Anna

No I don't actually. I remember this:
(1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God’s Word as his holy spirit makes it plain?
But I might add that this did not relate directly to my dedication vow which I made sometime earlier and actually not in those words.
I don't think anyone who has really accepted Christ's ransom and on the basis of this has dedicated themselves to Jehovah God would actually recite some clause like statutory marriage vows or something. Or is that something that you had to do?

And then there are the nice experiences where celebrities become worshipers of Jehovah to the point of abandoning a self gratifying lifestyle in order to help others get to know Jehovah too.
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODIntExpTransformations/pub-jwbvs_201612_1_VIDEO
https://www.newsday.co.zw/2015/06/mateo-hangs-up-guitar-turns-to-god/
 

Well that's an easy one What they changed must have not been proved or supported by the Bible then, even when they thought so at the time. The great thing about changing your mind is it can happen even when you say you will NEVER change it
By the way, the two witness rule does not necessarily mean you have to have two literal eye witnesses to the same instance. The two witness rule can be translated to mean reliable evidence. You will agree that most secular judicial authorities require reliable evidence. Innocent until proved guilty.
Also, there is confusion when it comes to child sexual abuse. In that case there are two judgements, one a spiritual/congregational one and the other a criminal/secular one. It is logical that if a supposed perpetrator is convicted by secular authorities, then that will immediately affect his standing in the congregation even if the congregation felt there wasn't enough evidence prior to that.

 

Really? Is that what you really believe?
I wasn't taking about that, I meant that it was easy for me to reply.
WT "Bible scholars" also have to personally apply what they say.

Well that's an easy one What they changed must have not been proved or supported by the Bible then, even when they thought so at the time. The great thing about changing your mind is it can happen even when you say you will NEVER change it
By the way, the two witness rule does not necessarily mean you have to have two literal eye witnesses to the same instance. The two witness rule can be translated to mean reliable evidence. You will agree that most secular judicial authorities require reliable evidence. Innocent until proved guilty.
Also, there is confusion when it comes to child sexual abuse. In that case there are two judgements, one a spiritual/congregational one and the other a criminal/secular one. It is logical that if a supposed perpetrator is convicted by secular authorities, then that will immediately affect his standing in the congregation even if the congregation felt there wasn't enough evidence prior to that.

Another problem is that we seem always eager to identify with celebrities.  Don't know why.   Why should we rush these things to the site - what is the benefit to us. 
We should take to heart what Jesus  said as to the status of those who love Jehovah and his Son.  They will be persecuted. They are no part of the world and should not court the world.
(Matthew 24:9-12) 9 “Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then, too, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold. 13 But the one who has endured to the end will be saved. 
Paul said the Christians back there were not ashamed of his prison bonds.
"(Philippians 1:7) 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. . ".
(Colossians 4:2-4) 2 Persevere in prayer, remaining awake in it with thanksgiving. 3 At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open a door for the word so that we can declare the sacred secret about the Christ, for which I am in prison bonds, 4 and that I may proclaim it as clearly as I ought to.
( Matt 25:34)34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ "
 
We should identify with those who are suffering for righteousness sake.  (Remember those brothers in Eritrea and Russia  and other places and don't forget to pray for them.)  If we understand the issues regarding universal sovereignty we will understand how we are viewed by Satan and his world.  Our motives for wanting to be in the spotlight and attracting the wrong kind of attention to ourselves should be examined.  Satan would be glad if we attract trouble for ourselves.
 
 
 

 

11. Eat plenty of beans

Anna:
Thank you for the kind complements, but it was in the Boy Scouts that I learned the motto "Be Prepared", and later to "adapt and improvise".  Interestingly enough, in my lifetime I have had several other people make the same comments, that I was born a hundred years too late, and am a poor fit for this century.
  I never cared much for John Wayne the person ... except for his work ethic ... but I do feel a closeness to the majority of the characters he played, in Westerns.
Common cowboys developed the "Code of The West", and Wyoming actually has an official "Code of the West" which the legislature adopted in 2010, as follows:
The legislation designates ten ethics derived from the book "Cowboy Ethics" by James P. Owen:
 1.  Live each day with courage.  2.  Take pride in your work.  3.  Always finish what you start.  4.  Do what has to be done.  5.  Be tough, but fair.  6.  When you make a promise, keep it.  7.  Ride for the brand  8.  Talk less, say more.  9.  Remember that some things are not for sale. 10. Know where to draw the line.  

