JW Insider

It won't be long now. . . . . . before I understand your joke.

Dark, anti-religious poetry does not make one a Satanist. I think it was best explained in a couple of short reviews for a book currently for sale on Am-a-zon called, "Was Karl Marx a Satanist?" Marx was an atheist Jew. He neither believed in the Christian conception of Satan, nor the Anton LeVay concept of Satan. The author offers no evidence, confusing mere hostility toward religion with Satanism, and offers some syntax-related conspiracy theories. "This sad book deosn't have any literary qualities whatsoever. This is pure Anti-semetic drivel full of ultra christian rhetoric from the extreme right. Marx was a philosopher and an idealist, this book doesnt examine him in anyway whatseoever it just descends into religious rants." By the way, you have got to be the most interesting person to read on this forum and I always enjoy your politically-oriented comments. You do not come at the world's issues with the typical Eurocentric myopia that drives so many others (and which usually drives Adventist-style prophetic explanations, for that matter). Naturally, I disagree with a lot of what you say, too, but this doesn't much change the overall value of hearing your opinion on things.

I found the article, and read several of the other ones, too. (At least in a Google Translation from Italian to English.) I thought that most of your articles were very clear, and I appreciate that you are asking good questions about the many gaps and inconsistencies in our current explanations. Since Daniel is a book that many of us have just recently been reading in our Bible reading schedules, I think a separate topic would be great and timely. It would have to be under "Controversial Posts" because, of course, even the potential existence of gaps and inconsistencies is something that many of us must deny. I have not yet come up with a good explanation that resolves all the gaps, although, the vast majority of them are automatically resolved by just accepting certain verses at face value, instead of imposing unlikely interpretations of them. Still, prophecy in Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation are some of the most intriguing and I have not considered any of my digging to be conclusive. I can tell you have put a lot of thought and time into understanding them through scriptural references. I must tell you right from the start that my approach is similar, in always using other scriptures to find explanations, or just admit that we won't know if no specific scriptural support can be found. Still, even though you apparently think in the same terms, I can tell that we will still disagree on most of our current opinions. Of course, different opinions are just fine with me . . . so I still think a further discussion is worth the while.

I agree that it is a red flag if we do not cooperate. (Although you weren't clear on who you meant by "them.") But the second part of what you said there might be ambiguous. Did you mean it is a red flag if you do call them rulers, or a red flag if you do not call them rulers? I assume you meant the organizing shepherds who care for us in the new system. But "them" in the quote above appears to speak of "red flags" in the present. This is why I'm confused as to whether you might be saying it's a red flag now to not call them rulers.

Your take on this is interesting. I agree that there is a gap in the Watchtower's reasoning here. This was just barely touched upon at the convention this summer. I watched your video but didn't go to your site. Can you say what you think is a more likely view of the King of the North and South in your opinion?

I never have supported a false claim about the Watchtower's statements in 1989. And I don't plan on starting to support any such false claims now.

This is strange. Everything else you said in the paragraph that this quote came from is very true. But this particular sentence quoted here is false. It would also be completely irrelevant to a printed document or an electronic version of a printed document. The Y2K problem (which the Society cared nothing about in 1989) would not have made a 2017 CD-ROM a 1917 CD-ROM any more than it would have made it a pre-Gutenberg 1317 CD-ROM. Your claim is meaningless. The CD-ROM programs from the Watchtower that came out in 1993 can still be made to work today. I think 1993 was the first one. There never was an impending disaster coming from Y2K. And there will not be one arising from the 2038 Unix Millennium Bug either. (An upgrade to the operating system can make over 99% of the 2038 bug go away immediately without changing software.) The original Y2K bug could cause problems in a whole range of areas, and most of us in IT had to waste several years of our careers becoming our own QA departments, certifying that all our programs were going to work without a glitch. My own department's programs were mostly in C during those years (and a little bit of dBase+Clipper, Turbo Pascal, Excel Macros) but relied on mainframe feeds mostly through SQL+DB2. But I was also surprised that so many of the COBOL programs we checked had already worked around the Y2K problem even without storing 4-character years. That even goes for solving financial range problems that crossed January 1, 2000 and/or February 29, 2000.

