JW Insider

I agree with this, too. But this also could mean that all persons who burn fossil fuels, drive a car, use fuel-based electricity, fly in a plane, take a cruise, etc., are all ruining the earth. Of course the answer we expect to satisfy us is that we are more reasonable in the way we ruin the environment. That we are not like the big energy companies that take these fuels out of the ground for us. So this means, therefore, that as long as we only participate in ruining the earth, that we aren't going to be brought to ruin. I don't see many of us (or any of us) shouting this particular warning from the housetops to everyone who is ruining the earth. Most religions are silent about this particular warning, or even become complicit in the the politically expedient idea that politics trumps science on this subject. It's "politically correct" to be weak and hide from this problem. (Surprisingly, one of the biggest factors ruining the earth is the "Western" version of suburbs, in spite of the fact that this appears to make more of the earth look like thousands of little parks.)

Echoes of the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians. And the way Sushi Muslims commit crimes against Sashimi Muslims, and vice versa. Hey JTR! How are you? BTW, this site is interesting http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/ on that quote attributed to Stalin. The site shows where he might have gotten it from or where else it actually might have come from if it wasn't Stalin himself who said it.

It's true that my father laughed at the way Brother Toutjian's experience was "toned down" (in 1984 or so) but the discussion with the Gilead missionary (who was also an elder) was probably a lot more like the discussion you had with your mother. And although I wasn't there, I'm sure he didn't laugh when being disciplined by a District Overseer for adding a quick caveat about Matthew 24:36 to his talk. I think the talk was called "The Time Left is Reduced." It was one of those talks where we mentioned the exact number of months left before 1975. I asked him about it and it wasn't just that he just quoted the scripture of course. He also made a comment against the idea that Matthew 24:36 means we can know the year, even though we don't know the day or the hour. A lot of people were saying this same thing: "It might say we don't know the day or the hour, but that doesn't mean we don't know the YEAR!!" You said that a lot of people don't know that other Bible students arrived at chronology leading to 1914, but it's also interesting that the World Wide Church of God, which also had some roots in the 19th-century Adventist movements, was preaching 1975, too. I think that they first brought it up on the radio around 1955 and then Herbert W Armstrong published his book in 1956: "1975 in Prophecy." At the time, the 1955 Watchtower was still using 1976 as the end of 6,000 years since Adam's creation. But just like Charles Taze Russell had already taught, we realized that we didn't know the time between Adam's and Eve's creation. *** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers *** According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began. Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do.

Ah! OK. I think you're right.

What does this mean? What info is blocked? On what site?

What you are quoting was written in the original Insight book in 1988. If you have the latest 2016 Watchtower Library on CD/DVD you can see what happened. Just search on: 1914 "The World" newspaper Look at the oldest references first, and pay attention especially to the years of these publications: You will see the quotation in the Watchtower in 1955, 1960, 1961, 1967 and 1984. I'll just quote that last one: *** w84 4/1 p. 5 1914 a Marked Year—Why? *** the ‘International Bible Students [Jehovah’s Witnesses],’ best known as ‘Millennial Dawners,’ have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ It had also been used in the 1975 Yearbook the same way. And the very last use of it in this way was in the Revelation Climax book in 1988, (same year as the Insight book). That false portion of the quote has never been used in any of our books written after 1988. AFTER 1988 The most important point is to notice the Proclaimers book from 1993 is the last time this newspaper is referenced. But the Proclaimers book was researched by persons who had reviewed the actual teachings about the "Day of Wrath" and had tried to give a much more accurate picture of the beliefs about 1872/1873 being the Dawn of the Millennium. And they knew that the "Day of Wrath" ran parallel with the "Harvest" from 1874 to 1914. They didn't want statements in this book that opposers could pounce upon to prove that it was not accurate. (A few crept in anyway, some during the final editing process, but that's the nature of publishing.) So the Proclaimers book researchers, in 1993, knew that they could not use the entire quote, and reduced it to only the portion of that newspaper that we could claim was an accurate assessment of what the Bible Students and the Watch Tower had actually been saying: *** jv chap. 5 p. 60 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) *** “Look Out for 1914!” When World War I broke out in 1914, “The World,” then a leading newspaper in New York City, stated in its magazine section: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. . . . ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of travelling evangelists, who, representing this strange creed [associated with Russell], have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand.’”—“The World Magazine,” August 30, 1914. Note that they specifically left out the false portion of the quote this time, in 1993, and this 1914 newspaper has never been used again in a Watch Tower publication written after 1993. (And it has not been used incorrectly since 1988.) The subject matter is relevant to the book "God's Kingdom Rules" of course, but in the same place where we would usually expect this newspaper reference in prior publications we now only find the following: *** kr chap. 2 p. 15 par. 10 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** The faithful anointed writers who contributed to that journal saw that Daniel’s prophecy regarding the “seven times” had a bearing on the timing of the fulfillment of God’s purposes regarding the Messianic Kingdom. As early as the 1870’s, they pointed to 1914 as the year when those seven times would end. (Dan. 4:25; Luke 21:24) Although our brothers of that era did not yet grasp the full significance of that marked year, they proclaimed what they knew far and wide, with long-lasting effects. *** kr chap. 2 p. 22 par. 29 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year. But even they could not have imagined how accurate that prediction would turn out to be. The idea that a "time of trouble" would begin in that marked year dates from the Watch Tower in 1904, so this is what is now meant by "long before 1914." As early as the 1870's the one thing still considered to be correct is that the "seven times" also called "the Gentile Times" would end in 1914. Of course, at the time this meant that all the Gentile Kingdoms would see their final end in 1914, so they didn't even get the idea about the "Gentile Times" right, either. Interestingly, the newspaper "The World" did get that particular belief correct (that the WT had predicted the end of all kingdoms in 1914) but this is a portion of the newspaper article that we have almost never quoted.

