Melinda Mills

(Matthew 9:37, 38) Then he said to his disciples: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.”
Are we saying that the Master of the Harvest does not know when to end it? and we have to awaken him?
(Matthew 24:44)44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
We won't be able to work out when this day will come. See that Jesus said at Matthew 24:44. It will happen at a time we do not expect. Verse 36 says no man would know the day or hour (or year for that matter).  We have to be ready.  It is simple.
Jehovah God will give his Son and the angels the command to reap the harvest at the time he decides. (We must not minimize his role in it.)
(Revelation 14:14-16) 14 Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16 And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped.
So whether a GB member, Bethelite, elder or whoever said it is fulfilled, it is Jehovah's harvest and he will intervene when the work is done TO HIS SATISFACTION.
 

Matthew 10:16-23
mentions about the time we live in and in verse 23 it says we would not complete the circuit of Israel until the son of man arrives
so you see the preaching is to Jehovah`s satisfaction not to man`s
 

That may be true, but I have mentioned on this forum a few months ago the issue with countries with extremely large populations such as India and China with over 1.3. billion each totaling aprox. 36% of the world's population where for all intents and purposes no one has even heard of Jehovah's Witnesses, and many, particularly in India don't even know what a Bible is. My question was, would Jehovah discard nearly 3 billion people because they have not heard the Good News of the Kingdom?  And if not, how long would it take for those 3 billion (bear in mind the extreme poverty and ignorance in some parts of these countries) to be made sufficiently aware in order to make an informed choice?

According to the most recent yearbook, those 3 places are not listed. Either the witnesses there don't record their efforts because of the circumstances or there aren't any witnesses there at all. If the latter is the fact that doesn't mean The Word hasn't reached them either via social media or long distance families or friends. 
I don't feel comfortable sharing information from "the brothers at Bethel" unless it's announced from the podium but that's just me. ?

PART 3 of 4: [edited: PART 3 of 6]
[Note that the last segment of photocopies included a Mexican Branch letter from 1960, and a Society HQ response from 1960, then included 2 pages from another Mexican Branch letter from 1969 and a 1 page response from the Society's Brooklyn HQ in 1969. The last photocopy shown was an additional portion of the more current 1978 Mexican Branch letter that put all these materials together due to additional questions from brothers whose conscience was disturbed, and due to additional threats and promises from Mexican officials that the illegal bribery practice will be dealt with shortly.]
p.153: The June 2, 1960 letter from the Society in response to the February 1960 letter from the Branch to Knorr indicates that these bribes (called "money transactions") are OK because it's:
no worse than what's done in other Latin American countries paying the bribe allows for freedom for theocratic activities it's the responsibility of the bribe-taking officials representing the nation, not the bribe-giving JW the bribe is not going to the military establishment but is pocketed by the person taking the bribe the brothers offering the bribes are using their own conscience to obtain continued freedom it's OK to let this smaller thing pass, as they can prove faithful in the larger test, when and if they were called upon real military situation  [Added comment: Note that this is the opposite of: (Luke 16:10) "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."] But the same letter from the Society warns them:
they are on their own if they get caught or get into trouble there will be no help from the Society if that happens if any brothers were to follow through on the commitment and support of the military that the card implies, then these brothers will be dealt with for lack of Christian neutrality. p.155: For this portion, it is so central to the point R.Franz wishes to make, three or four full paragraphs will be quoted verbatim:
One reason why this information was so personally shocking to me was that, at the very time the letter stating that the Society had “no objection” if Witnesses in Mexico, faced with a call to military training, chose to “extricate themselves by a money payment,” there were scores of young men in the Dominican Republic spending precious years of their life in prison—because they refused the identical kind of training. Some, such as Leon Glass and his brother Enrique, were sentenced two or three times for their refusal, passing as much as a total of nine years of their young manhood in prison. The Society’s president and vice president had travelled to the Dominican Republic during those years and had even been made visits to the prison where many of these men were detained. How the situation of these Dominican prisoners could be known by them and yet such a double standard be applied is incomprehensible to me. Four years after that counsel was given to Mexico the first eruption of violent attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi took place (1964) and the issue of paying for a party card arose. The position taken by the Malawi Branch Office was that to do so would be a violation of Christian neutrality, a compromise unworthy of a genuine Christian. The world headquarters knew that this was the position taken. The violence subsided after a while and then broke out again in 1967, so fiercely that thousands of Witnesses were driven into flight from their homeland. The reports of horrible atrocities in increasing number came flooding in to the world headquarters. What effect did it have on the men leading the organization and their consciences as regards the position taken in Mexico? In Malawi Witnesses were being beaten and tortured, women were being raped, homes and fields were being destroyed, and entire families were fleeing to other countries—determined to hold to the organization’s stand that to pay for a party card would be a morally traitorous act. At the same time, in Mexico, Witness men were bribing military officials to complete a certificate falsely stating that they had fulfilled their military service obligations. And when they went to the Branch Office, the staff there followed the Society’s counsel and said nothing to indicate in any way that this practice was inconsistent with organizational standards or the principles of God’s Word.

