's; Thayer's; Vines, etc.) Special pleading again. Actually, this is exactly the way we speak of the labor pains in Revelation 12, and we tie this birth to 1914.

I used to think the same thing, until after my first, second, and third child. That's when I realized that my idea about pangs of pregnancy had actually been influenced by my (our) incorrect understanding of this very scripture. I had to think that the "pangs" would be a "generation" long, in some similar way to how up to 120 years of a generation compares to the 1,881 years from 33 CE to 1914 CE. In the long run, I could rationalize that the final generation was only about 5% of the full period, and this might be considered "instantly" in some sense. But then I realized that my wife was able to work a full-time job (high school principal) right up until the day she went to the hospital and then she always had the baby within a matter of hours. The "5% solution" implies that the pangs of distress (labor pains) last at least half-a-month. With the new definition of the 'generation that never seems to pass away' the percentage rises to 10% or nearly a whole month. So the expression about the labor pains is really a huge hint that Jesus actually meant what he said about something coming as a surprise, as if without warning. Just like the days of Sodom would have seemed to suddenly come to an end without warning. Just an aside, but others have already pointed out that the labor pains analogy was appropriate for the birth of the kingdom. This hardly seems to fit a birth that starts in 1914 and then the labor pains only start AFTER the birth and last for 120 to 240 years. Labor pains usually start BEFORE a birth, not AFTER. [moved out of order with next post . . . read that one first.] Actually, all we have to do is look into the meaning of the original Greek word to understand that this is not about when contractions can start: The original-language word rendered “pangs of distress” refers to the intense pain experienced during childbirth. [Source: Internet]

I don't question that Revelation 17 has an important meaning for us. Yes. We should always pay attention to our teaching. 1 Tim 4:16: "Pay close attention to your life and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by so doing you will save both yourself and those who hear you." [Berean] If this Watchtower eschatological scenario could be absolutely known for sure to be correct then I would think that some hints could be discerned from political and ideological developments. Of course, I trust that Jesus' words preclude any human from knowing absolutely what the future scenario might look like. However, when the Bible says that God puts the idea in their hearts it likely means (as the Watchtower teaches) that Jehovah allows these entities to go ahead with intentions that already existed in some form. Therefore, such a future scenario could very well be discernible to some extent in advance. To the extent that anyone might feel it useful to look for such hints as a way of testing the validity of the teaching then there is a legitimate reason to "test the spirits." [1 John 4:1]. But I would think there are much more basic and important Bible principles to test against before we can get to that point. I think Jesus told us why. He made it clear that the very topic of the end and the natural desire to get advance information about when it would occur would result in much confusion and persons who would end up misleading others, either on purpose or just human nature. So Jesus made it clear that there would be a lot of things happening that people would latch onto in order to claim that they KNEW more about the closeness of the end. So Jesus made it clear that wars would continue to happen, but that they shouldn't get all excited and think this was a sign that the end must be close. Jesus made the same point about earthquakes that might shake someone from their reason and make them think the due time had approached. Or pestilence, famine, persecution. All these things would go on happening, but there was no reason to become inordinately excited. In fact, Jesus added that during the period leading up to the final end [the synteleia/parousia] people would be marrying and being given in marriage, people would be eating and drinking, and the parousia would come upon most of them as if without any warning. In other words, these people would be crying out 'there is peace and security' before sudden destruction came upon them. Peter adds that scoffers could even say 'Where is this promised parousia [that will shine brightly like lightning from one part of the heavens all the way across to the other]? Things are still going on just as they always have. So, yes, Jesus gave a lot of details about the prophecy related to the end times, but many of those details were to show that there would be NO specific details that could be seen as an advance sign of the end, but that Christians should remain active and endure patiently in spite of the lack of signs. But when the end finally came, THEN there would be an unmistakable sign that this parousia was upon us suddenly like bright visible lightning.

