Anna

Yes, I was about to go straight to the word PAROUSIA as the next term to discuss, and to me this is an easy one. But it is so ingrained as the basis for related teachings that I will save it for later. So, instead:
GENTILE TIMES
The NWT and WT now refer to this term as "Appointed Times of the Nations." based on Luke 21:24. Comparing the KJV and the NWT, the verse read as follows:
Luke 21:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
NWT (Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
This discussion probably won't deal so much with Daniel 4 directly, however, there are numerous Biblical problems with using a type/antitype fulfillment that uses a wicked, pagan, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar and has him stand in for the Jewish Messianic kingdom under Jesus Christ. The beast-like humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as a lesson for his haughtiness lasts for "seven times" until he is restored to his throne. That moment when he is restored after seven times is supposed to represent how Jesus restored the Messianic kingdom by sitting back down on the throne after seven times. Of course, the beast-like humiliation of a pagan Gentile king as a lesson for haughtiness makes no sense when applied to Jesus' Messianic kingdom. 
But the 1874 chronology that included a 40 year harvest ending in 1914 had failed. For a while the emphasis shifted to a 40 year harvest from 1878 to 1918, but that was not to last either. The Watch Tower Society finally dropped every vestige of the 1874 chronology and went back to this secondary method of reaching the date 1914. They simply noticed that if you work backwards and count 2,520 years from 1914 you will reach 606 BC, so this date 606 became the new date for the fall of the Jewish Messianic kingdom. It didn't matter that there was absolutely ZERO evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in that year, but it appeared to be only about 20 years off, so that was considered close enough. It had already been one of the evidences that Barbour had used prior to Russell, although both of them considered other evidence to be better. In 1876, Russell had used Leviticus as the primary scripture for claiming the Gentiles would chastise the Jews for seven times, and he tied the mention of 7 times in Daniel 4 as a support of the scripture in Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) . . .and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. . .
Later it was noticed that this verse in Leviticus wasn't really about seven periods of time, so the WTS now pinned everything on Daniel 4 (without Leviticus) and it became the new primary support for 1914. We simply said that the 7 times means 7 years, and that 7 years are made up of 2,520 "prophetic" days using 360 days to a year, and 2,520 "prophetic" days must  be thought of as 2,520 solar years (of 365.25 days each). We then say Nebuchadnezzar represented the Messianic kingdom. And, of course, we also needed to start a pseudo-chronology that pretended it was possible to move Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar back 20 years from where all the evidence pointed, so that 2,520 years would land on 1914.
The WTS once claimed that there were about 10 different threads of evidence that all pointed to 1914, and all but one of these came through the date 1874 and added 40 years. The date 1914 now hangs by only this one single thread now based solely on a dream about Nebuchadnezzar's 7 time periods of insanity.
------------
The above is worded truthfully, but clearly in a way that makes it seem unlikely to have been correct. But I'm not trying to say it is impossible. This is just an exercise to see if we have assigned the most likely meaning to it. So is there any way to check ourselves against other scriptures and see if we picked the most likely time period?
Turns out there are at least two scriptures to help here.
One is the verse itself. Note that Luke 21:24 says that they "WILL FALL by the edge of the sword and Jerusalem WILL BE TRAMPLED on by the nations UNTIL the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."
Note that this action of Jerusalem falling by the edge of the sword is is in the future, and it is directly connected to the trampling that is also placed in the future. We know from history that Jerusalem fell by the edge of the sword in 70 CE, and that Jerusalem was therefore and thereby trampled on by the nations.
The Watch Tower publications have a different view of this scripture. It is understood by the WTS to mean that Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations from 676 years prior to 70 CE and for another 1844 years after 70 (until 1914). But, if that was true --and important-- why didn't Jesus use the proper tense. Both Aramaic and koine Greek have tenses that cover ongoing action as opposed to simple future action.
Discussions of specific language and tense cannot be definitive, however. There may always be more than one way to read something, and our only goal here is to find evidence for what is likely.
There is another verse however that gives us an indication of an actual time period to attach to these "appointed times of the nations."
When Jesus said "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled" it would have been nice if he replaced those "times" with an actual amount of time. That would surely get us on the right track. In other words what if Jesus had said
: "the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem until seven times are fulfilled."
or since "seven times" are the same as "seven years" and therefore 2,520 days, we would even accept:
"the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem, the holy city, until 2,520 days are fulfilled"
Or since 2520 days is the same as 84 months of 30 days each, we would accept:
"the nations, they will trample on the holy city for 84 months."
Well, as most of already know, Jesus actually did say something like that when he gave the Revelation to John, and this should clear up why we attach a length of "seven times" to the "times of the nations." In Revelation 11:2, Jesus says:

