Anna

You are a thinking person. I'm sure that spending time in prison for reasons of conscience or religion will do that to you. I don't believe that Jehovah will forget the good works of all persons and religious persuasions. And I'm not one who believes we as Witnesses are handling every possible Christian ministry in the world that helps attract persons to Christianity. We are Christians, and we try to be the best we know how to be. We handle a particular ministry of evangelizing and teaching spreading knowledge and appreciation of the Bible, and of doing good for one another, especially those related to us in the faith, and we look for others who will share our particular faith and hope (paradise earth, etc.). Others may handle some of the charitable ministries in a better way, we constantly try to improve our teaching ministry. This takes nothing away from Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry or Tyndale or Wycliffe etc, who were key players in the past, and I would not doubt that there are many  individuals who excel at Christian teaching today, too. As you know the Watchtower often quotes from scholars and experts in many fields, including history, theology and Biblical studies, manuscripts, ancient languages, etc. 
 

Even if everything we taught doctrinally was incomplete or tainted with some error, I could still find truth in this statement just quoted. You can find waters of truth at your local Kingdom Hall, because there are people of varying backgrounds and age and former beliefs who have come together to learn and be motivated by Christian activity and a Christian lifestyle. It's the "heart" (desires/motivation) of the individuals that makes it pure. Morally, we are a very clean people, and we give morality a very high priority.
There is a kind of joy in the oneness of purpose of the worldwide association of brothers and sisters. Racism and ageism is reduced to a minimum. Anyone would be willing to help out any other one. We are built up and encouraged by the experiences of others. In dire circumstances, we know we will be offering extra support to our brothers, and we can expect support from our brothers. We have come very close to recreating the first-century Christianity (even with its expectation flaws) in the twenty-first century.
Of course, I know there are specific exceptions here and there to all the good things we could say about Witnesses in general. And if we have been in other churches, religions or ideological associations, then we probably know that many of the things we cherish about the worldwide brotherhood are available even in a secular social club or band of brothers in an army platoon. But I think ours can go a little wider and deeper, meaning that we have support in a wider array of life situations and circumstances. And as to "depth," ideally, we should be willing to protect one another, or even give our life for one another as if we were all members of the same literal family.
As to doctrines, 85% or more appear absolutely correct to me. We still thirst for Bible knowledge from trusted sources. We assemble not just for the association, but because we hope to learn something new or be fortified anew by something we have nearly forgotten. But it's true we are often ready to believe all things to the point of excessive gullibility. Yet, if it were really true that the negative/positive ratio were 85%-15% then we'd be 'of all men most to be pitied.' But even on a day when I'm most ready to "make sure of all things," I can still run through one of the most recent Watchtowers and find very little that moves the needle on my "Beroean" sensors. I think it's our duty to point out where something seems unreasonable to us (or if the "food" might be spoiled now and then) but this should have almost no effect on our relationship with our brothers and sisters.
I'd love to see us remove what appears to be some of the more obvious errors from our doctrine, and that's my focus on this forum of course. We don't have that ability to discuss on jw.org or in the congregation.

I thoroughly enjoyed the last Watchtower on Sunday gone.  That was food for a full grown man.  I like how it was drawn to our attention that God rewarded Jesus and Mary in incremental and unexpected ways, and how we have to do things to be known by God and not seek our reward now in this system of things.  It gave us similar hope that when we serve Him in spirit and truth we can also look forward to blessings that we did not anticipate. As his memory is limitless we can rest assured that he knows the good things we do daily and will not forget the love we showed by giving us sweet surprises.  I am sure Mary might not have thought that her speech would be recorded in his Word for all eternity.

That is what I mean. Or metaphorically speaking. there is "more than one way to skin a cat", (or rabbit, or pineapple, depending on your sensibilities).
I think most of the observations made regarding quaint and peculiar eccentricities of behaviour exhibited in what JTR terms as the "85% of irrational cluelessness" are covered by Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 13:9-11. Unfortunately, as a body, we are pretty inept at judging when we actually make the transition to "manhood".
There is sad anecdote regarding this scripture for me. In the 1970's, a very prominent, "anointed" brother left the organisation and by weird coincidence came to live in my street. He had now become a medical doctor. I met him in field service and he did not reveal he was a former witness, and as he now was heavily bearded, I did not recognise him until we had conversed for a while. I realised he must have been associated at one time, because he had what I call post '75 syndrome among other spritual difficulties. I figured out who he was and he said he enjoyed seeing how long it would take for a witness to realise he was an "ex" as he put it. He liked observing the reactions. 
Anyway, he used 1Cor. 13:9-11 as his reason for parting company with Jehovah's Witnesses. He felt that error could be always justified as the "traits of a child". Interesting viewpoint I thought. Sadly, he died of HIV related complications within a few years.
I don't share the quantiative, pareto-type assessment JTR makes, as I think the quality of what is sound in our belief far exceeds in proportion that of what is queer, odd and Ripleyesque. But it does seem to indicate that far more than "proof" or "evidence" is at work here.