Discuss the question from the title of the topic? Now that's a novel idea. ? It is a reasonable solution to see the 10-horns and the wild beast as either representing, or some part of the dominant world power at the time of the great tribulation, the fall of Babylon the Great, Armageddon, etc. And it is a reasonable assumption to see the prostitute as false religion. And it seems that God puts a thought into the heart of the ten horns and the heart of the wild beast to give their kingdom to this wild beast until some end predetermined by the God's words will have been accomplished. Obviously. But is it the same as "biting the hand that feeds us" to discuss whether our current explanation of this chapter is reasonable? Is our end-time-scenario too sacrosanct to question in any way. Or is perhaps now the best opportune time to consider where our loyalties will lie if things seem NOT to be working out as expected? Or is perhaps now the best opportune time to consider the meaning of Jesus words about not being able to work out the closeness of the time of the end if things DO INDEED seem to be working out as expected? As several people already know, I come at this issue from the perspective that Jesus warned us against trying to look at signs of the times to divine the closeness of the end. It will come as a "thief in the night." Some of us will answer, but we won't be surprised, or in the dark, as someone who is awake and prepared for the thief. That's true, of course, but not because we will be able to figure out the time or season in which the thief will appear. Not because we will be watching for some entity to call out "peace and security." It's because we as Christians will be both patient and ready at all times because we are always looking out that our motivations are pure. Peter says we stay ready by watching ourselves and the type of person we ought to be, and clarifies the motivations behind all our activity in 2 Peter 1:5-8: 5 For this very reason, put forth all earnest effort+ to supply to your faith virtue,+ to your virtue knowledge,+ 6 to your knowledge self-control, to your self-control+ endurance, to your endurance godly devotion,+ 7 to your godly devotion brotherly affection, to your brotherly affection love.+ 8 For if these things exist in you and overflow, they will prevent you from being either inactive or unfruitful*+ regarding the accurate knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. There have always been those persons who think they are doing a favor to fellow Witnesses, or perhaps also highlighting their own faith in the predicted scenario by watching out for any mention of "peace and security" by a Pope, a world leader, or a UN representative. The initial post in this topic goes to a lot of trouble to try to read between the lines for items coming from the UN that somehow indicate that "they" could turn against and attack religion at any time. I think this is unhealthy and unchristian for several reasons. But I've already gone into detail about this aspect in other posts in the past. This doesn't mean the scenario is impossible, only that Jesus said it was wrong to look for such scenarios as a way to anticipate the closeness of the end or to try to predict the timing his parousia. They might create some fervor and anticipation about the closeness of the end, but they will produce an unchristian motivation. And, as I've also said, it would not be honest for me to discuss the question at hand without also mentioning that I think the whole scenario should be questioned. And, as I've also said, I think as Christians we are under an obligation to question such scenarios as to whether they are Biblical or even useful.

Thank you for noticing that I have always considered my opinions here to reflect nothing more than my opinions here. I have noticed statements from JTR and Anna that actually state just the opposite. I've said it many times, too, that it really is humanly possible to make all the prophetic conjectures that you wish, and then just be humble about it and state that we really don't know for sure about these things we are conjecturing about. In other words, it's possible to make conjectures and be 100% right about everything we state as long as we are humble, discreet, and not presumptuous. The GB could have said that they don't know for sure, but that they believe the UN will attack religion for certain reasons, and then give those reasons. None of us would have the right to be dogmatic. We would always be 100% right, because we only stated that it was our current belief -- our opinion. Of course, I don't demand that we admit when we are just "conjecturing." But the Bible says it's the best course to avoid presumptuousness and the Bible recommends being faithful and discreet. Your "word salads" imply so much that is incorrect that I won't bother to untangle them. But it is funny that you find a person who says none of us has a crystal ball, and that none of us should claim to have one, and then you claim that this person thinks he has a crystal ball. I didn't want you deleted and you didn't want you deleted. So you are like me in that regard. Someone went against the whims of people like you and me. However, you have repeatedly claimed that you have not been silenced because you merely had to create new versions of your name and new versions of several other supportive "characters" who can up-vote yourself and show derision to others. I agree with you that you have never actually been silenced. So this should not be an excuse for coming up with no evidence for your opinions. Your opinions are just fine. Many have been spot on. Some of mine have been merely opinions unsupported with evidence. Opinions on their own are not valid or invalid, just opinions. But if anyone shows evidence contrary to my opinion, I will ALWAYS adjust my opinion in favor of the evidence. This is one of those places where no one has to hold back in presenting either opinions or evidence or counter-evidence. So if you have evidence, great. But if you don't have any evidence, then please stop whining about how one or two of your "characters" were deleted for abusive behavior several years ago. I apologize. I was only thinking about prophecies associated with dates and time periods like 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the mid-70's, the end of the century, the generation, etc. But I admit that there is one "prophetic fulfillment" in another category that comes very close. It's the best example available. I'm referring to the one that Knorr "predicted" about the League of Nations rising again as the United Nations. This one was not originally from the Watchtower, but from Christendom, but still the Watchtower should get credit for choosing to repeat it. Here, it seems, we really do agree! And this was the main point I was making, too.