(Revelation 11:2) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Imagine the joy that the Watchtower Society must have felt when it was discovered that Jesus himself had attached a time period to the Gentile Times, and thus cleared up any question about the whether or not it was "likely" that the Gentile Times were actually 84 months long as the Watchtower claims! (84 x 30 = 2520)
In fact, this scripture was the basis for so many Bible chronologists attaching a length of 42 months, or 1,260 days to the Gentile Times. Many of those commentators, especially the ones in the 19th century, therefore attached a period of 1,260 years to the Gentile Times. This included John Aquila Brown, about whom the Watch Tower publications said the following:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
These statements contain some misleading and false ideas buried within them. For example, John Aquila Brown did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it ended. Did Russell clearly discern the beginning and end dates of the period? Russell vacillated between 606 and 607 and finally decided it must be 606 for the beginning --- even though he was about 20 years off from the evidence. Russell vacillated between 1914 and 1915 for the end date, then even indicated that he was willing to dismiss the whole chronology as potentially laughable for a time, and finally came back to 1914 and 1915 after he saw the Great War begin in 1914.
The Proclaimer's book also says that "He [Brown] did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24."
That statement is absolutely false. Brown always denied any connection between the "seven times" of Daniel with the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24. And that's at least partially based on the fact that he knew that Revelation 11:2 had already attached a different time period to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
There are a lot of other funny or ironic claims and ideas to look into from this section of the book. This happens whenever someone tries to present a partially cleaned up history of their own chronology beliefs that already failed in the past.
Even the very definition given to the term "Gentile Times" failed in 1914. And that's the main point of what this discussion is looking for. It was the very meaning that the Watch Tower publications had given to the term Gentile Times that was tied to all the expectations that 1914 and 1915 would bring. All 100% of those expectations failed, and therefore the definition given to term "Gentile Times" must also be considered unlikely.