Another subject that seems to fan the flames.
Malawi Congress Party card? Purchase seeming to endorse the Banda personality-cult dictatorship with all it's trimmings. Can't see any difference with the "Heil Hitler" salute myself. I see it as an act of worship. Violates Jehovah's law.
Mexican military service cartilla? Corrupt system where mid-ranking officials impose "unofficial tax" to endorse marching participation certification. Common and generally tolerated (not approved) practice, along with other similar "unofficial" charges for Government administrative services. Document does not exempt from military service at time of war, but allows for obtaining other legal documentation such as driving and travel permits. Show me an incorrupt government. Make your choice. Accept the consequence. It's up to you. Conscience matter for me.
Oath of allegience to US? Can't see why GB members are singled out? Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this oath taken by anyone getting a US passport or becoming a US citizen? There should be 1000's of photos here. Seems to be an affirmation to uphold US values? Seems to reflect the spirit of Rom 13:7. Even constitutional rights are reflected in the wording of the oath. We are not suggesting that JWs can't take oaths are we? (another thread for that please, although that topic would seem dead in the water.) It's up to you. Conscience matter for me.
Has anyone considered the comparative consequences of action in connection with these issues?
That might indicate something in connection with their importance to a Christian.
 

Because of my back surgery I can't walk yet. I'm grateful to listen online! Thank you Jehovah God! Sometimes many don't understand unless they have been there? 
?????

LIMA, Peru – Not less than 530 homes and 6 Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been damaged due to severe flood which has ravaged Peru in the last few days.
 
Reports indicate that in the town of Huarmey, located 288 kilometers (approximately 179 mi) from Lima, floodwaters have stranded many Witnesses on the roofs of their homes.
So far, the Peru branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses has set up eight disaster relief committees to care for the Witnesses in the affected areas, including the 12 regions where the government has declared a state of emergency. 
The relief committees have already supplied 22 tons of food and over 22,000 liters (6,000 gal) of drinking water to victims. Another 48 tons of food and over 9,000 liters (2,400 gal) of drinking water will be sent in the coming weeks. 
Jehovah’s Witnesses are assisting their fellow members, as well as other victims of the disaster.So far, hundreds of Witnesses in Peru have volunteered to help with cleanup and repair work. “The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses facilitates disaster relief efforts from their world headquarters, using funds donated to the Witnesses’ global ministry work”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses said in a statement.Heavy rainfall has caused flooding and landslides in 24 out of 25 regions of Peru, while reports indicate that these conditions are expected to continue. 
The country has received 10 times the normal amount of precipitation during its rainy season (December to March).
http://starconnectmedia.com/530-homes-6-kingdon-halls-of-jehovahs-destroyed-as-severe-flood-hits-peru/

@Witness I understand "obedience to the GB/elders" to be more of a "organizational and keeping the congregation moraly clean" nature rather than what the apostle Paul was talking about in context which was: they had a clear command from God, and men were telling them to stop. I have not known the GB to ask us to break any commandment from God. If they did, then obviously  we would want to obey God rather than them.