There has been an ongoing debate for many years both inside and outside the Bethel headquarters about how to present the information about 1914. In a few Watchtowers the predictions that were made prior to 1914 have been presented more accurately.

This is incorrect. Here is what the Watchtower ACTUALLY said about the Day of Wrath in 1880: *** Watch Tower, July 1880, "The Closing Work" p. 3, [Reprints p. 115] *** From these statements, the parallels, and other scriptures, we conclude that the day of wrath is included in the Gospel harvest, and, therefore, that the age and harvest extend to 1914, covering a space of forty years from the Spring of 1875 . . . So the "day of wrath" covers a portion of the 39 years of harvest starting some time after the Spring of 1875 and extending up to 1914. In fact, the article goes on to show that anyone who claimed that the "day of wrath" might extend beyond, or after 1914, were considered to be "opposers" of the Watchtower's teaching: *** Watch Tower, July 1880, "The Closing Work" p. 4, [Reprints p. 116] *** Then the idea we advance that Christ entered upon the official work of King in 1878 is in harmony with the application of the harvest here given. But what becomes of the idea of those who now oppose us in these things, that Christ does not come into possession of His crown, until after this day of wrath? . . . that the harvest and the treading of the winepress must be located away beyond 1914? It seems too much like desperation for them to take such ground, . . . Will any one be so reckless as to take the ground that. . . . the time of trouble or day of vengeance with which those times end, take the ground that the day of wrath extends beyond 1914? In other words, since Jesus officially became King in 1878 (according to the Watchtower) the "day of wrath" began at about that same time, and runs from 1878 to 1914. Only desperate opposers would be so reckless as to think that this day of wrath could extend beyond 1914. This was still clear in 1896, only 18 years prior to 1914. Note below that "the Day of Wrath" does not begin in 1914 but it ENDS IN 1914! *** Watch Tower, May 1896, "True Bible Chronology..." p. 112, [Reprints p. 1980] *** Hence, the year ending Oct. A.D. 1872 was the year 6000 [Note: 6,000 years of human history ended in 1872 and the Millennium DAWNED in 1872] . . . . The year ending Oct. 1914 A.D. will be 6042 and the full forty year "day of wrath" from October, 1874, will end Oct. 1914 A.D., the full limit of Gentile Times to tread down Jerusalem and its people. In fact, the Watch Tower Society continued to promote campaigns to distribute the "Studies in the Scriptures" books up until about 1933, where the only adjustments to the book on this topic were the changes to some of the references about 1914 to extend them to 1915: *** Studies in the Scriptures, [Millennial Dawn], Volume IV, ["The Day of Vengeance" later changed to "The Battle of Armageddon"], p. 604-605. *** A "generation" might be reckoned as equivalent to a century (practically the present limit) or one hundred and twenty years, Moses' lifetime and the Scripture limit. (Gen 6:3) Reckoning a hundred years from 1780, the date of the first sign, the limit would reach to 1880; and, to our understanding, every item predicted had begun to be fulfilled at that date; the "harvest" or gathering time beginning October 1874; the organization of the Kingdom and the taking by our Lord of his great power as the King in April 1878, and the time of trouble or "day of wrath" which began October 1874, and will cease about 1915; . . . Those who are walking with us in the light of present truth are not looking for things to come which are already here, but are waiting for the consummation of matters already in progress. Or, . . . it would not be inconsistent to reckon the "generation" from 1878 to 1914--36 1/2 years-- about the average of human life today. There are literally dozens more such quotations in the Watch Tower publications, all in perfect harmony with the above. It should also be noted that in 1904, just 10 years prior to 1914, the teaching about "time of trouble" or "tribulation" was adjusted. This particular "time of trouble" was previously expected to last a few years prior to 1914, and was adjusted to include a time beginning in 1914 and lasting for a period of time that was sometimes indicated to last until about the end of 1915. But this was not the same as "the Day of Wrath" which would run from 1874 until 1914, and especially apply from 1878 until 1914. So, no Bible Students were ever proclaiming that the Day of Wrath would dawn in 1914!

The only problem with this claim is that the newspaper got it wrong. The Bible Students had NOT been claiming that the Day of Wrath would dawn in 1914 for a quarter of a century. In that past quarter of a century before 1914, the Bible Students had been claiming that the Day of Wrath had ALREADY dawned and that it would END in 1914. (According to the Watch Tower.)

Exactly. I couldn't agree more! As you said previously, we should have a "PASSION FOR TRUTH." A passion for truth necessarily requires that we avoid error.

Yes. I understand, very insightful application of the "parallel" illustrations. A little of that comes up every year. The 2014 Memorial was a bit over-hyped this same way: *** km 3/14 p. 2 par. 4 Will You Seize the Opportunity? *** Will this Memorial be our last? (1 Cor. 11:26) We do not know. Rutherford used to make statements like this in the closing comments of the annual conventions. It can turn out to be true one of these times, too, of course. True. And that is why I never indicated that it was about 1975, only that it was about the "imminent" end of this system. And you are right, the article also pointed out the possibility that your child might starve to death, or even "stab you in your belly." *** g74 11/8 p. 10 Is This the Time to Have Children? *** Thus a mother in Sweden wanted . . . her thirteen-year-old daughter . . . to learn Bible principles. She asked her husband to assist . . . She suddenly drew a knife, and screamed: “Stay out, or I’ll stab you in your belly!” Almost daily similar experiences are heard of or read about. They even occur in so-called “good” homes, and in families where efforts are made to bring children up properly. Young couples who observe the deteriorating moral climate are not infrequently heard to remark: “I’m glad we don’t have to rear children in this wicked system.” They are determined to wait for better times to have their young ones. , "They" certainly weren't waiting until the problems of this system got a little better, were they? The 1974 Awake! was written at a time when there was an average 6-month lead time for Awake! articles from the time they were written until they were published, and a 4-week lead time for the Kingdom Ministry. Therefore this article about having children was likely written at almost exactly the same time as the following from the 1974 Kingdom Ministry: *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? *** Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end. I think of that a lot. It's true that I may have been involved with a congregation that made more out of 1975 than others, although I think that all 20 congregations in our circuit were all about the same. But even though I made decisions based on some of the articles above (and the assembly talks that went with them) I never thought it hurt me. And even if it had hurt me, it would still not have hurt me in the long run. Perhaps. I was surprised to discover several more things just in the last year that indicate that Rutherford must have thought he had inherited a "cult." *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. I think the difference in zeal and fanaticism matters less than the motive or content driving that zeal, or even fanaticism. As Paul said: (Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge.

