Anna

It is indeed the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This building was originally constructed as a cinema in about 1933 and owes it's styling to a trend termed as Art Moderne, a much disputed offshoot of the earlier Art Deco movement of the mid 1920s. The websites linked will give you information on the status the building now enjoys as well as some historical background.
https://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101385002-assembly-hall-of-jehovahs-witnesses-northenden-ward#.WyYfSaczqM8
http://old.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Culture/Architecture/The-former-Forum-cinema-Northenden

This one is for  @Gone Away . Isn't that the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall?

Thanks . He will do SOMETHING for sure, because he won't let anyone die unjustly. Not only is that a promise, but it is in line with his 4 greatest attributes.

You are using perfectly rational logic here, but you seem to progress it in a way that loses it's sense.
You then assert that the descriptions that  are termed personifications in connection with inanimate or non-human objects are not so in connection with Holy Spirit. That appears to be because you assume that the Holy Spirit is a person, therefore the descriptors cannot be personification. So your conclusion would appear to be flawed here. The descriptors in themselves no more prove the Holy Spirit to be or not to be a person than the they do love, wisdom, fire, tongues or any other object to which they are applied.
Have you noted Isaiah 40:13: "who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord or being his counsellor hath taught him?" AV
I quite like John J. Skinner's comment on this text:
"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues."
 

They can keep it, thanks ?. I'm with Queen Esther on this one. I think it's silly. It's like the 5 year old riding on the back of an orca whale.....there will be some very disappointed 5 year olds.

I'm guessing that in the first picture Angela Merkel is saying: "Did you hear the one about the Japanese man who  . . . . ?"
That could explain the second picture.

Probably by selecting just the right one, you could suggest of any wedding that they will be divorced in two weeks.

 
Remember focal plane shutters on film cameras where you could get dramatically different flash/available light balanced  pictures, depending on whether or not the "x" (electronic flash setting) was set to "at first curtain", or "at second curtain"?
I took a photo of a basketball player, years ago, jumping to put the ball in the basket, with a strong flash, and the combination of blurred available light and secondary flash  at about a 15th of a second, and the photo looked like his white front teeth, trailing the flash image,  were about 12 feet long, in an arc.
I bet some interesting photos could be made of GB member, Brother Stephen Lett, in action.
I used to rely on GB cards, but found that some were typical, and some were anti-typical, and I could never make any sense of the overlapping photos.
For those in Rio Linda, that is ultra-dry Gobi Desert humor.

As a professional photographer, I know that photos taken fractions of a second apart can make people and dynamics look completely different ... and keep my camera on "continuous" shooting bursts 5 pictures to the second. 
Now that "film" is free, with digital cameras when I shoot a wedding sometimes I take two or three thousand pictures for that very reason.  My 64GB SD card will take more than 10,000 high resolution pictures before I have to change the card.  I do take along spare cameras and six fully charged batteries.
A fraction of a second can make all the difference!

The Daily Signal published another photo, taken moments apart:
No particular tension in this one. 

It makes one wonder how much is real and how much is selected just to convey a desired effect.

Oh YEAH??!! Well what about OUR TRUMP?!!!
(No, I am just kidding. I do not regard either of them as “ours,” no any human spokesperson. And I know you do not either; it is but a speechism.)

Yes, If you let them get away with it, the next step will be to single out certain individuals I could name. 

Ooooh! Makes me feel so old! I used to call everyone auntie or uncle, and then I myself got called auntie by the younger ones...that was 20 years ago.....I guess times change...

Yes, because unfortunately so far one has been finding out things from 3rd parties, and most are false,  but just to complicate things, some turn out to be true.  So in my humble opinion it would be better if we were informed directly in the first place, so that we could happily ignore information from those 3rd parties......transparency is the word.
 