The injunction against moving or transferring from house to house was a loving command from Jesus.  If you did your best in preparing for your guests you would wish them to show appreciation and enjoy what you gave (simple food is also enjoyable); not seeking out better opportunities (transferring) at the home of a more fortunate person so as to enjoy better or richer fare.
The context was to do with hospitality which was a very important part of living in Jesus' day and prior to that.
The following article gives some light on it.
*** it-1 pp. 1151-1152 Hospitality ***
The Guest. In ancient times the guest, while treated with the utmost courtesy and honor, was expected to observe certain amenities and requirements. For example, it was considered among the vilest of acts to partake of another man’s food and then betray him or bring harm to him. (Ps 41:9; Joh 13:18) The guest was not to presume upon his host or on the group gathered together by taking the seat of honor, or the place of prominence, but was to leave this for the host to determine. (Lu 14:7-11) Neither should he ‘wear out his welcome,’ by being at the home of his host too long or by going there too often. (Pr 25:17) It may be noted that Jesus always imparted spiritual blessings when enjoying the hospitality of his host. (Lu 5:27-39; 19:1-8) For a similar reason he told his disciples whom he sent out that when they reached a town, they should stay in the home where hospitality was extended them and not be “transferring from house to house.” They should not be thus seeking a place where the householder could provide them with more comfort, entertainment, or material things.—Lu 10:1-7; Mr 6:7-11.
 The apostle Paul, who did much traveling and who received hospitality from many of his Christian brothers, nevertheless, did not make himself a financial burden on any of them. Much of the time he worked at a secular occupation, and he set forth the law: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” (2Th 3:7-12; 1Th 2:6) By reason of this, Paul had an answer to the charges of the so-called superfine apostles in Corinth, who accused Paul of taking advantage of the Christians in the congregation there. (2Co 11:5, 7-10) He could boast in the fact that he provided the good news to them absolutely without cost, not even taking the things he had the right to as an apostle and a minister of God.—1Co 9:11-18.
 
    Today we seek out who is deserving by making initial call, then many return visits.  In those days people used to stay in the home for some time while making disciples, as it was the custom and showing hospitality was a great privilege in the eyes of  most persons.
(Matthew 10:11, 12) “Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. 12 When you enter the house, greet the household.
   But we still have to go house to house to make the first calls. The house-to-house work is an equal opportunity work and the best way of doing it. We can credit Jesus with knowing the best way to offer that opportunity. House to house preaching is the best way of doing that work thoroughly, as shown the scriptures.
 
(Acts 10:41, 42) . . .. 42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. . .
(Acts 5:42) 42 And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.
 
 

That's quite understandable. I'm retired, don't sleep enough, and have replaced TV with Internet. Up until just a couple years ago, I wasn't able to join conversations on the net while I was working and raising a family. I should also admit that while I do have an excessive library, the items I quoted from were from an college alumni account that gives me access to a million academic journals. I didn't check if any of these are freely available to the public, but I got complaints in a previous conversation when I tried to give links that apparently only worked for me.
I should also mention that when you respond, I'm not really that interested in defending what the Arians believed or what Origen believed. My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th. But I would already admit that it is possible to find sources that would align Origen more closely with orthodox thinking (and by "orthodox" I mean mid-4th century). I also know that Origen is not considered the Father of Arianism by some scholars. I only mention this because I wouldn't want you to feel it's necessary to respond to the points I made, because I probably will just agree that there are other possible points of view. (e.g., Rufinus didn't really change as much of Origen's work as people have claimed; it was really Origen's students who were the father of Arianism, etc., etc.)
I do have a much stronger interest in what the original text of the Bible would have presented, so that some of the copyists' changes that appear to move any Bible text toward a more 4th-century Trinitarian direction will always interest me. You made some good points about John 1:18. What looks like evidence to one person is not always definitive.
As you can tell, as a Witness, I don't accept the Trinity, and we are not exactly Arian, either. Anna pointed out that a lot of the thinking and explanations that went into the Trinity doctrine (and some forms of Arianism) might not have been possible without the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. I am not interested in any of that. I'm only interested in whether or not a particular belief system will explain the entire range of Scriptures that touch on the issue of the "divinity" of Jesus Christ. I think Ann O'maly was also right in saying that there are several Bible verses that might not be covered by either neo-Arian or Trinitarian solutions. (I think the ideas about the holy spirit will fall into place when the first issue is resolved.)

Hello JW insider,
 
What a surprise I got after I sent in my post, within 36 hours I receive not one but two well detailed posts from you, that’s quite impressive, and on top of that you also must have an extensive library to boot.
 
If I may, I would like to respond to what you say, but I can’t do it in the same timeframe as your replys, it will take me a lot longer I’m afraid, as my family and work necessitate much of my time, so please bear with me. <><

“During the early morning hours of Saturday, April 1, 2017, three rivers overflowed near the city of Mocoa, the capital of the Colombian province Putumayo, causing devastating mudslides that killed hundreds. 
“Unfortunately, the Colombia branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses reports that two of Jehovah’s Witnesses died in the disaster and one other is missing. 
 