Hah! I noticed this little blast from the past (and present for many of us, too). Hard to believe that so many of us fell for this little mix-up between which word was the better one to use and which was not so good. Turns out that "LUCK" was more than likely just a term for success or loss that came into English from middle German where a lot of gaming and gambling terms came from in the 1500s. So we all replaced it with a word based on FORTUNE, which had been personified as a false Roman goddess during Bible times. Even when it came into English the earliest known instance is in the phrase "Dame Fortune." Even in the Bible, the word translated "fortune" was associated with bad things: (Leviticus 20:27) 27 “‘Any man or woman who acts as a spirit medium or is a fortune-teller should be put to death without fail. . . . of course, it was based on the translation of (Isaiah 65:11) 11 “But YOU men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck. . . But the foot-note for that verse says *** Rbi8 Isaiah 65:11 *** “For the god of Good Luck.” Heb., lag·gadhʹ; LXX, “the demon”; Lat., For·tuʹnae. Compare Ge 30:11 ftns. Of course if you follow the footnotes for Genesis 30:11 you see that the same word for "Luck" here is translated "Fortune" in Genesis: (Genesis 30:10, 11) . . .. 11 Then Leʹah said: “With good fortune!” So she called his name Gad. The name of the tribe was "Luck" just as "laggadh' basically means "to Luck" if the footnote for Isaiah 65:11 is correct. Or Isaiah was referring to the god of Fortune, if the footnote to Genesis 30:11 is correct. It was about as silly as saying that we shouldn't say something was "destined" to occur, because this somehow invokes the god of Destiny. (Luke 9:44) . . .for the Son of man is destined to be delivered into the hands of men.” (Mark 13:4) 4 “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion?” (Isaiah 65:11) . . .And those filling up cups of mixed wine for the god of Destiny.

Nice phrase. This sums up nearly the entire story of the world since nearly the beginning of the world.

Can't tell if you are trying to solve the Society's "generation" crisis, or trying to sell books, or just don't want to throw out your obsolete neckties.

I don't think that's quite what I was trying to say, nor what the Watchtower's resources implied. For one thing, the "K" in Kingdom was always capitalized; it was only the "H" in Hall that was made "lower case," but this was in a 1937 Year Book (written in late 1936). In 1935, when the term first comes up, it's not only a capitalized title, it's a word that seems intended as a replacement for the way many people used "Church" or "Temple," as in, "Today I'm going to church" or "Today I'm going to Kingdom Hall." There is a different sense if you say "Today, I am going to "a" Kingdom Hall, or "the" Kingdom Hall." It's a little like you are going to "Royal Albert Hall" or "Tammany Hall," recognizing that there is just one of these that can go by that name. Similar to a time when going to "Bethel" meant just one particular building that "Reverend" Henry Ward Beecher had named "Bethel" in Brooklyn and which was later also applied to the dormitory attached to Beecher's old house at 124 Columbia Heights in Brooklyn. Even in the 1938 Year Book (written in late 1937) there was still only one place where "Kingdom Hall" was mentioned, and it was still only with reference to Hawaii: ----quoting 1938 Year Book, page 163 ---- The company at Honolulu has been very active and faithful, and the totals of their witnessing are: Books 1,264 Average Number Publishers 6 . . . [either down from 12, or not including 6 pioneers?] . . . The crowning blessing of the year was the sending down of the two main convention addresses from Columbus, September 18 and 19. This was indeed a great boon from the Lord, and the listeners at Kingdom Hall were profoundly stirred to greater activity in the Lord's service. It was a wonderful testimony to Jehovah's name, and against his enemies. . . . . . . Many shortwave receiving sets enabled a great number to hear, in addition to audience at Kingdom Hall. . . . This report is submitted with many thanks to Jehovah, and with much love and best wishes to you, Brother Rutherford. ---- end of quote --- In the 1939 Year Book, there are now TWO different passages where the term "Kingdom Hall" is used, and it is still used without an "a" or "the" in front of it. This time it includes the use of it in London, where the JW London Tabernacle had just been renamed "Kingdom Hall" along with a few other smaller meeting places around London. Note: ---------quotes from 1939 Year Book --------- The greater London company, which now has more than 1,000 company field publishers, has been divided into nine units. The general headquarters is maintained at Kingdom Hall (formerly known as the Tabernacle). During the year the company doubled its placement of bound books and booklets in the greater city. . . . During recent months additional Kingdom halls have been arranged for, so that there are now six Kingdom halls in addition to the one at Craven Terrace to serve the increasing numbers in the various large sections of the city. (page 90) .... The people of the Hawaiian Islands are receiving the Kingdom message through the efforts put forth by the Society's local representative and company workers, which work is directed from Kingdom Hall, in Honolulu. (p. 164) ----end of quotes from 1939 Year Book --- It shouldn't be overlooked that Watchtower writing often makes use of obvious "parallel" phrases that could have also been at work in choosing the name "Kingdom Hall" in Hawaii and London. You can find dozens of examples of such parallel phrases, especially in assembly talks. It's not uncommon in London and Hawaii to see the term "Royal" and "Kingdom" due to it being a Kingdom (Kingdom of Great Britain, etc). The word Kingdom was also common in Hawaii, due to it's being long known as "The Kingdom of Hawaii" -- and it was not a U.S. state until 1959. Note the following examples which might be unrelated from a 1951 Watchtower: *** w51 12/1 p. 707 International “Clean Worship” Assembly in London *** WEMBLEY Stadium, site of the 1948 Olympic Games, has seen many famous athletes strip for action to win a coveted prize. But August 1-5, 1951, this same stadium in London, England, saw tens of thousands of persons from forty different lands and nations strip themselves of the hindering things of this world for a greater contest. Not to compete with one another, but to work together as one international team to win the race for the prize of eternal life in the approaching new world of righteousness. . . . You did not notice where this orchestra was? . . . at the top of the North Stand of the stadium, over the Royal Box, and so commanding a full view of the arena. . . . An afternoon symposium presented three brothers who talked on “Met together in my name (a) At the same place, (b) Conduct in GodÂ’s household, (c) Kindness to strangers”. This emphasized how the local Kingdom Hall of each company is a royal place, the most important building in the community. This would seem trivial, if it didn't happen so often. The stadium had had "strippers" who raced -- well we have "strippers" in a race too. The stadium has a "Royal Box" where the most important persons can see the entire stadium. Well, we have local "royal places" which are the most important buildings in the community. And speaking of races, "Kingdom Hall" had also been the name of a popular race horse that was well-known in 1919 and 1920 back in Russell's old stomping grounds.  Â