If you have the time, this might be interesting. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/12/howard-mazzaferros-defense-of.html He appears to get flustered and finally go for the ad hominem sometimes, but otherwise he uses some interesting arguments.

@TrueTom I read, I don't know, perhaps upwards of 30% of "No Fake News..." This is an excellent and enjoyable read, by the way, and in a style that I would love to have the skills to attempt myself, in order to break down co-worker prejudices against the Witnesses' world view. Don't take this wrong, because I found everything I read to be nearly error-free. However, I find it impossible to read anything without noticing little things that other readers might find distracting. I really could care less if someone spells it "buses" one minute and "busses" on the very next line. But if you would like someone to point out a typo in the word "circumvent" or places where "they're" replaced "their," etc., then, you know, one man's errorist is another man's moderate.

You made some very good points. I was not referring to the type of people who cancel a life insurance policy, or stop paying their loans back on time, sold their homes, or put off all dental appointments and elective surgery, etc. I did know about people who claimed they were putting off the dentist for the next couple of years, but this was often said in jest. I knew of only one person who took that a little too seriously (the Gilead missionary) and I remember it because my father had hired him to work in one of the engineering labs at the university. I often hung out in the electronics labs in the afternoons after pioneering, and this brother's enthusiasm for 1975 was a little too embarrassing for my father. He had to tell him to tone it down, and I then heard them get into a discussion that turned toward the idea of why everyone else had faith in the "1970's date." But "many" according to the Awake! made significant life-altering decisions: *** g74 11/8 p. 11 Is This the Time to Have Children? *** The evidence is that Jesus’ prophecy will shortly have a major fulfillment, upon this entire system of things. This has been a major factor in influencing many couples to decide not to have children at this time. They have chosen to remain childless so that they would be less encumbered to carry out the instructions of Jesus Christ to preach the good news of God’s kingdom earth wide before the end of this system comes. Even my own parents sold their house to move into a rental near the Kingdom Hall. They also talked my brother out of using a full scholarship to a nearby university (he was good at electronics) so that he ultimately opened up an office cleaning business instead. But this might have happened anyway, and I still never think of this as related to 1975. For myself, I was to graduate in 1975 and was allowed to quit school if I passed the GED (high school equivalency) to start pioneering in May 1973. I know full well that my own experience was related directly to 1975, because I had a serious discussion about it with my parents who were split on whether I should finish high school or not. My mother was not a fanatic about it, but often said she believed it was more likely to come in 1974 since everyone would be looking for it in 1975 and after. My father, the congregation's presiding overseer at the time, spoke about living a reasonably ordinary life because we hoped the end would come as soon as possible, perhaps even tomorrow, but we can only know that it will come within this generation, which could last from 1914 to 1994 for all we knew. My father had been given district assembly parts in the past, but had not even been assigned a circuit assembly talk ever since he was disciplined by a district overseer for toning down a pro-1975 talk at a 1970 or 1971 circuit assembly. (These assignments started up immediately again in 1976 or 1977.) I heard my father discuss that experience with my uncle who was a circuit overseer in another circuit at the time. I know that the discipline was based specifically on his addition of Matthew 24:36 to the talk, and he was reminded about the Watchtower's comments: *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. We were in Missouri at the time, but yearly we visited my uncle who was a circuit overseer in California, and he was of the opinion that 1975 should be promoted strongly (this was in 1973) because even if the end doesn't come in 1975, we still know that it will be here before the end of the 1970's (1979). I didn't get involved too much in the conversation, but I must have believed about the same thing, because I remember thinking that even if it didn't come by then, I would like to apply to Bethel, and could even be there from 1976 and beyond the four years I had originally intended. Immediately after the 1976 Watchtower, however, ideas changed completely, and everyone's view seemed to suddenly normalize. My mother claimed to never have put any weight on 1975. My uncle said it was never really emphasized that much anyway. It was surreal to me, and by the time I got to Bethel, there was absolutely no talk of working the rest of our careers at Bethel, this side of Armageddon. Mentioning 1975 was a taboo, and the July 15 issue quoted was one of the very first issues we studied for the Bethel Watchtower study after I got there. The comments by the conductor were just as surreal about putting the blame on the brothers who read too much into the "Life Everlasting" book. But my point was that, if you were spiritually mature, you were expected to make changes in your life based on the idea that the 1970's would bring the end of the generation, and that this idea, along with the end of the 6,000 years, would make it the "appropriate time for God to act." If you had Bible students you were expected to give them an ultimatum about making up their mind within 6 months. If you didn't believe the end would be here by the end of the 1970's you were pretty much required to believe it would be here by the end of the century (1999/2000). Our family also knew Brother Toutjian in California and we laughed at the way his own experience was toned down from a "1975 rootin'-tootin' Toutjian" to the way he states his own experience in a 1984 Watchtower: *** w84 2/15 p. 25 Always Ready for the End *** Decades of expanded activity passed quickly, and the question now was, What will the 1970’s bring? My two sons, Duane and Jonathan, and my daughter, Carmel—a fourth generation—were grown and had families of their own. We were expecting that 6,000 years of man’s existence would be reached in 1975. Would this date bring us to the start of Christ’s Millennial Reign? That possibility intrigued us. Now we can look back on that year and appreciate that the words of Jesus at Matthew 24:36 do not allow us to fix a date for the end. At the time, 1984, my father admitted to me that he laughed at that line about how "that possibility intrigued us." By then my mother, still pioneering, had forgotten all memories of 1975 fever, and was already claiming that the Society never said anything about 1975 even being a possibility, even though Brother Toutjian was probably still on tape somewhere (from a 15-year-old assembly talk) embarrassing himself.