Seems to be ColOmbia - South America.  Heading of article and picture caption contain wrong spelling.
(Someone on the Facebook section had queried which country it was.)

Nonsense. At the very least, even disregarding the worldwide witness given - I mean, who else has such love for every other member that they would do such a thing? - they have 'rescued' Post Offices the world over, which are always on the brink of collapse. Thus, they make for themselves friends in high places.
You need to be more positive, JTR. Turn that frown upside down.

@Jay Witness Did Jesus "respect" the religious beliefs of the Jews of His Day?
I ask because I suspect you will imply that we should not engage in proselytism?

Without trawling, I seem to remember more modern day experiences of pioneers, even colporteurs, going in to new territories without established congregations, and securing lodging through those favourably disposed in order to have a base to work from.
At this stage in countries where the work is well established, many of us can walk from home to our witnessing territories and so do not require the same level of hospitality. . However, we still travel to seldom-worked areas for preaching campaigns on ocassion, and this may well be accompanied by hospitality that is shown, not only by brothers and sisters, but also by some who are at least favourable to our work. There are doubtless other examples that could be cited.
A stable base from which to work in any preaching territory assignment is much appreciated and greatly facilitates the activity.
.

The injunction against moving or transferring from house to house was a loving command from Jesus.  If you did your best in preparing for your guests you would wish them to show appreciation and enjoy what you gave (simple food is also enjoyable); not seeking out better opportunities (transferring) at the home of a more fortunate person so as to enjoy better or richer fare.
The context was to do with hospitality which was a very important part of living in Jesus' day and prior to that.
The following article gives some light on it.
*** it-1 pp. 1151-1152 Hospitality ***
The Guest. In ancient times the guest, while treated with the utmost courtesy and honor, was expected to observe certain amenities and requirements. For example, it was considered among the vilest of acts to partake of another man’s food and then betray him or bring harm to him. (Ps 41:9; Joh 13:18) The guest was not to presume upon his host or on the group gathered together by taking the seat of honor, or the place of prominence, but was to leave this for the host to determine. (Lu 14:7-11) Neither should he ‘wear out his welcome,’ by being at the home of his host too long or by going there too often. (Pr 25:17) It may be noted that Jesus always imparted spiritual blessings when enjoying the hospitality of his host. (Lu 5:27-39; 19:1-8) For a similar reason he told his disciples whom he sent out that when they reached a town, they should stay in the home where hospitality was extended them and not be “transferring from house to house.” They should not be thus seeking a place where the householder could provide them with more comfort, entertainment, or material things.—Lu 10:1-7; Mr 6:7-11.
 The apostle Paul, who did much traveling and who received hospitality from many of his Christian brothers, nevertheless, did not make himself a financial burden on any of them. Much of the time he worked at a secular occupation, and he set forth the law: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” (2Th 3:7-12; 1Th 2:6) By reason of this, Paul had an answer to the charges of the so-called superfine apostles in Corinth, who accused Paul of taking advantage of the Christians in the congregation there. (2Co 11:5, 7-10) He could boast in the fact that he provided the good news to them absolutely without cost, not even taking the things he had the right to as an apostle and a minister of God.—1Co 9:11-18.
 
    Today we seek out who is deserving by making initial call, then many return visits.  In those days people used to stay in the home for some time while making disciples, as it was the custom and showing hospitality was a great privilege in the eyes of  most persons.
(Matthew 10:11, 12) “Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. 12 When you enter the house, greet the household.
   But we still have to go house to house to make the first calls. The house-to-house work is an equal opportunity work and the best way of doing it. We can credit Jesus with knowing the best way to offer that opportunity. House to house preaching is the best way of doing that work thoroughly, as shown the scriptures.
 
(Acts 10:41, 42) . . .. 42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. . .
(Acts 5:42) 42 And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.
 