QUICK REVIEW
So, we have these six words or terms from Matthew 24 (Mark 13 & Luke 21) for which we are trying to evaluate whether we have chosen a more likely meaning of the term, or a less likely meaning in order to arrive at the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine. It might even be possible to trace how some of the terms were apparently forced into their special meaning after the decision was made to declare that the PAROUSIA had indeed already begun.
BACKGROUND
Most of the persons who set dates for the visible return of Christ in the 19th century just stopped setting them as soon as a date didn't pan out. But some had invested so much time and effort into it that this was apparently impossible. Hundreds of thousands paid close attention to the 1843 date set initially by William Miller. When it failed another 1843 date was set, then an 1844 date, and Miller quit setting dates. (Russell would later claim that this showed that Miller was one of the 'foolish virgins whose lamp ran out of oil,' because Miller had given up on setting dates.)
But others who had invested their life and reputation on it waited right up to the last day of 1844. Then, of course, new "adjustments" were discovered that put Jesus return in the 1850's, then the 1860's. But by now there were only tens of thousands paying attention. The typical thing to do was to show your faith by focusing on the very next date, but N H Barbour, after some study and decisions in 1859, decided to skip all those expectations for the mid-1860's and go straight to his 1873 date. (He did not settle on 1874 until 1873 failed.) 
This means that when the 1860's dates failed, Barbour was already set to gain a following for the 1873 date. Less people were setting dates, there were less to choose from that were still based on the Millerite foundation. (Miller himself had mentioned the possibility of the 1870's date, half a century earlier.) When it failed in 1873, Barbour had spent as much of his life as Miller had on these dates. He changed it to 1874, and when that failed he was truly depressed. One of his contributors, B W Keith, went back to some teachings that had been promoted in the 1820's about a two-stage parousia. The first stage would be invisible, and Benjamin Wilson who also believed in a two-stage parousia had published the "Diaglott" as an aid to supporting this idea. (Later the Watch Tower Society--Russell--bought the rights to reprint Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott so that most available copies today have the Watch Tower's name in them.)
Barbour credited Keith with the two-stage idea in his tract ("magazine") and it got Barbour back on track. Barbour spoke about possibly picking up an extra 5,000 of the Second Adventists each month as new subscribers. He fully expected at least 20,000 of the current number of Second Adventists to subscribe. In 1877, Barbour convinced Russell of the urgency of this chronology, because just 3.5 years after the presence had begun, they expected Christ's bride to be changed and to have gone up to heaven in 1878 while "lesser" Christians awaited heaven at a later date. So the Russells sold off most of the assets of their largest company so that Barbour could distribute his tracts and booklets more widely.
When 1878 failed, subscribers dropped, and trouble also broke out between Barbour and Russell. Barbour blamed it on disagreements with Russell about money. Russell blamed it on a doctrinal disagreement. (Russell had "crazy" views about the ransom that are no longer considered valid, and Barbour had his own "crazy" view.)
By mid-1879 Russell had convinced three major contributors to Barbour to come over to his own new magazine. Russell also sent out an offer to all the Barbour subscribers to switch over to the Watch Tower. And it was also timed to pick up the current subscribers of a Second Adventist magazine from California as that magazine was just running out of money and discontinuing. So Russell printed up 8,000 copies of the first July 1879 issue. In 1879, there was still an urgency again for the next major date, because Russell expected the Bride of Christ to be changed in October 1881. (3.5 years plus 3.5 years from October 1874.) Lesser Christians would remain on earth until around 1914, when the Harvest would be complete.
Because of the failure of 1881, the number of subscribers remained low. (8,000 had been an overestimate.) But the book series, Divine Plan of the Ages (1886), The Time is at Hand (1889), and Thy Kingdom Come (1891), were extremely popular, "proving" the 1874 chronology with charts containing pyramids and diagrams, and pointing to great expectations between then and up to 1914.
Everything was invested into this idea of a two-stage parousia that started invisibly in 1874 and would manifest itself most visibly in the years just prior to 1914 (later adjusted to the year and months just following 1914).
----------------
Most people here are probably already generally aware of this background information, but it is difficult to understand why parts of the 1874 chronology lasted nearly 70 years -- until 1943/1944 without this background. (My father remembers believing in 1874, but says they were mostly calling it 1878 just before he was baptized.) It also can help explain why it was easy to just transfer the explanation of Matthew 24 from an 1874 chronology over to a 1914 chronology when that became necessary. It still remained a "two-stage Parousia" in every case.
Will pick up on another one of the terms in the next post.

Let's see - get up, kiss wife, shower, shave, eat breakfast, pick a fight with JTR - what has he posted lately?

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I was trying to say similar, but I think you have expressed it better. 2 Corinthians 1:4 applies here. But those who need comfort won't get it if everyone pretends it doesn't exist - and it really doesn't for most people. Who in the congregation would even believe you, or even want to? The answer is: nobody - unless they have seen and been through it themselves. Fortunately for me, I knew very strong and zealous brothers of many years who shared their experiences with me which was of great encouragement because as you correctly stated it provided "relief I wasn't going crazy."  But they wouldn't go talking about these things just to anybody in the congregation. It's too outside the realm of experience for most. We are encouraged to overlook the "imperfections" of others, which is scripturally loving and appropriate. But what we are alluding to is much more than some garden variety imperfection. These are often disfellowshipping offences and other forms of badness. 
I wouldn't think everyone reading this would believe/agree with this thread. But for those of us who have had to come to terms with some pretty hairy stuff, your expressions above ring true - spot on in fact. 