You should not think I am speaking specifically of you. (Nor should you think I am not) I am deliberately vague, not pointing fingers because A. I don't want to point fingers, and B. I don't want to come off as cocksure as though I know who to point them at. It is a general observation I make that fits in with the overall topic of this thread, but should not be taken as aimed at anyone specifically.
Moreover, I am considerably grateful to you. You have set me straight on several points over the months and the writings I have released are much better for it.
P.S. I am allowed to put verse in today's vernacular. That doesn't mean you are.  (are YOU the Librarian's favorite pupil, or am I?)

Yes, because unfortunately so far one has been finding out things from 3rd parties, and most are false,  but just to complicate things, some turn out to be true.  So in my humble opinion it would be better if we were informed directly in the first place, so that we could happily ignore information from those 3rd parties......transparency is the word.
 

Balance is always good, and I know that's probably what you are looking for. There will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") to deny the elders assigned to the GB any credibility at all, and there will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") just to remind us where we should ultimately look to always find credibility. And to some, making note of any error on the part of respected elders is the equivalent of apostasy and poison.
We don't disdain any older men or dismiss them for their failures, because we all fail many times, and if any of us were given the same responsibility I dare say we would fail as soon as we started.
But does this mean we should not take notice of the errors of even our most respected elders? How would we know if they meet the qualification "free from accusation" if we always ignored any accusations?
I think the answer is found in the Bible in just about every place where elders and those who take the lead are mentioned. We are asked not to severely criticize, but never asked not to criticize. Notice:
(1 Timothy 5:17-21) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain,” also, “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. Paul instructs a very young elder, Timothy, to be careful about accepting an accusation against an older man, but not to ignore it, and in fact to accept it if the evidence is verifiable. So when Paul goes on to say he should "reprove before all onlookers" those who practice sin, the context is reproving "ALL" even if they be older, more respected elders. In fact, Paul adds the counsel that he needs to observe these instructions "without prejudice or partiality."
What is even more interesting to me, is that the other famous time when Paul mentions counseling older men without prejudice or partiality, he is referring to reproving the "Governing Body." That's in fact, the very context of Galatians, where we teach that those highly respected elders that Paul spoke about here were the Governing Body at Jerusalem. Normally, when Paul speaks of accusing an older man, he does not speak in abusive terms, but when it comes to the Governing Body, all bets are off. Note another paraphrase of Galatians which actually reflects very accurately what Paul was conveying:
(1:6-9) "There are certain people from the Governing Body at Jerusalem that are causing you trouble, and I'm surprised that you weren't able to see through the distortion. Sure, you might say, but they are the Governing Body at Jerusalem, 'Why should we question them?' Because, I say, I don't care if it's we or even an angel out of heaven speaking declaring anything different from the Biblical good news, let him be accursed. Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. (1:10-20 ) Now you might say, but Paul, surely even you had to accept the authority of the Governing Body at Jerusalem, didn't you? How could you have an apostleship if the Governing Body didn't approve it? But that's not true at all! That's crazy! You think it's men whom I need the approval of, or God? You think this message I've been preaching came through the Governing Body? No! When God chose to reveal the good news to me, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. In fact, it was THREE WHOLE YEARS before I even saw ONE member of the Governing Body, Peter. And even then, I only stayed with him for two weeks. And I didn't see ANY of the other apostles, just James. I swear, I'm not lying! Nobody even got to know me around Jerusalem and Judea. (2:1-4) I never met with the Governing Body until I had already been preaching for FOURTEEN YEARS! And even then it was because I had a revelation to tell THEM. It wasn't that the Governing Body had anything useful to tell me! The whole reason I went is because the Governing Body was making a serious mistake. (Galatians 2:4-14) 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they . . .  recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas . . .
Of course, on the one hand we are supposed to be "imitators of Paul." But when it comes to imitating the way in which Paul found fault with the Governing Body, we would more likely hear: "Who do you think you are? The apostle Paul?" So there is probably some lesson and some balance that we are supposed to get out of this message in Galatians. But in any case, it's up to all of us as Christians to remain alert to what the respected older men are saying, because they are needed to take the lead in the example they set for the rest of us. We would never get in any trouble if they told us, this week we take the message to streetcorners, this week we take it to Russia, this week we take it from house to house, this week we give food and supplies to victims of this or that natural disaster, this week we collect coats for the homeless, soup for the unemployed, this week we will clean the Halls, this week we will meet in a convention. The primary thing to watch, just as with the Galatians, is whether the message is being distorted.
(1 Timothy 6:3, 4) 3 If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. . . . (Titus 2:1, 2) 2 You, however, keep on speaking what is consistent with wholesome teaching. 2 Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance.
(1 Timothy 4:1, 2) 4 However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.
(1 Timothy 3:7) 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders so that he does not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
etc. etc.