Assuming your obfuscation is purposeful, I'll try to translate your apparent intent: "I, AllenSmith, have never yet failed to understand the true character and intent when I view certain people here. To myself, I now understand that I had previously misunderstood the main thing that 'JWInsider' was saying, although since I will never actually admit a fault, be they ever so blatant to others, I will, instead, focus on the new claim that that I never misunderstood the subliminal message." If you meant @Srecko Sostar, I have never seen this person as a staunch supporter. If you meant @Melinda Mills, then you probably missed the fact that she does not typically "support" my views in areas where they might differ from the Watchtower, and never staunchly even when she does. In this case, she merely pointed out the fact that I left out the word "not," because the sentence wouldn't have made any sense in context as it stood. But she was pointing out what I must have meant, not what she necessarily believes. I see she did "upvote" a comment or two of mine, and that is always a dangerous thing for people to do when you are around, since they will often have to brave your disapproval. You often convey this disapproval of any kind of support in a bullying manner and go after people for assumed sins just because they found something agreeable in a post of mine. I hope you will stop this kind of bullying. (I'm not saying that what other people do doesn't ALSO come across as bullying . . . [ahem..j.t.r..ahem] . . . but it's easier to take when it's cushioned with a sense of humor.) Yes. It's true. I gladly admit that this post was not primarily about the differences in our view of the GB. Still, many JWs believe that the time will come when the UN will attack religion, and there is an associated assumption that this will result in a collapse of religion in some global sense, and will thus precipitate a specific attack on Witnesses which is thwarted by Jehovah, Jesus and the angelic hosts. This is supposed to be our lot between the great tribulation and Armageddon. We are told to expect that it means times of being cut off from communication with New York, and a need for almost unquestioning reliance on local leadership through the guidance of congregation elders. In some cases, we expect that some will be cut off from even that much association. JWs want to feel prepared to face such a time without fear. I don't think it's out of place, then, to discuss this entire supposed "UN episode" in the light of such expectations. I don't feel right about discussing it unless I also disclose that I have my own questions about the readiness of many Witnesses to face such a scenario. Part of that is the strained relationship that I see many Witnesses have with their local elders, and others in the congregations in general. Part of that is what I see as an unhealthy and immature relationship of dependency on the Governing Body for almost every aspect of their spirituality and worship. For me personally, I must also deal with the fact that I look to the track record of the Governing Body in attempting to predict the meaning of scripture, and I realize that so far they have something like a 0% accuracy rating in everything ever predicted when it comes to fulfilled prophecy. So, just out of the honest need for full disclosure when I give an opinion, I will be forced to include some of my personal hesitance to accept these predicted scenarios as necessarily accurate. But I should still have a right to an opinion, and you should have a right to yours, and a right to give counterbalancing evidence if you have any. Interesting. It's false to say they have never claimed this. But it's usually more subtle than an outright claim. Whether they claim it or not is immaterial. It's an impression that is given and never completely corrected. We could have a whole separate discussion on this topic. I never claimed they asked for anyone to glorify them. Please stick with the evidence, not stuff you make up. They should feel no superiority for having served at the "Bethel House." No one should. I certainly don't. In fact, as you have pointed out yourself, sometimes serving at Bethel is a detriment to true spirituality.

Thanks Melinda. ? I left out a fairly important three-letter word: NOT. Edited it above to correct it.