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

My XFriend, an Elder, Pioneer and well liked in the Congregation showed this attitude to me. As a Health Counselor and Bible Student for over 60 years I tried my best to see his wrong attitudes. I saved his life once unknowingly. Yet, as you see many will manifest more so in this time of the end. Sadly, he left Jehovah was expelled. Knew the Truth over 24 years yet his attitude towards those in authority was very wrong for he said he "knew to much." Who is perfect? Yet, Jehovah is using imperfect men to fulfill his will and purpose. We live for Jehovah or we die for Jehovah. Many will come and go especially now so close to the end. Hear news? Disregard it if not Up building as we KNOW this may get worse. Let Jehovah expose those wicked as he did this man. As Christ is the Head of the Congregation we need not worry but let go, have patience and matters will be discovered and dealt with. Trust in Jehovah the God of Tender Mercies and Christ the Exemplar of our faith. Times will get worse, take your stand now! Yes, it was very hard for me with this ExFriend and ExElder. 
Jehovah rewards the faithful. If they repent and turn back Jehovah will wait. If not read the rest of 2 Peter 2. My favorite Moto is; "Have no fear, Jehovah is near." May you have Peace and Blessings from Jehovah! 
 
The Second of Peter 2:1-3, 8-22.
2 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you.These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2  Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.     3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping."
 
 8 for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them. 9 So, then, Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people to be destroyed on the day of judgment, 10 especially those who seek to defile the flesh of others and who despise authority. Daring and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak abusively of glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring against them an accusation in abusive terms, out of respect for Jehovah. 12 But these men, like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed, speak abusively about things of which they are ignorant. They will suffer destruction brought on by their own destructive course, 13  suffering harm as their reward for their own harmful course. They consider it pleasurable to indulge in luxurious living, even in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes who revel in their deceptive teachings while feasting together with you. 14 Their eyes are full of adultery and are unable to desist from sin, and they entice unstable ones.They have a heart trained in greed. They are accursed children. 15  Abandoning the straight path, they have been led astray. They have followed the path of Baʹlaam the son of Beʹor, who loved the reward of wrongdoing, 16  but was reproved for his own violation of what was right. A voiceless beast of burden speaking with a human voice hindered the prophet’s mad course. 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a violent storm, and the blackest darkness has been reserved for them.18 They make high-sounding statements that are empty. By appealing to the desires of the flesh and with acts of brazen conduct, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for if anyone is overcome by someone, he is his slave. 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”
How the Voice of Strangers Is Heard Today
Deceptive reasonings. The apostle Paul states: “Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings.” (Hebrews 13:9) What sort of teachings? Since they can ‘carry us away,’ it is clear that Paul refers to teachings that undermine our spiritual balance. Who are voicing such strange teachings? Paul told a group of Christian elders: “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30) Indeed, today as in Paul’s day, some individuals who were once part of the Christian congregation now attempt to mislead the sheep by speaking “twistedthings”—half-truths and outright lies. As the apostle Peter puts it, they use “counterfeit words”—words that resemble truth but that are actually as worthless as counterfeit money.—2 Peter 2:3.
Peter further exposes the methods of apostates by stating that they “will quietly bring in destructive sects.” (2 Peter 2:1, 3) Just as the thief in Jesus’ illustration of the sheepfold does not enter “through the door but climbs up some other place,” so apostates approach us in stealthy ways. (Galatians 2:4; Jude 4) What is their aim? Peter adds: “They will exploit you.” Indeed, no matter what apostates may say to the contrary, the real aim of intruders is “to steal and slay and destroy.” (John 10:10) Beware of such strangers!
 

It is one thing to speak frankly and honestly (rather than live in "pretend world") while also contributing to the spiritual welfare of our brothers and sisters. Some of our brothers and sisters in fact do experience some pretty bad stuff and they need validation and understanding. They won't be helped to cope by pretending it doesn't exist or a lack of transparency or even punishing them for exposing things that are clearly bad. On the other hand, it's another thing to have an agenda. An agenda to only tear down and direct people away from Jehovah's organization. That paints with too wide a brush and denies all the good that is done and can yet be done.
One conspicuous omission I see from all these cowardly nay-sayers, sniping from behind the safety of a computer screen, is: What are you offering that is better? What religion are you in that is so much better? Let's examine your beliefs publicly and see if it stands the same level of scrutiny you hold us to. While we are obedient to Christ's command to preach the good news world wide, what are you offering? Let me guess: Bingo, bake sales and bazaars...?