That's even worse! You think that the real reason the correction was made was because they understood the potential that a software glitch would have made us revert back to the end of the 19th century, doomed to repeat the last 100 years like a "Groundhog Day" for centuries instead of days. All I can say is what you said . . . Â

@Queen Esther I think Jesus was just making the same point that Paul made in 1 Corinthians. Jesus made the point in a dramatic way that would catch everyone's attention. Paul, I think, is providing a commentary for the same point, showing that it was not literal, of course, but by personal choice. It's about the choice to marry or not to marry. I merely pulled the three cross-referenced scriptures that the NWT uses for the verse in Matthew: (1 Corinthians 7:32) Indeed, I want you to be free from anxiety. The unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, how he may gain the Lord’s approval. (1 Corinthians 7:38) So also, whoever marries does well, but whoever does not marry will do better. (1 Corinthians 9:5) We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not?

The 1936 Year Book said: HAWAIIAN ISLANDS The Society's branch office established in Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, is making progress. Only a small number of workers are there, the publishers numbering 12 in all. During the year property was purchased and a suitable hall and living quarters were erected. This building fronts on a boulevard and also abuts on a side street. Signs are placed on the building, advertising the hall and the books. These are illuminated by electricity, so that everyone passing must see the signs. The work has progressed there during the year, and the total number of books and booklets placed is, to wit, 19,170. From the local director's report the following is taken : The real high point of the year's witness, Brother Rutherford, was the public address delivered by you here in Honolulu at McKinley auditorium last April, and which was carried by radio to the other islands. . . . In Jehovah's providence it arrived in time for use on June 2, for the world-wide broadcast. And Jehovah's blessing has been very manifestly upon its use ever since. And then came to us Kingdom Hall, for use in honoring his name at transcription lectures and study meetings, also as a headquarters for Jehovah's literature and publishers at this place. In addition to the meetings held in it, Kingdom Hall, with its signs and books on display, brings the name and word of Jehovah prominently before the people. . . . The Lord has done so much for his work that the publishers here feel an additional weight of responsibility to faithfully carry out the work the Lord has given them. Meetings in Kingdom Hall are held in English, Spanish and Japanese. During the construction of Kingdom Hall many things occurred which demonstrated clearly the providences of Jehovah. It has been the means of greater co-operation amongst Jehovah's witnesses at this place. ----end of excerpt quoted from 1936 Year Book, p.145-146.