It was quite interesting that this actually is referring to the understanding of our circuit overseer, our district overseer, our elders, myself and most of my relatives, the Gilead couple who had just returned back to our congregation, and EVERY person in the congregation who was considered spiritually mature. It is saying that this understanding was based on wrong premises. Therefore, the wrong premise was taking to heart the spiritual food that came from the Watchtower publications without questioning it. The right premise therefore would have been to appreciate this idea that was being forwarded as "truth" but recognizing that it had to be questioned and tested against the Bible first. This is the right premise for all the teaching and instruction we get. If we have the right kind of appreciation for spiritual truth, then we will question and test everything presented to us as spiritual truth. If we were to accept a statement from the governing body without questioning it, we would treating it as if it is inspired. But even if it was inspired, we are still to respect it enough to test it: (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . . (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ 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. Also, the entire 1976 article is informative in the way that it tried to not only blame the victim, but then said that even though you shouldn't change your life for a date, it could have been a good thing after all if you changed your life for a date: *** w76 7/15 p. 441 pars. 15-16 A Solid Basis for Confidence *** 15 But it is not advisable for us to set our sights on a certain date, neglecting everyday things we would ordinarily care for as Christians, such as things that we and our families really need. We may be forgetting that, when the “day” comes, it will not change the principle that Christians must at all times take care of all their responsibilities. If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises. 16 However, say that you are one who counted heavily on a date, and, commendably, set your attention more strictly on the urgency of the times and the need of the people to hear. And say you now, temporarily, feel somewhat disappointed; are you really the loser? Are you really hurt? We believe you can say that you have gained and profited by taking this conscientious course. Also, you have been enabled to get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint.—Eph. 5:1-17.

The biggest things that came from "lights or flashes" as the "GB" claimed at the time were 1925, 1935, and the "higher powers" of Romans 13 (not civil authorities, but Jehovah and Jesus). We've since dropped all three of those interpretations. Romans 13 was considered to be one of the most "inspired" of all the teachings that the GB (Rutherford) ever came up with, and was even made to be the fulfillment of prophecy. By that I mean that prophecy was supposedly fulfilled by the very fact that the interpretation was made known, and that coming up with this (wrong) interpretation had proved the superiority of the Watchtower over Christendom's teachers. Since then, we have gone back to teaching what Russell and Christendom had taught about Romans 13. (Romans 13:1-6) 13 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. There may have been a tiny bit of ambiguity about the exact phrase "superior authorities" (or "higher powers"). But the teaching about Romans 13 was not at all necessary to make the point we were then making from it. More importantly, it didn't change the meaning of its own context, which makes the same older point, and there were still other scriptures that made the same older point that Romans 13 had previously been understood to make: (John 19:10, 11) . . .Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to execute you?” 11 Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been granted to you from above. . . . (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) . . ., 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. We already knew from other scriptures that Jehovah and Jesus were superior authorities. We already had the Bible teaching that "We should obey God as ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:29) So I'm not sure why anyone thought it was necessary to make a scripture in Romans mean something other than what was already clear from the context. Perhaps Rutherford thought he had to be definitive as a way to compete with the kind of respect that had been afforded Russell. Perhaps it was a way to show that we could make definitive statements about teachings that were not obvious on their own. It was to show that Rutherford had taken a very powerful stand against the authority of the civil powers by interpreting them out of Romans 13:1. Similarly, calling the end of the anointed calling in 1935 a "flash of light" was evidently done for the same reason: there was no specific, definitive, scriptural statement about a certain time when the "door to the heavenly calling" would be closed, so it became a point of claimed superiority that we (the GB) were able to come up with this one. But to me, these aren't mistakes that reflect badly at all on the "faithful and discreet slave" because that phrase is apparently not significant in terms of making a point about a special group assigned to serve up true doctrines at the proper time. That would mean that the phrase is not about a specific set of men who will be punished if they serve up mistakes in their spiritual food. All of us must learn to discard tradition where it makes the word of God invalid, and all of us must learn to be faithful and discreet in our stewardship within the household of faith. All of us must answer for our lack of humility when we tell a Bible student that we know that a certain scripture must mean this or that, when we have not questioned it thoroughly to be sure. It might please men that we accept their word without questioning it, but it does not please Jehovah. So, one more time for this verse: (Galatians 1:10) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.

I think that started in 1977. I was already in Bethel for about a year, and a lot of brothers stopped reporting twice a month before the end of the year. I think it was still expected in the United States (or at least my congregation) until well into the next year. In 1978, I was the book study conductor in my congregation for one of the two groups that met in the Kingdom Hall. The purpose was so that, especially the book study conductors (Congregation Bible Study conductors) would know by the middle of the month who might need encouragement to get out in field service before the month was over, so as not to be counted as "irregular." I don't remember when or if this was officially dropped, but it was never encouraged officially after 1978 in our congregation.

