Anna

It must be one of those things that are down to principle, not a law. Perhaps this is the principle: " Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry". Colossians 3:5 I am not saying this as a rule, but in all honesty, could it be said that masturbation never leads to sexual immorality, or thoughts of it?

I understand everything you say. Don't get me wrong, I was never agreeing with this video, in fact I think it's one of the worst videos WT has ever made. What I was doing was refuting what someone said, about love being switched on and off. It isn't. The love is still there, and a lot of heartache for the parents who believe this is the right thing to do for the benefit of their child. Like you say, no situation is the same. I have reasons to believe the scenario in the video was based on actual events. I know of a very similar one myself. However, as you say, this video does not take into account any other circumstances that could happen in real life. For that reason I think it is a dangerous video, especially for someone who is bound to do things unquestioningly. I am hoping most parents who know their child well, and who are in a similar circumstance, will know how to act so that a tragedy does not happen.

It's evident that both understood how disfellowshipping would affect future interaction with each other. They both understood that it doesn't mean that there is no love, or that the love is conditional, or that there would never be any help. With regard to biased persons, or those who are opposed to the Witnesses, the wording is rather unfortunate, however it does not necessarily reflect every Witness response.

Who has greater love; someone who does something for the greater and long term benefit of a person, despite the extreme emotional hurt it causes themselves, or someone who does something believing it is only a temporary fix and will not benefit the person in the long run, but it's easier on the emotions? You can apply any scenario here. Perhaps a parent with a drug addicted child, or an alcoholic...etc. It's called tough love. We have no way of knowing, but perhaps the "mother" may give her life to save a Catholic if the opportunity presents itself one day..... tough love ˌtəf ˈləv/ noun noun: tough love promotion of a person's welfare, especially that of an addict, child, or criminal, by enforcing certain constraints on them, or requiring them to take responsibility for their actions".

Perhaps the question should be : "Is it really turned on and off"?

Well actually Friday Sept 14 2018 is the past . I might be wrong on this, but I think in English when one uses the term past in the context that I did, doesn't necessarily mean "distant" past it can mean any time between many years ago and yesterday. One could be more specific and say not long ago, or in the distant past. I was talking about the past that I know of, which could be not very long ago at all, but I don't know, so that's why I just said past. I do not know what the exact status of the answer to that question is today (Saturday, Sept 15 2018). You seem to feel nothing has changed.

I wouldn't call them charlatans. I think they truly believed what they said, and if they tried to cover some failings, then that is just because they were human. There are plenty of examples in the scriptures of God's chosen ones doing this or that. The only human mentioned in the Bible that did everything perfectly was Jesus. And I wouldn't worry about firing someone, that is God's business. Also, everyone will stand in front of God and render an account.

I guess you've pretty much completed the list. I can't think of anything else.... Although I must add that some of these reasons in themselves are not enough for some to quit. There are some in the truth, and faithful, in spite of feeling some of those things on the list. And there are many who just don't even know about some of these issues....heck, many don't know why we believe in 1914. They assume it's because of WW1 and that's good enough for them. Some things are just too complicated to analyze and "make sure of", and so they remain kind of blissfully covered over. I agree, knowing about some of these things can be faith shaking. Ignorance is bliss indeed. And yet, there is so much that makes sense also. To me, at least. As an organization we are a work in progress and in the past we were made out to be...well..."almost" infallible. It is only in recent years (and perhaps due to unfulfilled interpretations) have we, as an organization, admitted that we are not always going to be right. More to the point; the Governing Body isn't always going to be right, in fact they are only "scratching the surface" (Br. Herd quote). It is a very difficult thing sometimes to trust someone who has failed you in the past. And yet this is what is being asked of us. But the good thing is we have an infallible source to fall back on, the Bible. So in my opinion, when there are scriptures that are a little ambiguous, but are interpreted in a certain way by the Slave, from past experience, should I be blamed if I find it hard to embrace this particular interpretation, and would rather wait and see? It is a very difficult thing. Do you think it's possible to have a good and close relationship with Jehovah, and yet be wary sometimes about what the Slave says? In the past these two things were inseparable. If you were not agreeing with the Slave, you were automatically against Jehovah.

Aaaah, I thought there was a book that mentioned the "millions will never die" not just a sermon. I am connecting the dots now, thank you! It looks like Rutherford also authored a book with that title. (Also I get how the millions couldn't have referred only to the Bible students, as there wasn't a million of them yet). So since this topic is about 1975, it doesn't apply to this, however the question regarding honesty is the same, are we being honest about the millions and 1925? How is the statement "proof conclusive" being explained today, since the proof was obviously false. And statements such as this:

Technically yes, but practically, we know, and everyone else knows, when that statement was made it was not referring to babies born in 1918 and people living till they were nearly a 100. It was was talking about those who were in the audience at the time and perhaps of average age, which would probably be 35 to 45 year olds? Actually I never knew that! Yes please. I don't know much about it. I just know that this talk was given and that obviously it was.....well......wishful thinking at best and totally false at worst. And I guess it had a lot to do with the 1925 campaign. What I wondered was if our latest publications have mentioned anything about it. I can look it up too... PS. The last mention of "millions now living will never die" that I have in my WT CD library is from 2009 WT . The article was a life experience entitled "Ninety Years Ago I Began to ‘Remember My Grand Creator" one excerpt says this: "Some months before this incident at school, our family had moved to live near Glasgow in Scotland. About that time, Father attended the public talk entitled “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” It changed his life. Father and Mother began studying the Bible and often talked together about God’s Kingdom and the blessings to come. I thank God that from then on my parents brought me up to love God and to put my trust in him."— WT/2009/7/15 Most likely today this brother is dead...

No matter how many aliases he uses he gives himself away every time with the contents of his posts.

@JW Insider this is definitely Allen. For some reason he has always been jealous, that I "admire" you

So was that it? The "WILL" became a "MAY"?

OK True Tom, cut it out!

So how has this been explained away today? I don't seem to recall anything...

Yes, Allan

No one? Really?

Oh good! Good night

There is a little bit more than that, that they wrote. You're not being entirely honest nor fair.

It's late JTR. Go to bed and stop worrying about pills

Look, I don't know if Br.Jackson breaks out in remorseful sweat every time he talks to Jehovah at night. And neither do you.

Of course we (they) shouldn't be predicting or prophesying anything. The prophesies are already there in the Bible. It's the interpretation of them that's the problem. And we (they) haven't done all that well so far....

No, I agree with you. But it still doesn't prove that they are not " bitterly weeping at such things ".

I don't think it had anything to do with suppressing any conscience, if that's what you are insinuating. They really, really believed it.

Very funny JTR! (sarcasm)