I don't have a better answer, but I can give a longer one. I've haven't heard what you heard, although it's quite possibly a truer version, of course. Looking at all the probabilities from my perspective, fwiw, I'd say it could go either way, but makes a little bit more sense that the Hawaiian brothers had already been using the term Kingdom Hall, but it still needed the stamp of approval from Rutherford if it were to remain, or catch on for other places. Rutherford probably gave it his approval either during or shortly after his visit to Honolulu in April 1935. I think it was more than just "tacit" approval based on the earliest mention. It's typical in Watchtower publications that the wording of any specific experience gets tweaked so often before it reaches print that even an "exact quote" might not look anything like the original "exact quote." You can see this if you compare the first version of MacMillan's "Faith on the March" to the one that was finally published and distributed to Kingdom Halls. You can see that the announcement that Russell supposedly made on October 1st, 1914 (later changed to October 4th, then later changed to October 2nd) was never mentioned anywhere until the 1920's. I've witnessed the changing of exact quotes in experiences given to the Bethel family, changing PR lines that I was to give in answer to questions when giving special tours at Betherl to non-JWs who might question recent news items. On a more local level, I know that it's not just me, but several of us who have been involved in giving our experiences at conventions have probably been surprised to hear our own "exact quotes" changed for public consumption. For the reasons just mentioned, I would have some doubt about the exact quote that Rutherford was supposed to have said. Early versions of the story never included anything like an exact quote from Rutherford which is included in the official story in the "Proclaimers" Book: *** jv chap. 20 p. 319 Building Together on a Global Scale *** Before World War II, there were a few congregations that built meeting places specially designed for their use. Even as early as 1890, a group of Bible Students in the United States at Mount Lookout, West Virginia, built their own meeting place.* [*footnote: It was known as the “New Light” Church because those who associated there felt that as a result of reading Watch Tower publications, they had new light on the Bible.] Widespread building of Kingdom Halls, however, did not get under way until the 1950Â’s. The name Kingdom Hall was suggested in 1935 by J. F. Rutherford, who was then president of the Watch Tower Society. In connection with the SocietyÂ’s branch facilities in Honolulu, Hawaii, he arranged for the brothers to construct a hall where meetings could be held. When James Harrub asked what Brother Rutherford was going to call the building, he replied: “DonÂ’t you think we should call it ‘Kingdom Hall,Â’ since that is what we are doing, preaching the good news of the Kingdom?” Thereafter, where possible, halls regularly being used by the Witnesses gradually began to be identified by signs that said “Kingdom Hall.” Thus, when the London Tabernacle was renovated in 1937-38, it was renamed Kingdom Hall. In time, the principal local meeting place of congregations worldwide came to be known as the Kingdom Hall of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses. That was in 1993, and it might have been the first time, I think, that anyone came up with a quote for Rutherford to have said in this context. Almost 10 years earlier, September 1983, research was being recompiled for the celebration of the 100 YEAR anniversary of the birth of of Watch Tower's corporate charter. (I know this for a fact because I had a small research project for this pamphlet, which I called the "Birthday Brochure" because its code was "br") I'll quote a longer excerpt from it here because it helps answer the question about what "Kingdom Halls" were called prior to 1935. *** br84 pp. 14-15 Watch Tower Society and Congregation Meetings *** The Bible Students in Pittsburgh established the pattern of meeting together two and eventually three times a week. Meetings on Sunday were public lectures held in a rented hall, such as the Curry Institute Hall on the corner of Penn Avenue and 6th Street in Pittsburgh. Apart from the lectures on Sundays, meetings were held in private homes—in the beginning at the home of the father of Charles Russell, J. L. Russell, 80 Cedar Avenue, Allegheny City. These came to be called cottage meetings. Group meetings in private homes on Wednesdays consisted of Prayer, Praise and Testimony Meetings, which have developed into our Service Meetings of today. Later they also arranged “Dawn Circles” on Friday evenings where they studied from the early books of the Society called Millennial Dawn series. . . . As groups increased in size various meeting halls were rented, sometimes even available church buildings being used. . . . Sometimes suitable buildings were purchased by the Bible Students locally. . . . Various names were given to these, such as a local designation followed by the word “Tabernacle,” for example “Brooklyn Tabernacle,” “London Tabernacle.”   However, the Watch Tower Society introduced a unifying feature with regard to meeting halls of JehovahÂ’s people. In 1935 arrangements were made to construct a meeting hall in connection with the new branch building being erected in Honolulu, Hawaii. The president of the Watch Tower Society, J. F. Rutherford, was visiting there, and it had been decided to call the meeting hall “Kingdom Hall” so as to keep GodÂ’s Kingdom to the fore. From that time on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses the world over have called their congregational meeting centers Kingdom Halls. Saying "it had been decided" didn't give the credit to specifically to Rutherford. This was slightly reworded for the February 1, 1984 Watchtower where Rutherford was given the credit, although still without a "story" that showed he was only "suggesting" it: *** w84 2/1 p. 25 par. 14 ‘Oneness of SpiritÂ’ in a Rapidly Growing Flock *** In the same year that the “great crowd” was properly identified as an earthly class, J. F. Rutherford, then president of the Watch Tower Society, gave the name Kingdom Hall to a meeting place of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses in Hawaii. From that time on, this name has regularly been used by JehovahÂ’s Witnesses for their meeting halls. *** w55 8/15 p. 491 Part 16—Publishing Under a New Name, Theocratically *** Among other developments to note was that resulting from the visit of the SocietyÂ’s president to the Hawaiian Islands in 1935. Then a branch office was established in Honolulu and arrangements were made for construction of an assembly hall in connection with the new branch building there being erected. At the dedication this hall was appropriately designated “Kingdom Hall,” thus commencing the practice of JehovahÂ’s witnesses the world over of calling their congregational meeting centers Kingdom Halls. In the fall of 1937 what had formerly been known as the “London Tabernacle” was now redecorated and renamed “Kingdom Hall.” U.S. Newspapers, as far as I can tell never included the term Kingdom Hall with reference to Witnesses until 1938, and even then mostly in Michigan. Even in the 1937 Yearbook, p. 170 the only mention of a Kingdom Hall is still in regard to the building in Hawaii: By means of shortwave, however, and the sound car, the lecture was heard well in Kingdom hall to a good-size audience there assembled. The story of Hawaii first appeared in the 1936 Yearbook, p. 145. It's interesting to note that the title Kingdom Hall was used in a different way than it is today in English. This post is long so I'll post it right below. Â