God said to Rookie: "Go down to Nineveh and kick some butt." 
So Rookie proceeded to board a nuclear-armed ship headed for Tarshish and slipped a few nukes into his holster. In time, God sent a big fish to make trouble. "Die, sucker!" Rookie screamed, as he blew the beast to smithereens.
Rookie approached Nineveh and the gates were closed. So he cut them it two with blasts from his guns. King Ninny wet himself as Rookie put a gun to his temple. "You feel lucky today, punk?' he sneered. "Well, do ya?" King Ninny ran to the intercom. "Attention all Ninevites. Mayday! Mayday! Rookie is in town! Get that sackcloth on!
Rookie slammed his gun back into its holster and popped open a nice cool beer to enjoy under the gourd tree. God said: "That King Ninny got those people to straighten out and fly right. I'm not going to smush anyone."
"Oh, for crying out loud!" Rookie cried in disgust. "Are you wimping out on me?"
 

 

This is just a generally stated, and basically irrelevant, opinion. 
The repentant, murderous, adulterer, David, was still the anointed of Jehovah through his difficulties, and, despite his error, was still spoken of by Jehovah as having a complete heart. 1 Ki.11:4. As a result, he was not abandoned by Jehovah.
This principle holds good at all times for individual servants of Jehovah, and in any endeavour they might seek to engage in collectively at the direction of that same God, Jehovah.
Their united and prophetic declaration of intent is still as worded by Micah:
"For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever." Mic.4:5
This joint declaration is reinforced by their individual determination as described in the words of Habbakuk:
"But I quietly wait for the day of distress, for it is coming upon the people who attack us. Although the fig tree may not blossom, and there may be no fruit on the vines; although the olive crop may fail, and the fields may produce no food; although the flock may disappear from the pen, and there may be no cattle in the stalls; yet, as for me, I will exult in Jehovah; I will be joyful in the God of my salvation" Hab. 3:16-18.
Individually and collectively, all those who serve Jehovah in the manner described above can expect to be treated "In harmony with the expressions of loyal love to David, which are faithful." Is.55:3.
This is an amplified answer to your question raised  @Noble Berean,
And I think it could also be said, in summary, that although Jehovah's servants can make mistakes, Jehovah God may not remove his backing, as long as they respond to His disciplene and correction (as experienced by David).

Does anyone remember watching the first Diehard movie and liked that part where it suddenly dawns on John McClane that Alan Rickman is nothing but a common thief? Well I hate to say it, but through all that talk, JTR is nothing but a common cowboy. He should have been born in the Wild West in the 1800's where he would have come into his own, and nobody would have held it against him. He looks a bit like John Wayne. Ok, I know he was an actor.

Some stool pigeon ratted on Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego and Rookie. "King Neb, didn't you say that when the whole shebang of instruments clanged, everyone must drool over that idol you set up? What a wise law that is! But Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego and Rookie haven't done it!"
"WHAT?!!" King Neb exploded. "Throw them into the fiery furnace. Stoke it up extra-hot first!!!" 
But as the guards approached, Rookie pulled out his six-shooter. "You forgot to declare this a gun-free zone," he smiled sardonically, and blasted the guards into smithereens - filling them all with gaping holes you could put your fist through.
As he twirled his gun and slammed it down into its holster, all the Jews hailed him as their savior. 'Who needs God, anyway?' they said. 

Who even writes that crap?
 

I just got off the plane (from Vancouver) and saw the above when my wi-fi came back on.
It's a fake story, of course. You can still see the picture as it was used in a newspaper article about 2 years ago.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/donald-trump-touts-lifestyle-without-alcohol-drugs/
The earliest appearance of the picture that I found is from December 1, 2015, when Trump was campaigning in New Hampshire. Someone might have thought that the girl looked Vietnamese, so the picture was used again to create "news" about his visit to Hanoi.

Don't ever disappear like that again! We were worried sick! 
I was concerned that you had taken Amos 7:12, which we just covered at the meeting, to heart:
O visionary, go, run away to the land of wherever , earn your bread there, and there you may prophesy. But you must no longer prophesy [about]  Bethel.”
 