I attempted above to only address the actual point of difference, as I see it, between your view and my view of the GB. To be fair, I should probably acknowledge that you appear to be trying to make some additional specific points in your post, but there was nothing there that seemed very appropriate to comment on, because most of what you said just simply doesn't apply or I have always been in full agreement with it. The intent of some of your post wasn't clear to me. So perhaps if I try to respond to what I think you meant, you will be able to clarify further if you can see I'm not understanding you correctly. From what I can tell, your instant reaction to call me and my views heretical and your other attempts at defamation have become a kind of reflex for you. You apparently don't read what I am saying before quickly misunderstanding words that you don't like. In this case, I think the primary word you didn't like was "influence." You didn't like that I had said used the term "influence . . . emanated from the Governing Body" in the following question that I had asked: You might not have understood that I meant this in a very positive way. I mean that the Governing Body has positively influenced Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide with proper guidance and teachings. Yes, I know I have not held back from discussing non-Biblical influences in the past, too, but the question above focused only on the positive influences. It could be restated as follows: Is it possible that (through all the various publications, practices, encouragement of good habits, assigned Bible reading/discussion, reviewing of important Bible topics, etc.) that the Governing Body has already produced enough good influence on congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses so that they are readily capable of standing on their own in the event of severe persecution that would cut us off from communication with the Governing Body? I hoped the question was rhetorical, because it seems obvious that congregational elders and servants should already be trusted to help guide and teach a congregation in such circumstances. We already know there have been exceptional cases and extreme circumstances in the recent modern history of Jehovah's Witnesses where communication has been cut off and the Witness work and congregational matters went on without any major problems. And as I already stated in the post, we are reminded that we should be ready for such extreme circumstances. I also note that you might have misunderstood my use of the word "past." It didn't refer to Russell, Rutherford, and past GB "influences." It refers to the pattern of instruction already received, with good habits learned over the years. Many elders and servants had no ability to manage even a small project, yet past assignments over the years have taught many brothers and sisters to rise to the occasion to manage complex tasks. (Assembly organization, budgets, donations, paperwork, building halls, scheduling assignments.) I think you took some offense to the fact that I mentioned influence of the GB as if it superseded the influence of Jehovah, Jesus, the Bible, and the holy spirit. That wasn't the intent. For some individuals, unfortunately, I think it does supersede all these entities. But that wasn't the topic here. I meant it only as a guide for understanding proper spiritual influence. This is where I figured you must have misunderstood GB influence. I meant it, just as you said: "a GUIDE to the teachings of Christ" not a replacement for Scripture. I know where you are coming from, so I don't blame you for thinking I was here referring to areas where I believe the Bible gives us a clear reason to disagree. But in this context I was referring to the many areas where we can positively agree.

I Corinthians 12:27 is a perfect example of what I believe. It says: 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (NIV) Anyone who believes that says there is currently another body to look to, such as a Governing Body, should be the ones defending against a potentially heretical view. I believe that there is a way to view the Governing Body concept in a way that is is not heretical, and not at odds with the Bible, and I have explained it before. Holding a specific, proper view about a group of 8 specific men in New York who make up this "Governing Body" is NOT, in my view heretical. For the sake of efficiency, an organization will find it useful, helpful, and proper to look to groups of older men for guidance. We have the example of Moses taking the advice of Jethro. We have the Sanhedrin. Jesus, in fact, wanted the combined experience and advice of the apostles to help guide the first-century congregations as they emanated forth from Jerusalem in the days following his death, ascension, and the pouring out of the holy spirit at Pentecost. So there is nothing necessarily wrong or heretical about a group of men selected for the purpose of efficiently running an organization. 1 Corinthians 12:28 mentions teaching and helping and guiding as proper ministries for some of the body of Christ to be involved in. It would therefore be proper for the body of Christ to select specific persons or even committees of persons to serve in various capacities as that body of Christ might choose using Scriptural guidance and advice. The potentially heretical view is the claim that these men and only these men currently make up the fulfillment of the parable Jesus gave about the unfaithful slave. (Yes, it is also a parable about a faithful slave, but the primary focus and majority of content in the parable is about the unfaithful slave.) Because then we would have a body of men who are not the apostles, wishing to be thought of as if they were apostles. It would require us to view a specific body of specific men as a Body within the Body of Christ. Looking to a body of men as a committee who are our specific leaders to follow is precisely what Paul spoke against when he spoke of those who would look to various "superfine" apostles. It is precisely what Jesus was referring to when when he said that we should [NOT]** look to specific persons as our leaders or teachers. The Bible often mentions the dangers of such arrangements. It even mentions the potential danger of looking to the body of apostles themselves as our leaders. This is what Paul emphasizes when he tells the Galatians that he did not look to the body of elders in Jerusalem for leadership, not even the apostles, those who "seemed to be" pillars in the Jerusalem congregation. [Edited to add the "NOT" in the above paragraph where Melinda pointed out the error.]