That is a very simple example. Those who wish to teach should always guard their teaching. It's possible to say two completely different things about the "other sheep" and yet cause no divisions, and always speak in agreement. Here is an example: Pretend this is a quote from the first meeting you attended in your congregation: "When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that he was at that time addressing his Jewish apostles and disciples, and he asked them only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So it may be that when he spoke of having other sheep who would later be brought in to the same flock under the same shepherd, that he was preparing them for something that would prove to become a "sticking point" for some, it would "shock" some of them, and some would have to overcome long-held beliefs and prejudices to get the full impact of the fact that they would very soon -- within just a few months -- need to accept Gentiles into their congregations. But remember that Jesus did not say exactly what he meant at this point, so we shouldn't be saying that we know for sure. It's something to think about however isn't it? Because, if this is what he meant, it would show that Jesus was, like a good shepherd, gently nudging the flock in the right direction, preparing them, for some "rocky terrain" as it were. As with other things, they might not have been ready to hear it all at once, but they could look back and say: Oh that's right, remember when Jesus was with us, he told us about this matter. etc. etc. ...the olive tree of Romans and Revelation, etc." Then the next week in the other congregation: "When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that the apostles and disciples who were listening to him had a special privilege of being part of the flock at that particular time, but that there were other things they just weren't ready to know at the time. Notice that Jesus doesn't say exactly who these persons would be. Perhaps it is something that would be revealed over time. We know that the book of Revelation is a book that was not immediately clear to the disciples at the time it was written, yet it contained a lot of things that would be revealed over time. The very name of the book indicates that it is about things to be "revealed." Perhaps, Revelation 7 is giving us a glimpse of who these other sheep are. Recall, that Jesus spoke to the disciples and called them a "little flock." Yet they clearly grew to become thousands in just the first few short years after Pentecost. Was there a separate group that could be called a "great crowd" even when compared with thousands? In the 7th chapter we have a group of 144,000 which would probably seem to be a huge group to most of those first century Christian disciples. They would be imagining a group that was as large or perhaps larger than any group they had ever seen before at one time. Perhaps when they attended yearly festivals at Jerusalem. But now we have this group compared with an even bigger crowd, a great crowd that no man could number. It must be in the millions! It's true that Revelation 7 indicates that the 144,000 were from the Jewish nation, and these perhaps "millions" would be from all nations, Gentiles. But notice how the tribes were each numbered 12,000. Could this indicate that we are not speaking of literal tribes of Jews but this is a reference to "spiritual Israel" -- meaning all the chosen, holy nation of kings and priests? And if this is so, then this group of 144,000 could very well mean that those with the heavenly hope are limited to 144,000 kings and priests. This could mean that Jesus was referring to the fact that those from the nations would be a great crowd of millions at the time of this great tribulation. This could also resolve the issue of how there would be a completion of Jehovah's purpose for a "new heavens" and also a "new earth." The Lord's prayer...etc." Note how neither one of these teachings is wrong. They are both expressed as possibilities, and they are both therefore true, because both are expressed as true possibilities. They are not expressed as something that you need to believe one way or another to be baptized. That is the same as starting a sect. This is why the scriptures speak of "starting a sect" as a problem of pride. Pride makes someone believe that a certain teaching that is not expressed, but only interpreted, must still be followed as a teaching. In our case, we have a body of elders whom we respect writing up their reasons for the second view in the Watchtower magazine which is the way they share their understanding with all the congregations. There would be nothing wrong with this body of elders, if they all speak in agreement themselves on this matter, explaining all of the reasoning that went into their preference for the second version. If there are any dissenters, they should also explain exactly why the dissenter believed what he did, and explain how and why that particular idea was considered to be less likely. But it could never be called "wrong" as long as it also fit the rest of the scriptures. Neither of these can be called "wrong." They both might fit the scripture. One may seem more likely to some and one might seem more likely to others. Yet, the congregations could still be in perfect agreement about the way in which it could refer to either scenario. That would be "the truth" about it. Over time, it would be much easier to discuss it without pride, or without the fear that a change would destroy a body of truth. If you think about it, it's usually pride that results in any determination that a certain way of looking at something must be the only right way. Pride is both the source of such claims and it also feeds more pride when one begins to think that they are privileged to know the only correct interpretation when more than one are possible. Pride can also create class distinctions among us, a teaching class versus a learning class, for example, which might make it more difficult to admit when we need to extricate ourselves from a certain set of teachings that turn into a "tradition" over time, and become even harder to break.

