Anna

But you can't see inside peoples hearts.

Actually it's not a fantasy. It's the "now" that's the problem. No one can say "when" millions living will never die, but it's not a fantasy, as one day it will be a reality.

Yes, I agree. It's just that if someone already has a negative perspective on the whole situation they can't but help interpret wrongly. And I think this could be because it was all termed so ambiguously, that there was room for interpretation. We have to remember that we are an organization that has a head, Jesus. But apparently Jesus uses the Slave as a channel of communication, so short of blaming Jesus, who else can we blame, logically? It can't be the ordinary publisher can it? And not even those in the writing department since everything has to be approved by the Slave first. I feel there would have been no room for misunderstanding had the WT clearly said that the Slave, aka those in charge of dispensing spiritual food were to blame. But this has never been the custom, to be straight up about things like this. I have never heard, and I am sure you haven't either, a straightforward apology from the GB/Slave/those dispensing spiritual food. It's as if they are afraid they may lose the trust and respect of the congregation if they were to be candid about their failings. Because it is the Slave who interpret scripture for us, nothing that we know of the Truth comes from our own interpretation of the scriptures. So if the scriptures are interpreted wrongly, whose fault is it? We know whose fault it is. But it would be nice to have it spelled out black on white at times, and not insinuated in an evasive manner. The Bible writers were so upfront about their failings, "miserable man that I am!". One of the characteristics of the Bible is its candor. If only WT leadership could emulate this in their publications.... As a side issue, but still relevant to the discussion, does anyone know how the "millions now living will never die" has been explained away?  Yes! I wonder, was it perhaps the same person! Same here!

But perhaps not very discreet

Who do you mean by "they"

Often expressions such as “enduring these difficult times” “enduring disappointment” “ a sad year” “hopes were dashed” “time of test” and others are used in conjunction with the disappointments of certain anticipated dates in WT history. As Proverbs 13:12 says: “Expectation postponed makes the heart sick”. These tests or disappointments were never caused by Jehovah of course, but man, specifically those who were in charge of giving food at the proper time. This brings me to a sobering thought; could this be tantamount to “beating their fellow slave” ?? (Matt. 24:29) Certainly not all of the time, but specifically at those times under discussion, and especially when this caused some to be stumbled.

Amen to that. ... but NO ONE at Warwick is ! NO ONE! Honestly how can you know?

Yes! In other word balance.

If that was the case, how come Adam and Eve and some a few generations after them lived for hundreds of years? And now, despite incredible advances in medicine, people still find it difficult to cross the 100 year threshold. Although the imperfection the quote was talking about was mainly of a characteristic nature, surely everything works together, our physical deterioration includes our mental deterioration.

I was looking for the scripture

As I understand it, the emphasis might be on the imperfection rather than a number. That we are so far removed from perfection.

Of course there was an attempt to say when, quite clearly . It must be rather a predicament for those who make claims, or "attempts", that are forever immortalized in print! I believe Russell was being honest at the time of his attempts, and truly believed what he was saying, otherwise he would have not published it. The fact that he tried to get around it the way he did after his words failed highlights typical human weakness. True, one should expect better from someone who claims to be a messenger, and faithful and wise servant of God, but it wouldn't be the first time human failings manifested themselves in those of whom we would least expect it. That is exactly why, and I know you are on the same page with me on this, we should be cautious about claims and "attempts" made by anyone, even, (or should I say especially?) those at the top. I know, many would disagree and pretty much believe what the Slave says, to the letter. There is another website, run by Witnesses, that is strongly monitored for any negativity against the slave. The other day in FS a sister who I admire and who has her head screwed on right, made a surprising comment. She said that if the Slave told her to do anything she would do it. I am assuming she didn't mean jump off a bridge, because she is not that kind of a person, and has her own views on a few things. So I am assuming she meant "within reason" . But anyone hearing her, who doesn't really know her, could have got the wrong impression. It is a big dilemma to say the least when we know the Slave has erred in the past and can err in the future (by their own admission) and yet we are still supposed to be obedient to it (now, and in the future when we receive "lifesaving instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point"). I was discussing this with my step dad (elder) and he admitted it was a difficult situation. He said we just have to trust Jehovah. Also, and I've mentioned this on another occasion, we will obey God as ruler rather than man, which means when obedience to man would result in disobedience to God, then we don't go there. This applies to any man. Br. Jackson insinuated this also in his ARC hearing. Â

I agree "shunned" is a term we Witnesses don't generally use, but a non Witness will know what it means in practice; that the person in question will be ignored, and avoided. This was clearly encouraged by the video, where the mother ignored her daughter's telephone call. What if it had been an emergency?

Actually I think he's doing really well, if he's still alive. Look him up in JW library, or probably the cd.

I would say it was an unfortunate collection of events, that altogether gave the impression that the society was promoting 1975 as the date for Armageddon. There is no doubt that it was insinuated by some prominent speakers at conventions (in America mainly?) and also those who were "living out their last days of this system selling their houses so they could pioneer" were publicly praised, ( also in the KM). It is no different now, those who give their all in full time service are also praised today, however, those who did this a few years before 1975 was no coincidence, and I believe the praise was worded in such a way that it was no coincidence either. There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe. It didn't help that one of the prominent brothers said in reply to "is Armageddon coming in 1975?": "we're not saying, we're not saying" which sounds like: "well yes of course it is, but I don't want to sound presumptuous". And who could help but not get excited by that famous Charles Sinutko talk where the phrase "stay alive till 75" was coined. All in all I think it has been a good lesson for most: know your Bible, and make sure of all things. And if your (Bible trained) instincts tell you something isn't quite right, then it probably isn't.