"The hand of Jehovah is short, is it?" I fear there are many on the Internet who would answer 'Yes'
"Grab 300 men and go take out the Midianites." I fear there are many on the internet who would say: "You're nuts."
'Mum's the word with regard to Rabshekah. Don't open your mouth, you on the castle wall.' I guarantee there are many who would say: "you are just trying to muzzle us to protect your own rear end and reputation. If you hadn't have mismanaged this show, none of this would have happened!"
Did they overreach some? If so, they will have to pull in somewhere and that will not be painless. Maybe when they publish those ubiquitous photo's of husband and wife pulling their hair out grappling with the bills, they are thinking of more than John and Mary Q. Publisher. So be it. All has been for the advancement of the good news. Besides, maybe relief will come from some unanticipated source.
I really worry when I see all the grousing online over the GB. To modify Paul's words to the Galatians: "You are bitching over this, and bellyaching over that. I really fear for you, that somehow I have toiled in vain over you."
The other verse about 'Jehovah preserved them through the Red Sea, but afterwards destroyed some not showing faith?' So the 40-year  trek is a template for today. And it was constant going weak at the knees and crying over leadership that the verses offer up as examples of not 'showing faith.' It's the wilderness slog back then. No one said it was the French Riviera cruise ship.
If you don't fill the Kingdom Halls up, it makes perfect sense to consolodate some, and use the proceeds elsewhere, to build where there is overcrowding, in the home country or overseas, where one dog of an underperformer can finance 100 new Halls.  Of course that will cause inconvience. It still beats pounding sand in the desert. The only enduring objection to this move is brothers getting 'proprietary' and focusing on self.
Christianity is nothing if not focusing on the good of all, and not just one's immediate advantage. We only go to the building twice a week. Is a longer drive truly the end of the world? 
With all the sniping, I worry that there may well come some moment where Jehovah directs something or other through those taking the lead, as he has in the past, and sullen-like, the grumblers refuse cooperation, and it works to their detriment. Sort of like Korah, who refused to be summoned.
From all that I read in verse, God has always cut considerable slack to those taking the lead, and little to those who would grouse over it. When there is correction for those leading, it doesn't come from "the people." What! Witness or someone is going to storm the Bastille, release the 'true annointed" and lead an insurrection to guilotine the ones now presiding? I don't think so. I mean, I can picture her attempting it, but I can't picture God blessing it.
For crying out loud, one can always return to where they get visions that the head guy needs yet another jet airplane so we won't have to stop for gas, or where he decides to guarantee the bottom line with a decree that everyone must tithe.
 

That's the only good reason to share such "items" in the first place. I think it's why Br. Jackson himself evidently mentioned it. All of us could use a reminder now and then about where our true foundation lies. When and if a rug is pulled out from under us, we have a should have a cushion to fall back upon. That "cushion" would be our relationship with Jehovah upon whom we can throw our burdens.

I do recall an announcement, I think quoted quite  publically, as at a district convention or circuit assembly, around 1980, to the effect that Bethel just finished massive expenditures on letterpress upgrades just before the entire industry switched to offset printing, making much equipment instantly obsolete.
I hate to think how of you will hand me my head on a platter with that one.