Yes, this is exactly what I believe. I also agree with everything in Eoin's previous comments (above, from Friday). Of course, Hebrews 13:17 would have referred primarily to the local elders of local congregations, according to the same logic of the 2013 Watchtower, which Eoin also agreed with: *** w13 7/15 p. 21 par. 7 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” *** In the first century, there was hardly a reason to ask such a question. As we saw in the preceding article, the apostles could perform miracles and even transmit miraculous gifts as proof of divine backing. (Acts 5:12) So why would anyone need to ask who really was appointed by Christ to take the lead? Therefore, there would be no need for Hebrews 13:17 to be reminding members of any congregation about following the lead of the apostles, or any type of "governing body" in the first century. So this verse must be referring to those who take the lead in the local congregations: "those taking the lead among you." As members of the congregation could see how the faith and conduct of their overseers has turned out, they should imitate their faith, and in this way follow their lead in whatever "good works" they wish for their particular congregation to participate in. In principle, however, Hebrews 13:17 still applies to all elders. In every way in which their conduct and actions can be rightly imitated, we should follow their lead: (Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. Everything they do, should be appropriate to imitate. This is the type of obedience the context is talking about. We should be doing what they are doing. In the way that they show brotherly love and hospitality, we should too, according to Hebrews 13:1,2. In the same way that these brothers take the lead in visiting those in prison, we should too, according to the next verse (3). In the same way the "governing" body of elders sets the example in their own marriages, we should govern ourselves with their same moral example (verse 4). In the same way that this "governing body" shows itself "free from the love of money and content with the present things" (verse 5) we should obey that same example. In the same way in which this body of elders teaches us to not rely on legalistic rules but to rely on undeserved kindness as our motivation, we follow that, too (verse 9). These are the kinds of things that the body of elders will take the lead in; this is the scriptural context that we are "obedient" to: (Hebrews 13:16) .Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. And this doing "good works and sharing what you have with others" is, of course, the doctrine that this particular body of elders should be teaching by example. Where we fall short and need assistance or counsel, this body of elders should also be able to admonish us and encourage us with their own example. This is why nothing they do should be hidden from any of us. There should be no secrecy among such a body of elders. The verse you quoted (v.17) is not specifically about teaching doctrine, but about shepherding. (NWT links it to Acts 20:28) This can include doctrine, too, of course. We should appreciate that a body of elders who takes on the responsibility of multiple congregations might be in a position to see dangerous trends and may be able to provide counsel and prepare others for strengthening their faith and resolve. Even the ability to report on what is going on in other countries among the brotherhood is often an encouragement, especially if they may be facing hardships that we have not yet faced. And such elders who take on a wider responsibility of multiple congregations would be in a position to learn about programs of charity due to emergencies (famine, flood, earthquake, war, persecution, disaster, economic hardships, pestilence, etc). Yes, this is much closer to what I was saying. The main point is to have respect for the good examples of elders in all parts of the congregation, both local and worldwide. We don't do this based on our understanding of Matthew 24:45 because Jesus made it very clear what that parable was about. But with or without any specific interpretation of Matthew 24:45, this has no effect on our wish to show respect for good examples, and showing the proper respect for their counsel and admonition. This is why the Christian congregations are instructed to appoint elders in the first place. We already have portions of the scriptures dedicated to the qualifications for elders. We already have portions of scripture showing us why we show them respect, and even give them a little more "benefit of the doubt" if an accusation is brought against them. We also wish to show the best kind of respect for the teaching they share with us, and the ultimate way to show respect for it is to be "noble-minded." This means to take it seriously enough to question it, test it, discuss it, and see if it's really so. When and if we see that it is so we should be happy to share it, too. This is what will surely happen most of the time. Yet, if our serious study and testing of any particular teaching indicates that it might not be so, especially if it seems to contradict scripture, then we should be just as willing to imitate the lead of this body of elders in expressing our view about that, too. We are not talking about "counsel" here, which is something we should always submit to humbly. Bible teaching is something we are asked to prove to ourselves. We are asked to let our reasonableness be known. We are asked to let our reasons be known. (1 Pet 3:15) Anything related to teaching and doctrine that we learn from humans, such as a body of elders, we need to make sure about, and take it very seriously, and never just accept it because our congregation's body of elders believes it. (Galatians 1:8-10) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . . Imagine how much faster we would have been blessed and progressed past the 1925 fiasco if Bible Students had truly believed that it was always important to question everything. Imagine how much less embarrassing the 1975 fiasco would have been if more persons spoke up and quoted Matthew 24:36 as the reason to question it. Imagine how much more loving it would have been to help prepare our fellow brothers and sisters, and encourage them to meet any and all of the possibilities that might lie ahead of us, instead of focusing on a narrower set of beliefs held at the time by a body of elders, who repeatedly claimed, for example, that this old system would be over by the end of the previous century. *** it-2 p. 278 Love *** However, love is not gullible, for it follows the counsel of God’s Word to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God,” and it tests everything by the measuring rule of the Bible. (1Jo 4:1; Ac 17:11, 12)

I thought they were beginning to block me. For the last few days I couldn't get here because FireFox won't let me in. I have been gettting this error: But even when I go to advanced settings, and ask the OCSP server to ignore any problems, I still can't get in. I tried Chrome instead of FireFox, however, and I'm able to get in today. Anyway, I hope no one here blocks you. If anyone tries, I'll put in a good word for you, but I'm not really friends with anyone here in that sense.