I met a group of Witnesses from Paris in a tour group - tagged along for a bit and enjoyed their company. Also a Japanese group of Witnesses, but without enough language in common to communicate. I'm sure there were other Witness tours that I missed. This was my fourth time here in 40 years, and I have been on a Witness-sponsored tour here before, too. This was the first time I ever got to meet with some staff and get a little bit of a behind-the-scenes look. This was not because of anything I had done or researched, I was just taking advantage of an opportunity. (A BM project leader was meeting with the non-Witness roommate of a relative of mine at his college in 2015 and I got to meet the same person at the university at that time.) The roommate's project was not religious: it was related to restoring pigmentation and original color to old statues and paintings. But I found that this project leader had been in archaeological digs in Sudan and had studied the Kushites. I asked him what he knew of the claim that the Bible's mention of Tirhakah of "Cush/Ethiopia" had been doubted by authorities until the discovery of statues of him (or rather, the correct translation of inscriptions on previously discovered statues.) It had supposedly been doubted because the Sennacherib Prism (and Taylor's Prism) along with the mural pictorials at Nineveh had mentioned many of the same points from 2 Kings 19, but it never mentioned the diversion from Tirhakah's intended attack on Sennacherib when he was threatening Hezekiah. The prisms mention Hezekiah and some of his actions. The British Museum houses the Taylor Prism mentioning his first and second incursion to Hezekiah without success, a mural from Nineveh that includes the battle of Lachish, a statue of Tirhakah and, of course, the Rosetta Stone that held the key to the correct translation of the inscriptions. So this particular instance of Bible corroboration is often pointed out in tours. At any rate, many Bible tours are given by many different religious groups, as the British Museum was set up in such a way that it encourages (and intrigues) persons with Biblical interest. Various items are still labeled with Bible stories in mind: Gilgamesh and the Flood. Abraham's home of Ur and Ur's "Ram in a Thicket" motif. What did the Tower of Babel look like? What Pharaoh was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? If Jehu, or Hezekiah, or another Bible personage is mentioned or alluded to, it's often mentioned in the descriptions of items. The British Museum is one of the best places to give a tour of Bible related items. Several of the museum staff are very happy to accommodate well-meaning researchers whose only goal is to provide more accurate information when giving tours, for example. Apparently, a few people take advantage. And of course, there are those who go through and give outlandishly wrong information in their tours, just to push an agenda about UFO's or racial issues. I am uncomfortable with the way a lot of the tour guides claim that this or that artifact "proves" that the Bible is right. They often support the Bible's historical narratives perfectly, but no material item "proves" the Bible is right, just as the Bible doesn't "prove" that the artifact is right. Still, there is a lot of wonderment and even a kind of thrill at finding corroborating evidences carved in stone, almost contemporaneous with Biblical events. I am always amazed and appreciative of the experience that such a museum can provide to a Bible believer.