This system of things has failed its young people in countless ways, with the predictable result that they are committing suicide in record numbers. Suicide rate of that age group has tripled since the 1950's. One Millennial site puts it: "Every generation uses the ceiling of the generation before them to become their floor to build off of. Instead, it feels like our generation is dodging the crumbling remains of the ceiling exploding above us." (allgroanup.com) Exactly.
That being the case, it is misguided to try to impede the one organization proclaiming the solution from the Bible. If they ceased doing it, there is no one else to take over.  So plain does this seem to me that I have sometimes crossed a line and asserted it is done for exactly that reason: to prevent the proclaiming of God's kingdom - remarks that have not gone down well in all quarters. But it seems either that or a cutting off of one's nose to spite one's face. it seems either that or the 'unreasoning animals' of Peter's description who act contrary to their own interests. 
I used to love giving the talk: 'Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom.' I led off with the by-now-trite illustration I've heard of how treasure-seekers dig through the dirt to find the tiniest bit of diamond, and how foolish it would be to reverse it - dig through the diamonds to find the tiniest bit of dirt. I then stated that, nonetheless, we would be doing exactly that for the next 45 minutes, since, with any time in the faith, you are going to come across some dirt,, and if you are not prepared, you will be floored, for it is the one place you do not expect to find any.
Then I reveled in tearing things apart for 45 minutes, both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I hit my stride with Revelation 2 and 3, considering absolute basket cases of congregations, guilty of every horrible thing, and yet they were still congregations. The idea was to encourage the audience to have a realistic outlook on what they will always eventually encounter anywhere there are people.
Arguably, mature ones here who sometimes veer into discussing organizational flaws are not impeding anything, but by 'shining the bright light of journalistic truth' are encouraging everyone to shape up. Though that sometimes works, as often it is as when you shine a bright light upon cockroaches. They don't stop being cockroaches when you do that. They just go somewhere else.
Arguably, everyone is doing just fine here, and it may even benefit some opposers to hear frank admissions of faults by persons of good motive. However, it is another thing entirely to 'smuggle' confidential stuff, whatever that may be, so that Jay can put it on his website. He has pretty well demonstrated where his interests lie.
JTR, the strangest of all birds to me, regales us tirelessly with war scenarios about the boldness and courage and glory of men who SACRIFICED THEIR ALL in the greatest theater of existence. He would be shot in a heartbeat as a traitor if he carried on there as he does here. Does he think the military generals that sent thousands into battle were above the petty miscues that he lambastes others for here?
All this is not to be unkind to the young woman in question, who I did not know. She is caught up in the spirit of the age, most likely, that holds that revealing faults is somehow a sacred quest - that only good can come of it. Even Jay's breathless banner conveys his enthusiasm for tearing down: it is a SPECIAL REPORT! Just like the banning of the entire religion merited a SPECIAL REPORT on the broadcast site. It is not hard to see whose interests he serves.
It's regrettable, of course, but hardly a special report, as though  she was a freedom fighter lost in the most noble of causes. Otherwise, every downed soldier would also merit a special report, every millennial suicide would also merit a special report, and whoever they last engaged with would merit special attention as the villain of our age.
Can they get insular at Bethel? Can there be intrigues? Of course. It is the common bane of people. But I am loath to offer counsel because A.) I'm not qualified, B.) I don't have 5% of the information they do, C.) it's not my place, D.) Even when I identify a problem, that does not mean I have any idea how to fix it. The world's obsession with firing people for miscues results only in inexperienced clods running show - Jesus fired only Judas, E.) I don't think such matters are fixed though the democratic means of public journalism. It hasn't worked that way in the general world; drawbacks are as numerous as successes, and on balance, it is no better than hoping you get a nice king and not a mean one. F.) I tend to think these matters are self-correcting. If it truly is something from God, as I conclude it is based upon the proclamation of truth that they alone spearhead, then entities other than me will take care of troubles. 
 