 

People make excuses all the time.  If they can find a scapegoat they will.
I know someone who was offered a scholarship by the government of the day to study for a professional career, as his talent and qualifications were evident. (He was subsequently offered the same scholarship on two more occasions and did not accept.) He did not pursue any studies - just stayed in the field he was in at the ordinary level of a government officer. Years later after seeing that he was not as successful as he might have been with a professional qualification he laid the blame on his mother who raised him as a Witness.  He did not take into consideration that he was baptized for some years, was of legal age, and that the scholarships were offered to him several times and that his mother would not have footed the bill.
One or two of the contributors here have recently said that many of us could have been better off with a little more education and more purposeful planning of our lives, though not leaving out spiritual things.  However, even with this mistaken idea that you cannot be a spiritual person with a sound secular education, many of them have been able to provide for their families albeit with some difficulties.  The person is still a Witness along with his family - so there is still some success. (Hebrews 6:10)
Diligence and capability in all things can make life easier.  We have the example of Joseph, Mordecai, Esther, Daniel and the three Hebrew officials, Nehemiah, and  they were probably others not mentioned (John 21:25) who were diligent in all areas of their lives.  They put spiritual things first but were also excellent in their secular work.  If we have insight we will notice that God did not despise them for this. God used Joseph, Mordecai and Esther to save his people from annihilation; God use Nehemiah to restart true worship.
Today we also note that several persons are working in branch offices  who are well qualified secularly as well as spiritually.  I know quite a few whose parents sent them to study despite the suggestions.  I know of four of these who are now working in branch offices either full time or part time and others as resource persons.  (Isaiah 60:16)

I don't understand what this means.
Quite true. Although this goes for everyone in every congregation (and everyone else) unless some kind of controlled survey is done.
There is an element of truth in this because "once a JW always a JW" is a reality of life. However, there is nothing particular sinister or unusual about someone who enjoyed a privilege receiving a sanction from the community that bestowed it, if they behave in a way that demonstrates disrespect (in the eyes of that community) for that privilege. For some examples see here: Lost privilege 
"Having cake and eating it" is an unfortunate metaphor that is echoed here. At least John Lennon had integrity, even if you don't agree with all he stood for. (Notice a hook here).
On another note, I have even known of unbelieving partners or parents to suffer discriminatory treatment because of the association a relative may have or have had with Jehovah's Witnesses. And that not just under a Nazi type regime.
You haven't thought about this statement although I understand what you mean by it. There could very well be an issue of poor family management in connection with college attendance. It will depend entirely on the circumstances. What is wrong is to say that college attendance and poor family management are synonymous in all cases.
This is rubbish regardless of missapplied Soc letters to elders. All elders qualifications should be reviewed regularly. A negative review where "children" are seeking higher education will depend on the attitude and conduct of those "children", and the same as regards the father.
My son-in-law went to college and gained a BA in an academic disciplne with absolutely no problems depite severe dyslexia. He then pioneered, and got married to my daughter. Then able to gain reasonable employment, he sought further vocational qualifications with success
He now is able to provide well for his family and serves as an elder. There were no sanctions imposed on any part of his family during this period.
But then, my observations may not be representative of other people's personal experiences.
Perfectly valid pont here. I mean it's pretty clear that following in Jesus footseps just does not mean doing what he did. Otherwise there would be literally millions of people hanging on stakes everywhere if they wanted to be true Christians.
I think @Anna just meant that there are sacrifices involved if want wishes to follow a dedicated Christian course. This may well include the pursuit of a secular vocation and the academic path to that goal. Paul's estimation of such things as " refuse" was all very well for one who "wore the T-shirt" as it were, it is true. But, nevertheless, many have made that sacrifice willingly and have not regretted it. Likewise there are many (like my son-in-law) who have done otherwise, not regretted it, and more importantly, have not been sanctioned for it.
However, in respect of the original post, and given that my view may well be unrepresentative, personal obeservations, I still feel that to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!
 
 
 
 
 

Hahaha, very well, I shall rephrase it: many believe the Bible to be authority from God, but only a few actually believe it enough to change their lives to live by it, even if it is a inconvenience to them. I was actually meaning that I get the impression you are an atheist.
I know, because I talked to them about it. On top of that there were no shepherding calls, because they declined the offer. You know you can leave the congregation and stop going to meetings any time you want don't you? Usually without any "repercussions" I say usually, because as long as you don't flaunt an outwardly "hedonistic life style" as you call it, and tell everyone at the strip club you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then most likely no one will "bother" you. Again, I know quite a number of ex- Witnesses who were never disfellowshipped and who have been living out of wedlock and celebrate Christmas for some time now. The whole point, as I mentioned before, and as I am sure you know, is to keep the Christian congregation clean. Once someone leaves and over time is no longer known as a Witness in the community, keeping the congregation clean is no longer applicable as they are no longer associated with it. A far cry from the claim of "total control" indeed.
Well this is assuming they are still living under his roof of course, and are a part of his household which he "presides" over. I don't see a chain of coercion here if you believe Jesus's words about putting the Kingdom first, and agree with the Bible's qualifications for elders.
Indeed, it's difficult since the whole of society is geared to self pursuit. In this environment it is not easy to follow Jesus's command: Then he went on to say to all: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself  and pick up his torture stake day after day and keep following me".