@TrueTomHarley and @Matthew9969. I got a little off topic and forgot that my original point was going to be about the once-common claim that we are the only religion that gives TRUE charity. I know very personally that individuals have been counseled about giving to various charities, especially when they didn't realize the religious or political nature of some charities. If you suspect that your car might be on the verge of having more troubles than it's worth, but it still is worth several thousand in the "blue book" you might hear about a charity that gives "sight to the blind" or something like that and give it to the charity for a $5,000 receipt that you can use on your taxes. But one such charity has taken in millions of dollars by putting these cars up for auction and creating large-print "Old Testament" Bibles to send to people in Israel with poor eyesight. This is not a bad thing in itself, but one such charity apparently made millions for the family members in Brooklyn, NY who were involved, and they had not been able to provide proof that they ever sent more than ONE of these large-print Bibles. And charity scams became much more common again, especially bursting onto the scene again in 2008/9 with the great recession. But they have always been a part of the charity scene. I don't think we are wrong to point this out, although we don't go out of our way to denigrate charities. There was a time when we did. For years, the Watchtower could not mention charities without highlighting bad examples. The farther back you go toward the 1940's the more common this theme was. For example, here are some excerpts from an older Watchtower: *** w50 12/15 pp. 505-507 Religious Charity versus Good Works *** EVERY year hundreds of millions of dollars are contributed by the public to what are termed reputable, legitimate and worthy charities, many of which are sponsored by religious organizations. The question is, Should true Christians, who are under the godly commandments to do good, contribute to these supposedly humanitarian money-raising schemes? . . . But the question was, What was he going to do with what he had? How was he to use his wealth? Said Jesus: ‘If you give to the poor you will have treasure in heaven, provided you come and follow me.’ Thus it becomes clear that donating to charitable causes as a philanthropist is of no value in God’s sight unless one goes farther and becomes a true footstep follower of Jesus. It also appears that the possession of wealth is in itself of no particular harm. The question is, How is that wealth used? If you are rich in this world’s goods will you do what Jesus said? Are you willing to give up your material wealth and follow the course Jesus did, work in the interests of the poor and with the Kingdom message comfort those who mourn? . . . A blind beggar, sitting beside the road, cried out as Jesus passed by, “Have mercy on me.” Now, what did Jesus do, reach down and give the poor fellow a couple of Roman coins for a crust of bread? No, not at all. He gave him a far more valuable gift in restoring his eyesight! (Mark 10:46-52; Matt. 20:30-34; Luke 18:35-43) Jesus’ “charity” was not measured out in money to religious organizations for questionable distribution. . . . To the poor and downtrodden he untiringly preached the good news about God’s kingdom.—Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22; 4:18. The apostles Peter and John followed a similar course when they came upon a poor cripple who requested a donation. “Peter said: ‘Silver and gold I do not possess, but what I do have is what I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!’ With that he took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up. Instantly the soles of his feet and his ankle bones were made firm, and, leaping up, he stood up and began walking, and he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God.”—Acts 3:1-8, NW. GOOD WORKS, NOT ADVERTISED CHARITY The gaudy practice today of bestowing honor and praise on heavy contributors to charity drives is directly opposed to Jesus’ counsel. “But take care not to do your good deeds in public for people to see, for, if you do, you will get no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you are going to give to charity, do not blow a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do, in the synagogues and the streets, to make people praise them. I tell you, that is all the reward they will get! But when you give to charity, your own left hand must not know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be secret, and your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.”—Matt. 6:1-4, AT. Judas Iscariot, one of those hypocrites that liked to make a show of his generosity, well represented those today that criticize Jehovah’s witnesses for not building hospitals, setting up food kitchens in slum areas. Such Judaslike ones announce with a blare of horns their personal gifts of mercy to the poor. The people have been robbed and beaten and left half-dead by the ruling elements of this world, just like the “certain man” that Jesus told about who fell among robbers on his way down to Jericho. The Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religionists have observed the spiritual condition of these poor people but have steered clear of them, held aloof and passed them by on the opposite side of the road. Jehovah’s witnesses, on the other hand, like good Samaritans, have searched out these spiritually sick, maimed and half-starved people and, when they were found, have bound up their wounds, have fed them and cared for their needs.—Luke 10:29-37. It is no secret, many so-called “charity” organizations operate a fraud and racket. For example, the New York Times, September 6, 1950, carried an account of how certain “religious charitable organizations” operating in Brooklyn, New York, are giving the poor only 15 per cent of the money they beg from the public. The other 85 per cent goes for what they call “overhead” expense. God’s faithful people cannot afford to donate to such organizations. They must use what they have to preach this gospel of the established Kingdom for the benefit of the poor everywhere, as commanded.—Matt. 24:14. It takes much time, energy and money to carry out this divine command, but Jehovah’s witnesses are happy to use their substance to do it. Investing their money in Bibles and other life-giving literature, they take these to the people at great personal expense. But this is really a sound investment on behalf of the poor, for by so doing Jehovah’s witnesses are storing up treasures in heaven and helping others to do the same thing. And just as the ancient brethren of Macedonia and Achaia contributed material things for their needy brethren at Jerusalem, so also do Jehovah’s witnesses. (Rom. 15:25, 26; Gal. 2:10) All of these things are good works done out of love for and to the honor of Jehovah God. I can't say that the above article says anything that is specifically wrong, but it does focus on how giving to charities is not TRUE charity in the way that our "good works" are true charity. Yet, there were many Bible verses that emphasized that good works actually referred to charitable giving alone, and NOT preaching the good news, which is a different, but necessary, type of giving. Even the parable of the good Samaritan had been re-explained (in separate Watchtower articles) so that it only applied to spiritual giving, not physical giving. I know this wasn't the theme of this particular topic, but it's a chance to make a scriptural point. Too often, we feel that our "good works" or "fine works" refer to the "public declaration of our hope," (Heb 10:23) the preaching of the "good news of the kingdom." (Mt 24:14) But these are separate from one of the primary reasons that we should be meeting together: (Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. The "fine works" that we meet together to incite and encourage one another to do is the same phrase as "good works" elsewhere in the scriptures, and it refers to charitable actions and charitable activities. It's easy to lose sight of this if we think it means "preaching the good news."