Unfortunately, that wasn't just true back in the '80's. I have seen the same thing and so have others - and it's not just true of NY Bethel. The trick for those of us who have lived through and seen these lying machinations is not only to stay faithful to our dedication and respect for the authority of our organization (while being more than aware of things that might destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters), but to help them to stay grounded despite the faith-testing/destroying machinations of men who have something to hide, and who will lie, plot and scheme to protect themselves. To try to help our friends have faith that overall, we are a spiritual organization, not just the political entity proud ambitious men would turn it into.We expect this behaviour in the world, but when men in authority ("angels in Jesus' right hand") act as if they are in Satan's right hand, then most would have a hard time to rationalize what they may see or even experience within the context of their faith - it's just too "out there." But prophetic warnings in Gods Word make clear that this type of stuff will happen - (not just could happen).. It's just that people think it's "negative talk" or something that "allegedly" happens to someone else until it happens to them.  
I have a lot of respect for mature, battle-hardened/wisened Christians who in a spiritual sense, are like the valiant mighty men of old who faced dangers from outside and within in defence of pure worship. Although I love also my "weaker" in faith brothers and sisters who would rather act as if these things can't/don't exist or even acknowledge it, I wouldn't want to be like that - in "pretend world." I have always wanted to know the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - even when it is uncomfortable - at least it's real and I know who/what I am dealing with. We can easily accept there will be wickedness from Satans system. Not so easy when it's from within "Jehovah's organization." But those who have this "tested quality of our faith" are a living testimony that these things are survivable, doable, and they can even maintain their joy in serving Jehovah stronger and wiser than before. 

Is this ever not the case?
Any report of suicide evokes sympathy. People are left to wonder of inner turmoil and so forth. Still, any mental health professional will say that the inability to move on after a perceived negative experience puts one at increased risk for self-harm. People who can't 'move on' in life suffer more often than those who can and do. What we have here, assuming matters are objectively reported - which I do not assume because I have seen Jay's other posts and he has made his intent clear - is a correlation augmented by a possible trigger, but hardly cause and effect.
Does anyone think when Kathy Griffin held aloft the severed head of the President, it caused no ripples in her Republican (if they were that) family? She is trying to destroy what they hold of paramount importance.
Of course, I knew neither the young woman, nor the circumstances, nor what 'mission' she was on when she was thwarted. (I suspected the latter is exaggerated by Jay becasue he exaggerates anything he deems harmful to the visible organization) Therefore, I can only speak in the abstract.
To a degree that may be true, but 2 Timothy 3:1-5 also must be factored in - how persons in the last days would be not open to any agreement, impossible to satisfy, fierce, disloyal, betrayers, headstrong, and so forth. Many today have no interest in reform but seek only to destroy. Divorce it from the field of religion for a moment, for it is clearly seen anywhere - the urge to tear down with no corresponding interest in building. Obama suffered it. Trump suffers it
It hardly follows that a group that merely wants to protect confidential information is villainous because someone takes her own life when she is stymied trying to extract it.

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I know this is you pet subject @JW Insider . Maybe you should send this to the writing department at HQ .
I look forward to reading more when time allows,  and perhaps contributing my tuppence worth 

I don't see what clergy penitence privileges has anything to do with what's under discussion. If a person has reasonable suspicions that a child may be in danger, or if there is evidence that the child has already been a victim, then that person can go to the police, regardless of any confession by the perpertraitor. But really, the other problem is, lack of transparency that WE  have a problem at all, regardless how small in comparison, in our own words "one molested child is one too many". 

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I don't see what clergy penitence privileges has anything to do with what's under discussion. If a person has reasonable suspicions that a child may be in danger, or if there is evidence that the child has already been a victim, then that person can go to the police, regardless of any confession by the perpertraitor. But really, the other problem is, lack of transparency that WE  have a problem at all, regardless how small in comparison, in our own words "one molested child is one too many". 