I like the frank statement in Paragraph 12 of Sunday's Watchtower stuydy: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
 
There is no finer way to get some grumblers going than to say: “oh, we changed that.” Hostile people scour past publications, discover where you’ve once said ‘A’, whereas now you say ‘B,’ and pounce all over the ‘flip-flop.’ They thereby reveal that they themselves reason like 10-year olds.
 
It's not a piece of cake looking into the future - everyone knows that - so if you mess up, you back up and tackle the subject anew. We do it all the time. For decades, we have spoken of ‘tacking’ and the ‘light getting brighter.’ What is that if not an admission that we’ve often been wrong? We’re very open about it. So when the grousers come around with their grousing over teachings that have changed, they look pretty silly if they harp on it – we’ve never said that they don’t. There are many examples in the Bible of faithful ones doing or saying things that did not pan out.
 
The logical extension of this is that with any new understanding, one can always accept it as tentative, the best understanding available at the moment. Nobody expects you to herald these new understandings from the rooftops. They are not the basic fabric of the truth that we teach to our Bible students – they are for our own edification. So long as you don’t go setting yourself up as a counter-authority with your ‘better understanding,’ everybody gets along just fine.
It’s all a matter of respect for authority versus contempt for authority. That point the Governing Body just clarified? You may have noticed that point some time ago in your own private study of the Bible. And if this was the greater church world, you would have run out and started up your own sect over it. Instead, we wait on the human authority Jehovah has provided.
One character hoo-haws over the fact that growth among Western nations is quite modest and sometimes has even reversed. He thus reveals his bias that these are the only people who matter. One explanation for what he observes is that nowhere is contempt for authority of any sort more prevalent than in the West – independence is the revered goal held before all here. Another is the effect of this world’s ‘higher education,’ which pushes with all its might an atheistic view. 
 

Nudism (in nudist camps) is not equated with immorality as far as I know. It is possible, if humans had not sinned, they would have remained nude, or if not nude all the time, nudity would not have been inappropriate, so someone could reason that the nudist colony type of nudism is like being back in paradise.
Well put

Why would the question about being a nudist even be asked?  If one is unable to answer for themselves, then they do not know God.

A while back there was discussion of the NPR story:
"Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses" 
I read the article, but I didn't have to. The title says it all. Just where do you look for fulfillment of your dreams? This system of things or the one to come?

People make excuses all the time.  If they can find a scapegoat they will.
I know someone who was offered a scholarship by the government of the day to study for a professional career, as his talent and qualifications were evident. (He was subsequently offered the same scholarship on two more occasions and did not accept.) He did not pursue any studies - just stayed in the field he was in at the ordinary level of a government officer. Years later after seeing that he was not as successful as he might have been with a professional qualification he laid the blame on his mother who raised him as a Witness.  He did not take into consideration that he was baptized for some years, was of legal age, and that the scholarships were offered to him several times and that his mother would not have footed the bill.
One or two of the contributors here have recently said that many of us could have been better off with a little more education and more purposeful planning of our lives, though not leaving out spiritual things.  However, even with this mistaken idea that you cannot be a spiritual person with a sound secular education, many of them have been able to provide for their families albeit with some difficulties.  The person is still a Witness along with his family - so there is still some success. (Hebrews 6:10)
Diligence and capability in all things can make life easier.  We have the example of Joseph, Mordecai, Esther, Daniel and the three Hebrew officials, Nehemiah, and  they were probably others not mentioned (John 21:25) who were diligent in all areas of their lives.  They put spiritual things first but were also excellent in their secular work.  If we have insight we will notice that God did not despise them for this. God used Joseph, Mordecai and Esther to save his people from annihilation; God use Nehemiah to restart true worship.
Today we also note that several persons are working in branch offices  who are well qualified secularly as well as spiritually.  I know quite a few whose parents sent them to study despite the suggestions.  I know of four of these who are now working in branch offices either full time or part time and others as resource persons.  (Isaiah 60:16)