I remember "back-calls" and other terms. It still slips off my tongue from time to time. Never heard those instructions before.  Thanks for the quote from the 1943 magazine.  I remember also about the 100 hours for vacation pioneers some years later - the 1950s and '60s.
My mum used to pioneer a lot, along with looking after five children, as well as being a housewife and a seamstress.  I always remember this incident when I think of vacation pioneering in those days along with the high hour requirement. (Imagine calling 30 hours high after those figures of yesteryear.)  My eldest brother was kind of "hard-ears". Mum had special instructions  for him before she left home to pioneer. On one occasion she told him not to leave the house and not to fly any kites. He not only flew the kite but he flew it from the top of the house.  When he saw her returning from pioneer service  about  a few hundred yards off, he jumped from the top of the house  to the ground and pretended he was not outside. (My Mum did not leave discipline to my father like some mothers - she was a strict disciplinarian.)  He got lashes along with the sore feet. (Of course they were other reports from the siblings about other things he did.) After his disobedience, she would take him with her - so he frequently had to put in the same hours as she. He got baptized at 13, I think.  He was faithful for some time, but after marrying a non-Witness he became inactive.
Occasionally he refers to her as one of the "real" Witnesses, a term that makes me smile. He asked me recently why there are always older people in the field service - where are the young ones?.He knows that in his day the young ones were out religiously every weekend and often during school holidays, no excuses posed or allowed.
 
Back to the idea I posited.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either you set your own goals, knowing your circumstances, and you give God your best, or your goals are set by someone else.  Agree it is legalistic to set hour requirements for others.

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.
One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.
For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

Wary may not be completely the right reaction because it sounds a bit untrusting and tense  (wary= feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.)
Jehovah counsels us appropriately I feel. 
Apply Psalm 146:3 : "Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation."
Balance that with Ps 4:4: "Be agitated, but do not sin. Have your say in your heart, upon your bed, and keep silent"
and 1 Cor.13:4, 7: "Love.....believes all things."
Then we will be happy.  ☺️
 

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.

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.

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.

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book.
I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975.
But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking:
The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925.
This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.
 

It never ends.
Just when you think you have seen it all, heard it all, and read it all .... it NEVER ENDS.
 

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.

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.

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...
 
 

@James Thomas Rook Jr. I don't think it would be of concern to them, but they will react as they did in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Texas, Haiti, Japan, etc. it won't be much of a difference with Hurricane Florence since the faith group does relief work to help their own, first, and go for anyone else, as is done before with them, and like before any relief work they do will be flagged and removed and they will be spoken of as the faith group that did nothing - has I made mention of last year. The biggest concern for everyone is that this is a slow moving storm and slow moving means catastrophic damage, as in if their are plant facilities in the area, of which can raise the danger level even higher, and slow moving also increases the chances of little to no survivability with all that water in it's wake.
 
Other than that, natural disasters such as earthquakes even even hurricanes like this are signs and the Bible speaks of such things.
But let us not get carried away like others who claim the hurricane, as done before, it God's anger against mankind, the Christians who stated this a while back for Hurricane Irma because the hurricane looks like a skeletal figure's face (The Grim Reaper) are in error, the same goes for those speak of conspiracy in regards to said hurricanes, including this one.
Also I'd like to add that $10 million was transferred from FEMA to ICE, I don't have sympathy for both of them for their actions, as well as The Red Cross who made fool's those half my family originates from.

I understand that it is being discussed at World HQ running a special issue of the Watchtower, explaining the "signs from the heavens ..." that Hurricane Florence will be picking up sharks from the Atlantic Ocean, and dumping them in front yards, back yards, and on old peoples homes.
If at the Warwick GB conference room this is actually discussed, and it gets 67% of the votes of the GB, then this will be official "New Light".... "New Truth".
Absurd, you say?  No, No NO!
It follows well established patterns of reason and logic for over a HUNDRED YEARS  There is actually NO RISK to this as the credibility gap is WELL exceeded by the gullibility fill. 
Add to that is that if we refuse to believe it, we can be disfellowshipped for Apostasy, and that adds MASSIVE believability  in the real world .
Stay tuned to see if this report is true, or merely a satire.
 

Gravity Electricity Wind .mp4  
... and remember, when you vote for what is true .... vote early, and vote often !

@Anna I guess so, makes one easy to deduce, that's like finding out Bruce Wayne is the Batman, minus the shock value, for in this case, we already know who is behind the mask.
On another forum, if you have multiple names/accounts, one can be called out by an admin/members or even banned, or given warning. at the other Christian forums I use to be on, someone got blasted by an admin on the entire forum. Mainly when you have some folks who agree with themselves or liking their own comments from the other account.

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

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