Sure, I'll be happy to start out.
By the end of this discussion we should be able to go through the whole chapter and give a kind of evaluation score to whether we think we have a more likely doctrine or a less likely doctrine. This isn't about whether the meaning we have given a certain idea is impossible, just a way of measuring if the idea is more or less likely.
I'd propose that we have currently been driven to accept a LESS LIKELY definition of the word GENERATION. (Example: "the 1914 generation refers to two groups, where the first group included those whose lifespans overlapped with a second group quite possibly around a point in 1992 or even later, such that we can now add the lifespan of the oldest persons in the second group to the 1914 generation until they might die off in the near future, or perhaps much later, such that the 1914 generation can now include a reference to people born, say in the 1970's or later, living nearly until the year 2050, or even closer to the year 2100.") This has already been discussed elsewhere.
I don't think the definition we give it in the latest Watchtower articles and JW Broadcasting videos is impossible, but it seems very  unlikely. In my experience very few WItnesses will attempt to defend it Biblically. The ones who do make the attempt, have offered scriptures that actually make a much better fit the more common definitions of "generation."  (Exodus 1:6, Genesis 50:23; etc)
Without belaboring the possibility that the current understanding is somehow POSSIBLE, I think almost everyone in the world would agree that it is a LESS LIKELY definition that we are using, than any of the common definitions. (Especially since it can be found in no Bibles, no Bible dictionaries, and no dictionaries.)

There seems to be be several ways to read Matthew 24 (and parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21). This has been noted by many Bible commentaries through the years, and even C. T. Russell admits some things about Matthew 24 that might surprise a lot of Witnesses today.
The primary discussions about Matthew 24 revolve around the question of whether it was ONLY about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., or primarily about the final Great Tribulation on the whole earth, or was it about BOTH judgment events.  (Even if this were primarily about 70 C.E., of course, it would still provide principles to guide Christians in every era and generation, especially about the expectation of the judgment event. -- 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Cor 10:11)
Over the years, the Watchtower has proposed slightly different ways to read Matthew 24, including splitting it up into two and sometimes three parts, where the first part referred pretty much equally to both a "minor" fulfillment on the first-century generation and a "major" fulfillment on the "final" generation that sees the final judgment event. Then, a middle portion of the chapter was often said to be primarily for the first century without direct application to the "final" generation. Then, later parts of the chapter were said to be meant primarily or sometimes ONLY for the final judgment event on the whole world. None of the differences in these variations was very significant in the overall picture, because in general the Watchtower has seen the greater "major" important fulfillment of almost all of Matthew 24 to be tied to the final generation that sees that "parousia" or "presence."
If we assume that the primarily fulfillment of Matthew 24 was intended for the final generation, then the secondary discussion is about whether we have correctly understood what Jesus meant with respect to the sign, the parousia, the conclusion, the generation, etc. So, that's the basic discussion being proposed here: that we look carefully at Matthew 24 and see if we have not perhaps tried to fit unlikely definitions of words so that we could make our specific doctrine fit.
Of course, it is quite proper to look at unlikely definitions of words if the meaning derived becomes the only possible way to understand a passage and the only way in which it properly fits the context and related scriptures. But what if the more likely definitions of each of the words also produces an overall meaning that fits just as well with the context and other scripture? What if accepting the more likely definitions of words in the chapter resulted in an even BETTER fit overall for the rest of the scriptures? What if it were seen that trying to make a doctrine out of the unlikely definitions actually created scriptural contradictions?
What I'd propose is that we try to let scripture explain scripture wherever possible and then try to give an honest appraisal of whether or not our "special definitions" we have infused into the meaning of several words in the chapter really makes more sense than the more common definitions of these words.  We could start with general ideas that we can all agree on (hopefully) and then check those ideas as either more or less likely to fit the ideas created from other parts of the chapter that depend on special definitions. I think this will help us evaluate whether we have built a doctrine upon the more likely or the less likely meaning of the words that Jesus used.