NOTE: This is not a religious section of the forum, but I will respond based on the link between JW beliefs and certain expectations concerning the UN that are fairly unique to JW teachings.] The protection of the civil rights of various religious groups for some will look exactly like the suppression of religion to others. If someone has a religious investment in defaming other religions, then telling them that they can no longer defame others is considered to be an encroachment on their own religious rights. There is no perfect solution to this problem. We know that Jesus and the apostles, too, set an example of pointing out the hypocrisy and wickedness found in the leaders of other religions. The attitude of the world itself and its non-religious philosophies are also defamed in the Bible. So there is nothing unchristian about defaming religion and empty worldly philosophy. So what happens if there is a demand supported by international law to protect the civil rights of individuals by outlawing the defamation of their religion by another religion? This supposedly makes it impossible for religions which require the conversion of persons of other religions and ideologies. It is a necessary tenet of our religion that we promote it publicly just as 'Acts of Apostles' shows the earliest Christians spreading religion through conversion of others. There have been several interesting tests of how Jehovah's Witnesses have reacted to political or legal pressure by the rules and laws of various nations. When I first visited Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico, Mexico had rules that supported the Witnesses. We could preach and convert people exactly as we do in the United States and elsewhere. But due to past problems with the political power of the Catholic Church, they also had rules that restricted religious organizations from owning property. The Watchtower Society didn't like this restriction even though other religions had no problem with it. So it was decided that it would be OK for Witnesses in Mexico to act like a non-religious, civic organization that basically taught people how to read (using WT publications), but without prayer and singing and use of the Bible in door-to-door work. The talks at the Hall were considered to be "educational" and the TMS was about speech training. There could be no purely religious talk, especially of the kind that spoke out against other religions. Of course, as soon as the rule changed so that the Watchtower would now be allowed to own property, then the Watchtower allowed singing of kingdom songs, prayer and use of the Bible in service. The Watchtower had suppressed these proper forms of worship among Witnesses for decades, until the property rule changed. In other places, most recently in Russia, Jehovah's Witnesses are being suppressed from Russia's own legal system, their national courts. (The undue influence from the Russian Orthodox Church also seems obvious.) In Mexico the suppression came from the rules of the Watchtower Society, but now the rules (in Russia) are part of the law of the land. Apparently, the initial design of the rules was not to stop Jehovah's Witnesses from worshiping, praying, using the Bible or singing kingdom songs. Any religion, including JWs, could still exist and Witnesses could do what they wanted, as long they wouldn't denigrate other religions through their publications and preaching activity. In Russia, we would have to become a religion that could not convert others using the current version of our message. But, in Russia, we would not have to act like a civic organization. The goal was to "blunt" the sharper edges of the religion in terms of its control over membership through its own sets of laws and punishments. Russia would allow the religion to go on, but to be independent of literature produced or translated from the United States (that demeaned other religions) and independent of the control from the United States. Of course, this is not how the hierarchy of Jehovah's Witnesses works. The new interpretation of the "faithful and discreet slave" requires a close observation of the latest changes made by a specific group of 8 men in the United States. The brothers tried to convince the Russian court that they were not directly dependent on rules emanating from the United States, but this was actually seen to be a false claim and the court didn't accept it. But this makes me think of a few questions. Is it possibly true already that enough influence has already emanated from the Governing Body so that Jehovah's Witnesses can now continue to follow the practices and doctrines already defined from prior publications and educational direction given in the past? This could be an important question because our publications have already promoted a view that, at any time, nations of the world could turn on Jehovah's Witnesses, and individuals might be "on their own" and will need to follow the direction of their local congregation elders. In some countries, the suppression could be so harsh that it may be difficult to find fellow members of a dissolved congregation. And this is also considered to be an indication that it may no longer be time for continued preaching work for the purpose of converting others, but time to remain faithful even if we seem to be on our own. Another question is a more basic one. Could our preaching work go on if we were not able to demean and diminish other religious choices publicly? Is this really the primary goal of the public preaching? What would happen if, in such countries, under such legal restrictions, our ministry transformed to one of good works for others of all religions, but especially toward those related to us in the faith. In the earliest public ministry mentioned in Acts, it is the sharing of food and possessions with those related in this faith in Jesus. That appears to be the big attraction of "the Way" -- those who would be Witnesses of Jesus to the most distant part of the earth. With a reputation of showing love and caring for their own, people were interested in what motivated them to such acts of goodwill and kindness toward each other. It was likely that the majority of those who were converted learned more about Christians from this reputation. Would such a new style of ministry work with JWs in Russia? What if JWs were the most well-known for how they took care of each other? What if they had the best practices for taking care of orphans and widows and honoring their elderly parents and other elderly members? If people came to them over their loving reputation and only THEN did the JWs happily explain why they do such things, might this actually result in an increase in those who want to follow them? There would be less need for JWs to formally go out to others. (There is some evidence that the actual growth of JWs in most places has been primarily through informal contacts, not formal door-to-door contacts.) I wonder if it's possible to transform a ministry to work just as well by having people come to us. Wouldn't Jehovah bless the work that is motivated correctly? Wouldn't Jehovah make sure that media was attentive to such stories of charity and goodwill?