Your last line quoted here appears to be a reference to whether or not you think I'm saying that the Governing Body is a principal aspect of an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time. I think the other side of that same coin is made out to be that if they are not that, then they are therefore self-appointed, and are not therefore a divine provision. In so many circumstances, the most dangerous thing a human can do is speak about someone's leaders. For most of us, we find our comfort zone when we understand our own fixed place in an ideological hierarchy, and humans have been known to squirm, fight, or even kill when that ideological comfort zone is disturbed or threatened. So, yes, there may yet be a significant portion of this discussion that needs clarification. If you are trying to understand my own position on this subject, then I appreciate the opportunity to explain. Unfortunately, we have so much invested in the Watchtower's current explanation of Matthew 24:45 that any different view might prove to be quite difficult to explain without taking a couple more steps back to get a fresh look at the parable. I believe I have already stated that bodies of elders should be found in every congregation and they should serve as leading examples, overseers, administrators, teachers, etc. It is therefore inevitable that groups of congregations who work together or share assemblies together will also find a need for different kinds of administrators and leaders, and in effect a body of elders might be found for various groupings of congregations. We have utilized circuit overseers, assembly servants, branch or zone overseers, etc., to form such bodies (or committees) of elders. An even more important leadership role will inevitably be needed over the global set of congregations, and this is, from another perspective, a single congregation, too. It will also have whatever type of body of elders is deemed useful, wise, and important for that particular need. As Fred Franz pointed out in a previously referenced speech, it seems that most major large religious denominations invariably end up with some type of "governing body" even if it's called by another name. Are they self-appointed? Not really. Remember that we follow the Biblical instructions for qualifications of elders, and therefore elders are appointed by previously appointed elders, who were all apparently approved due to meeting scriptural qualifications. And the very fact that some will reach out for the office of overseer (or qualify as a spiritually mature older man) is a good thing. Some of these men will be better at teaching, some at speaking, some at evangelizing, some at comforting, some at managing, some at visiting the sick, some at looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation, some at judicial matters, some at helping married couples, etc., etc. These are "gifts in men" as we sometimes say. Jehovah has given everyone an opportunity to find areas of sacred service no matter what our personalities. So it would be very unfair to point to the members who have been selected as a committee or body of elders for the overall congregation, and say that they were self-appointed. We need to recognize that the entire orderly arrangement for any congregation is all part of an arrangement from Jehovah. And for our particular type of ministry as Jehovah's Witnesses, there is going to be a strong desire to see men in leadership positions who tend to best represent that ministry to the entire world. We would expect to see good, sincere, faithful examples who are well-spoken, have excellent reputations, understand the scriptures, and have decades of experience in full-time ministry. And this certainly shows up in the selected appointees to the Governing Body. And it is an important part of our preaching and teaching ministry that the Governing Body takes a lead in making choices about the Bible-based publications, Bibles, and various types of Bible-based instruction that the congregations appreciate. But back to the interpretation of the parable. There is nothing in the parable that says that the faithful and discreet slave prepares spiritual food. There is a faithful and discreet slave that is put in charge of food operations in this household while a master is away. But this is a parable that Jesus says was to point out the different kind of attitude between a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. It's actually more about the several ways that a slave might show himself to be UNfaithful. The basic idea is that it's easy to imagine how many ways a slave might show himself to be unfaithful if a master puts him in charge of the smooth operation of the household. So the important question is therefore, how will a slave prove himself to be faithful when the master is away and there are so many temptations to get away with things, especially if you don't know how long the master will be gone, and he seems to be delaying. Will food always be served on time? Will the slave let that little bit of power go to his head and start beating his fellow slaves? Will he open up all the wine for himself and start acting like a confirmed drunkard? Just like the parable of the neighborly and un-neighborly men in the scripture about the good Samaritan, the money given to the innkeeper isn't spiritual money. The beating and the robbery that the victim received was not a spiritual robbery. It was not a spiritual inn or innkeeper. No, it was a practical example about what it means to "love your neighbor" and answer, "Who really is your neighbor?" In the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, we have the same idea before us. A situation is described in practical terms so that we will all understand that we make judgments every day about how we will live and what decisions we will make to prove that we are really being the sort of person who is in expectation that the master will return at any time, no matter how long the delay. It's easy for us to imagine how likely we are to fail in our assigned duties. It was very poignant for a Jewish audience to hear a story about how a Samaritan showed a more neighborly attitude than the complacent Jewish "neighbor" who ignores fellow human suffering. But Jesus taught that Christianity means doing something about the sick, homeless, those lacking clothing, the hungry and the thirsty. And like the Jewish "neighbor" we too might think we are doing enough by preaching and teaching and therefore become complacent. It's easy to imagine the appointed slave falling into trouble perhaps more easily than the others, as he lets power go to his head, or abuses his authority. Both situations, just as we would expect of Jesus' parables, are about: (2 Peter 3:11) what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, These parables are not about actually staying up all night to keep thieves from breaking into our houses, or actual robbers beating victims, or actual stewards getting drunk or beating up fellow servants. And they are not about spiritual thieves, or spiritual robbers, or spiritual drunkards. They are circumstances to make us think about what we would do in these particular situations, and how these apply to the kingdom. The idea of food and a house with a master who has gone away is very appropriate, but there is nothing about a small group feeding "spiritual food" to a larger group in the Bible. This was not a question about who would lead. There is nothing in the Bible about any "sole channel" other than Jesus himself. Our food, like Jesus, should be doing the will of our Father. The most important part of the parable of the slave is not about the food but about our response to the circumstance, as indicated above. This is proven, too, by the way that Mark summarizes it in Mark 13: (Mark 13:32-37) . . .. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.” In Mark's account there was nothing particularly important about the fact that food was involved. Mark doesn't even mention food, but focuses on the doorkeeper, and the fact that each one of the slaves was authorized to do his work. It was about whether the slaves remained obedient in their assignments, and remained watchful, in expectation of their master's return.

As I'm sure you know, for many years the Watchtower already did make distinct "class" applications to groups that were supposedly represented by the Good Samaritan, the robbers, the road, the innkeeper, the money, the victim, and the road-crossers. There were specific class applications made to the parable of the Prodigal Son that were said to be prophetic and referred specifically to changes in the heavenly and earthly classes of Christians that had their start in the 1918/1919 period, and resulted in specific rewards and conditions in the 1931 to 1935 period. This was said to be specifically what Jesus had in mind prophetically when he gave the parable. So, yes, there is a certain ridiculousness to drawing parallels between and among some of these types of interpretations. I'm sure that the ridiculousness of turning such parables into prophecies and identifying only a specific group (or groups) within the Good Samaritan parable was finally noticed by the writers of the Watchtower articles. This is why some of these "class" explanations that had lasted for many decades were finally exposed to be fruitless in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower. Yet we still twist and strain logic to try to keep treating this particular parable of "the faithful and the unfaithful slave" as a prophecy. (This can easily be shown if you observe the logic and reasoning of the July 15, 2013 article you referenced previously.) That article also says that "It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave." That same article indicates that "in the past" (the previous 130-plus years) we had not recognized that slave correctly. Without getting into any of those reasons given in the July 15, 2013 article, I would only hope that we could recognize that we might be making an important mistake. If Jesus wanted all of us to apply this parable to ourselves, and we say that we want that parable to apply not to ourselves but only to seven members of a Governing Body, then isn't it quite possible that we have rejected an assignment by our Lord? Would we really want to reject an assignment of sacred service? But, we might say that we don't want to accept this particular assignment. Surely, some men will step up and take the lead for us. That's what always happens with groups of people. Then we won't have to carry our own load. It's certainly a lot easier to be the one served than to be a steward who is also responsible for the operation of the household of faith. Besides, once we accept that these men are our leaders, doesn't it become an act of disloyalty and rebellion to go back and claim that we were all -- each one of us -- supposed to be faithful stewards? Each one of us would have to be responsible to pay attention to ourselves and our teaching. If we merely follow, we don't really have to think that much on our own. We can just do what they tell us. Who needs to prove to ourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God? Let someone else do the proving. Let someone else be noble-minded and do the searching. Surely it would be chaos and disunity if all of us were allowed to question things that a body of elders have agreed upon. I know that many of us think, or prefer to think in the way described in that last paragraph. But I think it shows a lack of faith in Jehovah to question his Word just so we can make a non-biblical doctrine out of one verse of a parable, especially if that doctrine relies on a rejected type of interpretation, and conflicts with the context of that same parable and conflicts with the rest of the Christian scriptures.