I think you are right. It was around 1980. And remember that team (group) mentioned in the Awake! magazine you quoted?
*** g84 4/22 pp. 22-23 MEPS—An Exciting Leap Forward in Publishing ***
Industry Changes That Led to MEPS As many readers know, the publishing industry has been revolutionized by new methods of production during the past 20 years or so. Ever since the last century, operators of linotype machines turned hot, molten lead into single one-piece lines of metal type. These lines of metal type, called slugs, were then arranged into pages by a compositor. From these pages of metal type, molds were made for casting heavy lead printing plates that were used on rotary letterpresses. In the early 1960’s, by far the majority of newspapers, magazines and books were printed on letterpresses. Today practically none are. The method of printing with type produced from hot lead became obsolete almost overnight. Any factories using hot lead, if they wanted to continue printing, were soon forced to change with the industry. Thus practically all printing of newspapers, magazines and books is now done on lithographic offset presses. In January 1978, printing on rotary offset presses was begun at the headquarters printery of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York. The first publication was the color-illustrated My Book of Bible Stories. In offset printing the image to be printed is not raised as it is in letterpress, but it is on the same plane, or level, as the surface that surrounds it. This method of printing is accomplished by taking a photograph of the printed page and then using the film produced to make thin offset printing plates. To make these thin offset printing plates to produce My Book of Bible Stories and other literature published by the Watchtower Society, photographs had to be taken of proofs of linotype-produced pages. The film negatives were then merged with negatives of the pictures or illustrations. It was this slow, mechanical, prepress system of producing type from hot lead that needed to be replaced by some faster method. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses investigated how to do this. That investigative "group" was pretty much completely disfellowshipped. T.Cabeen, R.Watters and a lot of their pressroom friends had the nerve to bring rosy reports about offset, plus the very successful experiment with the "Bible Stories" book that their same team had finished. This angered C.Chyke, R.Wheelock, M.Larson, etc. It meant that a younger generation was about to take over. By 1978, there was a bit of a backlash already, and then it also was known that Tom Cabeen, who spearheaded the offset printing work, was a good friend of R.Franz -- and B.Schroeder and T.Jaracz and G.Smalley were already gunning to get R.Franz and friends out of there after the success of the Aid Book. So as this younger group was pushing for further expansion of offset, some of the old guard wanted to prove them wrong and make some more of the biggest investments ever in letterpress. To them it would be like proving Jehovah right and proving Satan wrong. By late 1979, however, they finally took the biggest prize embarrassment (the world's largest letterpress press) off all factory tours so that no one would get a picture of it. It's mention was removed from the printed tour brochure.

This might be another topic, but yes, I noticed that, therefor after the meeting I immediately asked an elder who was sitting in front of me. I said it was odd, why mention two questions and then only talk about one. (At that point my husband fled). He said because the second question would be off topic, since the discussion was about dedication to Jehovah. So I said sure, but without answering yes to the second question you couldn't get baptised. He said the second question would probably get discussed in the next lesson. I told him no, I looked. So he said not to worry, it will come up sometime....

@Sreko Sostar. I think you are basically saying that sincerity is good, but one can be sincerely wrong and therefore at times a posssible danger to others who might be inclined to follow men.
The Scriptures consistently warn us about this , but, thankfully, reassure us that Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ know their sheep, and will ensure that they are cared for, kept safe, and importantly, are forgiven for their errrors. Rom.14:4 is very good advice to keep us focussed on the "more important things", and to avoid the pitfall of looking to men for salvation.

Attendants are schooled in exactly what they can and can't do legally when dealing with disruptive intruders. They may not lay their hands on an intruder when ousting him, but force may be used when it comes to self protection. These are the rules now, obviously was different in the 30's. We had an intruder in our hall a few months back and the brothers pretty much dealt with him the same way as the video. Once they got him outside one brother said firmly "and don't come back" to which the intruder replied moping "now that's not very Christian is it?" lol. They then locked the front door.

That is a good point. Considering what Jehovah has to work with....can only mean it's only because of him we've come this far. I always say that.