Trump reflects a view of the world that US leaders have promoted for about two centuries. Internal documentation for U.S. political decisions are never released until many years later for "national security" reasons. But after they are released, it's easy to see that, to some extent, at least after learning what is really going on in the world, all US leaders themselves have obviously "known better." It is clear that they had to use various propaganda tactics to foist a specific world view on US citizens that aligned with prejudices about "US/American interests." Facts they learned as leaders had to be suppressed, spun or re-packaged for the public in order to promote the necessary fears and prejudices that allowed the USA to position itself as those leaders deemed necessary. The US public, as with most other "Western" nations by now (UK, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Israel) is so well influenced by propaganda that the people in their blindness will only choose leadership who are already fooled and ready to fool them some more. Citizens generally don't want people who can see a need for justice in the world, because most voting citizens only watch corporate-sponsored news (including so called "public" radio/television) and already believe that if it's good for the USA, it's good for the world, no matter how unjust to the rest of the world, in actuality. Saudi Arabia is the U.S.A.'s gas station. They buy US weapons for billions and the USA then helps them to abuse the rights of nations around them, creating as much chaos in that part of the world as the US believes it can possibly get away with. But I don't mean chaos through mistakes and blunders, which is how US history explains these messes after the fact. It is not by accident, but on purpose, that the USA has for example, supported terrorists around the world and even Al-Qaeda and Isis in Syria to keep the nation as divided as possible. Israeli news has not been as careful about hiding the same reasons their leaders have also pushed for support of Isis and Al-Qaeda. By about this time in history, the current civil rights record in China is much better than the current civil rights record of the United States. It's true that China filters out porn and Western "news" propaganda from the Internet, for example, but it's the USA that leads in incarcerations, capital punishment, and even methods of suppressing political dissidents. As far as Middle Eastern countries go, Iran has been a civil rights paradise, just as was Syria before the outside attempts to create a long-term civil war succeeded. Israel has a civil rights record that is one of the worst in the world. This doesn't mean that other governments are somehow "good" when compared to the US and its allies, but it means that there are complexities and prejudices that make a mess of the claim of hypocrisy. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all ignored the abuses of Saudi Arabia and even encouraged many of them. The same people who call Trump hypocritical may be just as hypocritical in the type of government they would promote in his place.

¡Perro no!