What if Jesus told us an illustration about, let's say, a "Good Samaritan" and we said that this didn't apply to us because we know of a specific body of elders within our organization who already identify themselves as the fulfillment of the "Good Samaritan." If that specific body of elders actually becomes known for a ministry that is very much like the good Samaritan of the parable, and they manage such a ministry on a world-wide basis and encourage others to join them and help them, then I'd have to say that they really are fulfilling the role of the "Good Samaritan." There would be nothing wrong with such a ministry even if (or especially if) millions of people sincerely followed them, obediently followed the lead of their instructions, displaying a combination of such charity, motivated by love of God, and combined with their confident expressions of faith that indicated that their motivation was heartfelt. There would be nothing wrong with identifying that special body of elders as the "Good Samaritan" class or group or body. But would it be right to say that only the persons of that group of elders should be identified as the "Good Samaritan" and that Jesus had assigned this particular group of elders to that position? Would it be right to say that Jesus had only this particular group of elders in mind in a prophetic sense and that the phrase "Good Samaritan" can only refer to persons appointed into this group during a specific time period? This might sound ridiculous, but the two parables actually provide a much closer parallel than might appear at first glance: With respect to the good Samaritan, Jesus was answering the question: WHO REALLY IS MY NEIGHBOR? (Luke 10:29) . . .“Who really is my neighbor?. . . With respect to the parable of the faithful and the unfaithful slave Jesus was answering the question: WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE? (Luke 12:42) . . .“Who really is the faithful steward,. . . (Matthew 24:45) . . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave. . . For some reason the Watch Tower publications now say that one of these "Who really is..." questions applies to millions of us all around the world, and the other one applies to only about seven of us: only a specific body of elders in New York. As I said before, however, this is simply a matter of not yet noticing the contradiction between this explanation and other passages of Scripture. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the "faithful slave" or that the "faithful slave" has turned unfaithful, because the phrase was never intended to identify a small group of seven "New York" residents in the first place. It would really be no different than if the same group had called themselves "The True Neighbor class" or "The Faithful Steward body" or "The Good Samaritan group." It doesn't mean that they don't belong in the group, or that they might even take the lead in trying to represent the group in the most effective way. It does not mean that Jehovah won't bless their endeavors either. They are trying to do the right thing in the best way that they currently understand the scripture. In time however they will probably recognize the contradiction that this understanding produces against several other passages of scripture. This has happened with many other understandings. It's simply a matter of context and conformity with ALL the scriptures on the particular subject. I'd say that the Watchtower has already come very close to dealing with one of the contradictions, and their conclusion apparently led them to the right answer, in spite of the contradiction. Therefore, this one contradiction was already noticed, but this was not enough yet to overturn the entire entrenched teaching. At least it digs around it a bit. The following Watchtower paragraph deals with the idea that this particular "faithful slave" will become entitled to a greater reward than the rest of the "domestics" whom they were serving. This is the obvious implication of Jesus' parable, yet those who formulated this latest interpretation also realize that it would be a mistake to interpret it in the same way that Jesus implied. It would produce too strong a contradiction with other passages: *** w13 7/15 p. 25 par. 19 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” *** Does the faithful slave receive a greater reward in heaven than the rest of the anointed? No. A reward promised to a small group in one setting may ultimately be shared by others. For example, consider what Jesus said to his 11 faithful apostles the night before he died. (Read Luke 22:28-30.) Jesus promised that small group of men that a fine reward awaited them for their faithfulness. They would share his throne of kingly authority. But years later, he indicated that all of the 144,000 will sit on thrones and share his rulership. (Rev. 1:1; 3:21) Similarly, as stated at Matthew 24:47, he promised that a small group of men—the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave—will be appointed over all his belongings. In reality, all of the 144,000 will share his vast heavenly authority.—Rev. 20:4, 6. So what we end up with is this: a small group of men prove faithful until Jesus returns and this particular slave therefore is rewarded with an appointment over ALL the master's belongings. If Jesus returned tomorrow, then these seven elders who make up the Governing Body would therefore be expected to receive a reward much greater than any reward promised to the domestics whom they were serving. The contradiction required an explanation. The explanation correctly shows that there is NO special reward that these 7 elders receive that is any different from 143,993 others who were also included in the domestics. The only explanation is that all of the 144,000 get the EXACT same reward, instead of what Jesus indicates. What the writers hadn't noticed is that the contradiction doesn't need to be rationalized away, because there is no contradiction if we change the premise by accepting the explanation of Matthew 24 that we find in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such.

I find that was happening to me too. Only recently in the last couple of weeks. I thought it was when I had created two responses back to back where no one else had created a response in the meantime in the same thread/topic. I assumed the software was smart enough to only do this when both of your back-to-back posts were to the same person, which might make sense. (Except for me, since each of my responses is already too long and wordy and this new feature just makes it too long, twice over.) But yours seems to have happened in responses to two different persons.