Good answer.
Sounds suspiciously like an ex-member I'm afraid..
I heard about that, but I haven't heard about Dr. Phil. It's good to remember that these shows are there to attract an audience and to make money. I am not saying this because I don't believe there is a problem. You probably know by now that I have delved into this area quite extensively already.
There are two faces to the reporting on child abuse. The one we see mostly is the one presented to us by the media which as we know only has limited time and space to cover everything, and sensationalism is what sells. Then there are the facts. Facts are extremely hard to come by because often such information is not easily available. The best kind of facts regarding a particular case are those we can obtain through court transcripts some of which are thousands of pages long, but even then, there are some facts that are inadmissible in court.
Just as an example, here is an extract from a court transcript dealing with two proposed witnesses to testify against the WT. Note how the judge ascertains their value in this particular case (Victoria Boer vs WT 2003). Bare in mind that these two witnesses are two of the "go to" people used by ex-witnesses in cases against JW child sexual abuse, and what they say on their websites or books is considered to be accurate information regarding the policies of JWs:
<During the course of the trial, the plaintiff sought leave to present evidence from two witnesses about certain characteristics or practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in situations similar to this one. I ruled such evidence to be inadmissable, with reasons to follow.
[27] The first witness, Professor James Penton, is an historian and the author of a book entitled Apocalypse Delayed . Mr. Mark, on behalf of the plaintiff, intended to elicit evidence from Mr. Penton with respect to his conclusions about various characteristics of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the way women are treated within that faith and the functioning of Judicial Committees. Professor Penton’s evidence would be based on his research and would constitute opinion. He does not have first-hand evidence. However, Mr Mark did not deliver notice of his intention to call an expert on this topic and did not serve an expert report on the defense as required under the Evidence Act , R.S.O 1990, c E23. That alone is fatal to the plaintiff’s request to call this evidence. The defence would have been caught by surprise with no opportunity to prepare, nor to call its own evidence to rebut the evidence of Mr. Penton.
[28] In any event, I am by no means satisfied that expert evidence of this nature would have been admissable in respect of these matters. It seems to me that I am in a position to determine the relevant facts to the particular matters before me without the assistance of an expert on these matters.
[29] The second witness proposed by the plaintiff is Barbara Anderson, who was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York from 1954 until her recent disfellowship (ejection from the faith). The plaintiff proposed to elicit evidence from Ms. Anderson as to her knowledge of how sexual abuse of children is dealt with within that religion and of cover-ups of abuse within that society. Most of Ms. Anderson’s proposed testimony would be hearsay. The plaintiff argued it would be admissable as similar fact evidence that the actions of the defendants in this case was part of a design, rather than negligence.
[30] The general test for the admissibility of similar fact evidence in a civil trial is derived from Mood Music Publishing Co. v DeWolf Ltd .; [1976] Ch 19, 1 ALL E.R. 763 (C.A.) In that case, Lord Denning stated, at page 127 (Ch)
…in civil cases the court will admit evidence of similar facts if it is logically probative, that is if it is logically relevant in determining the matter which is in issue; provided that it is not oppressive or unfair to the other side; and also that the other side has fair notice of it and is able to deal with it.
[31] The proposed evidence from Ms. Anderson fails this test on every front. First, it is not logically probative of any issue before me. Whatever may have been Ms. Anderson’s personal experience with the Jehovah’s Witness faith, and whatever information she may have gleaned about how child abuse cases were dealt with elsewhere, she has no evidence whatsoever about the Toronto or Shelburne congregations or any of the individuals in this case. Further, even her information about Watch Tower generally relates to that organization in the United States. There is nothing about her evidence that would assist in the very specific findings of fact I am required to make about what happened in the case before me.>
 

The formal ruling according to the court of appeals document dated Nov. 9, 2017 page. 39 (the link to the document posted by Witness above)
"On the record before us, we are satisfied that the superior court's order was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. To the contrary, the superior court has shown great patience and flexibility in dealing with a recalcitrant litigant who refuses to follow valid orders and merely reiterates losing arguments. We therefore affirm".
Therefore the fine stands.

I too watched the ARC hearing and read the transcripts.

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like Jesus

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like Jesus

I have thought the matter over carefully and have decided you are right.
At the next Bethel bigwig meeting, assuming that I am invited, I am going to insist upon a Weapons Servant for each congregation. 
The Weapons Servant will distribute arms to each publisher entering the meeting. Any sissies declining will be subject to counseling. Two elders will do - it is not, in its early stage - a judicial matter.
Publishers will be issued tommyguns, Ministerial Servants AK-47s, and elders Missile Launchers. Sisters will get Glock handguns. Children will be issue squirt guns. 
There is absolutely no question who should be the Weapons Servant in your congregation, but I am not sure of the others. Please forward a list of names. Forward also both scriptures to inspire ones so armed, and scriptures they do well to forget. 

@Elisabeth Dolewka I can't wait for this day when our biggest worry will be what's for dinner!

You need to ask those who make this decision.