I believe you. I personally know a few who did similar things. There is no doubt about it that 1975 got blown up out of all proportions. That is why those who knew their Bible, and put that as precedent over what anybody else said (including the president of the society at the time) call it trusting your own instincts if you like, didn't get burned. But I understand that it must have been very difficult if the majority saw it differently than you. Moral of the story? Trust the Bible and no man. Lesson learned. We've got to move on. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Hahaha, actually on the contrary. I thought your correspondent was in the truth during such crazy times as "organ transplant makes you take up the personality of the donor" and "there are demons lurking in your mattress or any item you buy at the yard sale" and other absurdities. And I was right, those were the 60's. I know you believe things have got crazier, but I don't think they have. No one who is currently in the truth would think that the parody was real. But someone who had left the truth 50 years ago might!

I don't believe you! Or was it someone who had been a Witness a very loooong time ago?

I thought disfellowshipping was a congregational and spiritual measure taken in the case of an individual who is unrepentant regarding serious sin. It seems that many problems result from those who make up their own rules and definitions on this matter I'm sorry, it's my fault, I worded it wrong. I should have said close relatives, or members of a family not living together. The only time when "shunning" is is not applied, under our current interpretation, is with a husband and wife, or children still living at home. I know you and I have talked about this before on here. I know the org. cannot make rules on every situation and instance, but the general principle applies, that disfellowshipped relatives are to be shunned. The convention video last year made that quite clear. I think it's the video I have a problem with more than anything. Elders are usually quite understanding when it comes to relatives. My son visits his disfellowshipped father when he is in Europe, the elders know about it, but haven't said anything. A sister on here commented a few months back that elders in her congregation were counseling her on her association with her disfellowshipped daughter, and she told them that her daughter is going to be taking care of her when she is old. They left it alone after that. From a purely practical perspective I cannot see how shunning children or parents is possible. The Bible tells the children to honor their mother and father, and it has no time limit, as in whether they are still living at home or not. I really believe 1 Cor. 5:11 does not apply to relatives, especially parents/adult children. But of course that's just my personal opinion! Â

Some here probably already know my feelings about shunning family members living outside the home. I completely get shunning those who are not family. And I completely get, and agree with keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. But for the life of me I just cannot feel comfortable with the video that shows the mother completely ignoring her daughter's telephone call. Is that the kind of shunning Jesus, or the apostle Paul had in mind? Yes, I understand Jesus said that there will be times when we will have to choose between him and family. And that if we lose family members for his sake, then we will get many more back. But I have often wondered if that means that relatives will be against us, and will threaten US with shunning unless we forsake Jesus. And then it is up to us who we will put first, Jesus or a family member. The official WT understanding seems to be the other way around, that WE are the ones who have to shun family members if they turn away from Jesus. In context, when Jesus says he came to bring not peace but a sword, seems to support more that family members will be in opposition to Jesus and will make us want to follow them. My husband's son and his wife have made a number of bad life choices and have been in and out of the truth twice, and once disfellowshipped. The second time they made sure they avoided disfellowshipping by staying clear of the elders, not opening their door to them or answering their calls. They became totally inactive 5 years ago. In the meantime, although not fraternizing with them socially, we have helped them with the kids when they needed a sitter, and took them (the grandkids) on trips and to meetings. In other words we kept ourselves in their lives, and kept the lines of communication open with the parents. My husband would even slip them a WT article every now and then he thought they might find helpful. We also made sure we spoke about Jehovah with the grandkids. I don't know whether it is too soon to speak, but the other day my husband's son texted him to say he prayed with his wife, and that they both want to put things right, and come to the meeting on Sunday. They came, and everyone welcomed them with open arms. I don't know if this will lead anywhere, as far as I know they were still smoking last week. Both have done stupid things for which they may have been disfellowshipped for. But because they avoided the elders, they avoided disfellowshipping. Like I said, we were not associating with them to any great extent, but we also didn't shun them. Now had they been disfellowshipped, would we be under obligation to shun them? (yes). And just because they avoided disfellowshipping, members of the congregation were able to welcomed them. It makes no logical sense to me, because their situation was exactly the same as if they had been disfellowshipped. My question is, if a family member leaves Jehovah, does Jehovah expect us to show loyalty to him by shunning that member? Or does he expect loyalty that we stick with him (Jehovah) despite the situation of our family member and despite family members trying to take us with them, or giving us such ultimatums as it's Jehovah or me. Isn't that more what Jesus had in mind when he spoke about bringing not peace but a sword?

Of course I agree with you there. But really, if we are going to be honest, there are various interpretations on what is "good for God", and I think that's where the problem lies. Terrorists believe what they are doing is "good for God".

I won't say what I found when I looked you up The truth is some on here know me better than others and vice versa, right @TrueTomHarley ? Hehee heee :))))

Unfortunately, that's pretty much one of three opening assumptions that I keep in mind too, Hmmmm....I personally think TTH, JTR, Strecko, Space Merchant, and even Witness are genuine in what they say. Includes you of course. Does that make me naive?

My opinion? I believe that Proverbs 14:15 is an excellent scripture. ? Good answer! Typically JW Insider

Yes, of course, but you seemed certain. In any case, I think your question was related to wondering why some didn't survive Armageddon and others did. Actually to be precise, the scenes are showing the great tribulation which precedes Armageddon. If anyone dies at Armageddon it's because they have been executed by Jesus. But there is possibility that some faithful Christians may die during the great tribulation at the hands of God's enemies. The end of the basement video was inconclusive on purpose I guess. Some friends suggested that the soldiers didn't "see" the brothers. Others thought that an angel of Jehovah stepped in. In any case, the depiction of paradise showed other characters from preceding videos (which also appeared in the 2018 video), so I don't think seeing those who were in the basement necessarily meant they had died and were resurrected, it could have meant they survived....