I don't think that is the case. @Matthew9969 We rarely talk about charity except for those related to us in the faith. But if we have limited resources for charity, then surely this is not unreasonable: (Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith. When we have spoken about charity, we don't claim to be the only ones who provide charity, although I know we have been quick to demean charitable organizations and religions who think that by their great works alone they will make it through the narrow gate. But this too may be based on some scriptural reasoning: (Matthew 7:22) 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ I recall counsel against giving to charitable organizations, especially religious charitable organizations. Whenever I asked my parents about it they would say that we were the only religion that provides TRUE charity. I don't recall much counsel against giving to charity after about 1990, and it seems to be about that time that we began more regularly announcing our own charitable works after disasters, and always regularly adding the fact that we not only gave to support our brothers in need and the rebuilding of local Kingdom Halls, but that there was more than enough left over to help non-JWs. I never lived in Oklahoma, but we had friends in OKC, and I was baptized at an assembly in Tulsa. Back in the 60's and early 70's, from our congregation in Missouri we sometimes helped out when Oklahoma had a bad tornado, and would take a pickup truck loaded with some old clothes, canned goods, 2x4s and a few squares of shingles. But I remember that the brother driving (who owned a small construction company) would just dump any bags of clothes that no one wanted and would even bring back any of the 2x4's or squares of shingles, which we could have given to those non-JWs who needed them much more. But except for some out-of-style neckties, and my old plaid suits that my mother wanted to give away anyway, I had no personal stake in the charity. And as I think about it, the brother who drove his truck had every right to hold back what the brothers didn't need. It was never his purpose to give to non-JWs. I questioned it at the time, but as I look back now, I have no problem with what he did. But I do remember that even then, the experiences of such events retold at the Circuit Assemblies almost always "bragged" that the brothers had given so much that we had plenty left over to give to other needy persons. I recall one such CA announcement about a tornado site that we were personally involved with, and the announcer never made the claim that we had plenty of leftovers to give to non-JWs, which was correct (sort-of). But the same announcement had at least a minute devoted to the fact that others had seen how well we looked after each other and how these onlookers had even come up to us and praised us for our cooperation and diligence putting God's love into action. It didn't occur to me then, but, over the years, having seen how these experiences are developed for assemblies especially, I now wonder whether onlookers had actually used any of those words. I would have to agree that bragging of an unnecessary nature has undoubtedly been behind several of such experiences. But there is also an element of wanting to build one another up, and show the positive side of every experience. Pointing out the numbers of hours and placements and number of pioneers can seem unnecessary too, but these are also encouragements. A brother at Bethel (D.Songer) actually used all these numbers adjusted seasonally and compared them with the timing of various literature campaigns to decide how many of any particular book, booklet or magazine to print. It therefore helped maximize the efficiencies of scale in production, but also avoided unnecessary waste. This can be considered to be a part of being a good steward.

Or dropped out for many of them. Of course, that doesn't count as much because several still got into some colleges that were hard to get into, which implies either family money or privileged educational opportunities during "high school" which are often the equivalent of American college credits. And Malcolm X says he read Rutherford's books and listened to him on the radio, so obviously he didn't need to go to college.