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

There is no denying that the mishandling of sexual abuse by the JW organization has brought a great reproach upon Jehovah's good name. The response by the GB to these scandals brings even further reproach. I worry that many JWs are completely unaware of how these ongoing legal disputes are destroying public perception of our religion.
It was bad enough that many elders did not report claims of sexual abuse to the police, but when court cases exposed the abuse to the masses the GB should have immediately apologized to the victims for the mishandling and taken steps to make things right. Instead, they made excuses for the abuse and never took accountability. The inability to accept wrongdoing shows a major ego problem and a callousness. Furthermore, the GB has kept JWs in the dark by not addressing the sexual abuse cases. Shouldn't the GB feel a sense of duty to keep JWs informed about a major issue within the organization? 
I worry that saving face is more important to the GB than the safety of our brothers and sisters.

A few more thoughts on Irvin Zalkin
Irvin Zalkin knows that his cases involving Child Sexual Abuse of JWs are from time periods when there were no clergy mandatory reporting laws. He knows that in California, Clergy mandatory reporting laws did not come into effect until 1997. He knows the law. He knows why certain things were done or not done. But he is intentionally keeping that information away from the general public because he knows that if he explained these, he would not have such a sensationalist impact on his viewers/readers. It is very evident from what he says, especially in his partnership with Reveal reporter Trey Bundi, that he is hoping for an audience who is largely ignorant of the law, (regarding Child sexual abuse in these specific cases) and therefore he can slant his arguments in a particular way for maximum impact on the emotions. He is like a showman. He is very good at that I must admit. He cannot afford to explain things objectively. After all, he is a lawyer. That is why I say it’s all about exposure for his business, all about money. If you believe any different then you are being very naïve Ann O'Maly. Which is surprising for an apparently intelligent person like you. But I can understand that in this regard, it is not expected that everyone is versed in the law and legal matters. I am not an expert either, however, the difference between you and me in this case is that I have done my research, whereas you have done none or very little, as is apparent. You are quite happy believing everything that Irvin Zalkin and the media serves up.
The sad thing is, and some don't realize this: Victims who go through the grueling procedure of trying to get justice for what happened to them years ago, run a high risk of losing the case, and losing money. Of course the Lawyer will get paid regardless. We don't know if Candace Conti even got a cent, after paying off her Lawyer fees. It is quite possible she ended up with nothing.

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

TTH:
Well, I am big .. 290 pounds, and tall, also .. 6'-6" tall ... and I have over the past five years or so posted about 7,000 comments on the archive ... but I do not care if anyone likes my posts or not, but I do smile when they do.
That is to say, I do not write for anyones' approval.
As far as a reward goes .. even when tied to a stake, and they stack brush and firewood around your legs, the reward for telling it like I see it ... is self respect. 
We are all, to the best of available information, going to die anyway .. so why fret about it.
Years ago (1969) while driving from Virginia to California, I stopped in Georgia at a random Piggly Wiggly convenience store to buy some milk and Hostess pies for breakfast, and some guy said to me "Hi Tom!, Howareya doing! Still taking photographs?" ( I used to be a professional photographer at that time.). It so startled me I mumbled something I do not remember. I remember the store  but I do not remember anything about the person except he was male, and about my age.
In 1977 Warren Publications put out a fictionalized version of my life's adventures, ( The Rook ) but other than getting the working  clothing correct, not much else had any relationship to this spacetime continuum. I still have the black vest and pants and hat, but nothing fits anymore except the hat.
I lament that if someone does visit parallel universes, that aging does not stop, and is cumulative.  Bummer!
Back when I had a beard, and looked quite a bit like former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, during the Reagan Presidency, I  was in a Home Depot in North Carolina, and I saw a black couple staring at me and talking to each other, and I grinned, knowing they were going to come up and ask if I was C. Everett Koop.
Sure enough, they came up to and asked "Are you Tom Rook?" . 
That disoriented me.
I replied I was, but had NO IDEA who they were. They told me, but I forgot ... but they said they had met me ten years before at a Kingdom Hall at "somebodys" wedding .. who I also forgot.
I guess I am just not a "people person".
JTR
.
.
 Oh .... and thanks for letting me live rent free in your head.
.