I have been in contact with a couple research coordinators at the British Museum and one has already met with me twice in person this week. I meet another one tomorrow. I have been working from a list of questions, some of which are common questions from religious circles, and some of which are a little more specific to the interest of JWs. It's not that any one person can answer the questions but I can get good leads on recent, ongoing and upcoming research projects. I have found that when I want to contact someone who is working on a project that being able to say I spoke to so-and-so at the BM (or similar place) is an excellent way to start out. My list of questions have included the following topics and research areas. In some of the topics I have dozens of specific questions already on my list. The general topics below might remind anyone of their own questions they might have always wanted to ask someone. The earliest evidence of the use of a cross among Christians. Any Christian and Christian-related iconography prior to 200 C.E. Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Greek research on chronology from about 750 to 400-ish B.C.E. Habitation/Population evidence of Israel/Judea/Palestine from 740 to 605 to 589 to 539 to 518 B.C.E. etc. Questions related to identities of rulers mentioned in Daniel Questions about the date of the death of Herod the Great Questions about the identification of the Pharaohs who interacted with Israelites Linguistic "crossover" from Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew in religious subjects (priesthood, circumcision, temple-related artifacts) Religion of the Canaanite-related people before and during the Israelite conquest Dead Sea Scrolls as they relate to Second Temple period, and Essene, early Pharisee, and early Christian traditions (I am here for more than a week, staying across from Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park -- also here for a wedding.)

That's the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral, of course, which is also the primary picture under the Wikipedia article: "History of the Catholic Church in Mexico." The relationship of the Catholic Church has gone through strained periods in Mexico (also in Spain, of course where some parallels occurred.) There were many years when the Catholic Church could not own property, but they had this idea that their "civic associations" such as Catholic schools could be owned by the Church. (I have read that this was one of the ways they fought legally for privileged exceptions.) Even this caused problems. But it seems a reasonable guess that the Watch Tower got the idea from the Catholic Church that declaring yourself a civic association instead of a religion was a good way to be able to own property, as I think Catholics had done with their schools. The Wikipedia article starts out as follows: The history of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico dates from the period of the Spanish conquest (1519–21) and has continued as an institution in Mexico into the twenty-first century. Catholicism is one of the two major legacies from the Spanish colonial era, the other being Spanish as the nation's language. The Catholic Church was a privileged institution until the mid nineteenth century. It was the sole permissible Church in the colonial era and into the early Mexican Republic, following independence in 1821. At some point in the twentieth century, Eastern Catholic jurisdictions were established in Mexico,[citation needed] but Roman Catholicism remains the largest religious group. In the mid-nineteenth century the liberal La Reforma brought major changes in church-state relations. The Mexican state challenged the Catholic Church's role in education in Mexico, property ownership, birth, marriage, and death records, in anticlerical laws. Many of these were incorporated into the Constitution of 1857, restricting the Church's corporate ownership of property and other limitations. President Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911) pursued a policy of conciliation with the Catholic Church, keeping the liberal anticlerical articles of the constitution in force, but in practice allowing greater freedom of action for the Catholic Church.[1] With Díaz's ouster in 1911 and the decade-long conflict of the Mexican Revolution, the victorious Constitutionalist faction led by Venustiano Carranza wrote the new Constitution of 1917 that strengthened the anticlerical measures in the liberal Constitution of 1857. With the presidency of Northern, anticlerical, revolutionary general Plutarco Elías Calles (1924–28), the State's enforcement of the anticlerical articles of Constitution of 1917 provoked a major crisis in Mexico with violence in a number of regions of Mexico. The Cristero Rebellion (1926–29) was resolved, with the aid of diplomacy of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, ending the violence, but the anticlerical articles of the constitution remained. President Manuel Avila Camacho (1940–1946) came to office declaring "I am a [Catholic] believer," (soy creyente) and Church-State relations improved though without constitutional changes. A major change came in 1992, with the presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). In a sweeping program of reform to "modernize Mexico" that he outlined in his 1988 inaugural address, his government pushed through revisions in the Mexican Constitution, explicitly including a new legal framework that restored the Catholic Church's juridical personality.[2][3][4][5][6] The majority of Mexicans in the twenty-first century identify themselves as being Catholic, but the growth of other religious groups such as Protestant evangelicals, Mormons, as well secularism is consistent with trends elsewhere in Latin America. The 1992 federal Act on Religious Associations and Public Worship (Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público), known in English as the Religious Associations Act or (RAA), has affected all religious groups in Mexico.[7]

...then they must must have spent the last ten years in a coma... [or something to that effect] Of course, this could have slightly more effect if we hadn't been saying almost exactly the same thing for the last 138 years and counting.

I think you just hit upon a very likely meaning of the verse. We've heard the counsel that it seems easier sometimes to endure persecution because we are focused on just that one thing, remaining faithful through the trouble. But when the persecution stops, more people lose focus and find it harder to remain faithful. Perhaps it's similar to one of the ideas in Matthew 6: (Matthew 6:22) 22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then, your eye is focused, your whole body will be bright. (Matthew 6:25) . . .On this account I say to you: Stop being anxious about your lives as to what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your bodies as to what you will wear. Does not life mean more than food and the body than clothing?

Bathroom is down the hall and to the left.