The French Speaking Baptist Church of Stratford is now located in the former Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall at 494 Milford Point Road.

[Witness]

12 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

I won’t dignify a response when the opposition believe they have inherited some kind of truth by the God of this world.

Not being inspired or infallible then becomes a different position from the one given by this dedicated opposition. The GB actions seem to prevail on not accepting anything “inspired” by evil works. Can the same be said about the opposition? 1 John 5:19

Can anyone claim infallibility aside from Christ? Weren’t all of the first century Christians infallible? Were they not chosen by Jesus to continue his fine work? I don’t see where this argument can be applied.

I will not hold an endless debate with those that oppose the org. I’m looking for meaningful and structured alliances with spiritually awake individuals.

For the true "newbies" out there:

We are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”. 1 John 4:1  This is our responsibility as Christians.  Jesus gave us guidelines to know if an anointed one speaks from the Spirit of Christ or from another spirit.  He told us that by their fruits, their teachings, we would know if one is inspired by the Spirit of Truth.  Those who remain in Christ would produce fruit that “lasts”, that remains, just as the teachings of Christ have remained to this day. 

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.  John 15:16

This means one’s teachings would not rot away, or be changed out for new “truth”.  It’s a pretty simple guideline that we can either embrace, or blindly ignore.  If we choose to ignore it and eat “fruit”/teachings from an anointed one that has a history of producing failed, “rotten” teachings, then…we make Jesus out to be a liar.  Matt 7:17-19  We put more stock in what men say, than what Christ has told us. 

To receive “God’s instructions” would require inspiration from Holy Spirit.  Yet, this is what your GB stated, and how they lean on a fabrication called “beliefs clarified” to justify their rotten fruit.

 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. w17 February p. 26-27

Was God instructing your leaders in these failed doctrines?  Would Christ who is Truth, produce imperfection? Ps 18:30; John 14:6

This statement certainly demeans Jesus Christ’s teachings, since he did say a faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food that would last, as long as that one “remains” on the vine.  John 15:1-4; Luke 8:15

"Don't work for the food that perishes (that needs continual adjustment)  but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set his seal of approval on him."  John 6:27

So, the “opposition” would be making excuses for his failed teachings, and convincing the majority with false promises that no matter what, Jesus will give his approval.  We know from scripture that this isn’t the case.

 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. ³⁴ Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ³⁵ A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. ³⁶ But I say to you that for every idle word (“inactive,useless”) men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. ³⁷ For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”  Matt 12:33-37

Good things from the heart of an anointed one, are “good fruit”, that remains.   “Evil things” are deceiving, “rotten fruit” that an “evil slave” would expect one to tolerate – with no questions asked.

We choose to uphold Christ’s teachings about testing each bit of “fruit” offered us by anointed ones, or we listen to men who can have a negative influence on our spirituality by failing to provide lasting fruit/teachings.  If 8 men, who have convinced you they are “faithful” and “discreet”, but are not faithful to these simple guidelines given us by Jesus Christ, then their “inspiration” is from another spirit. They have lost  God’s Spirit.  Matt 24:24; 2 Pet 3:17,18; 1 John 2:19  The apostles were led by Holy Spirit because they were “inspired”, and they acted upon it.   Holy Spirit cannot continue to “dwell” in an anointed one’s heart and not inspire them also…to speak truth, as defined by God, and not men.  1 Cor 3:16,17; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Thess 4:7,8; 2 Tim 1:14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sean Migos]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

For the true "newbies" out there:

We are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”. 1 John 4:1  This is our responsibility as Christians.  Jesus gave us guidelines to know if an anointed one speaks from the Spirit of Christ or from another spirit.  He told us that by their fruits, their teachings, we would know if one is inspired by the Spirit of Truth.  Those who remain in Christ would produce fruit that “lasts”, that remains, just as the teachings of Christ have remained to this day. 

I appreciate your intent of enlightenment. I see several areas of doctrinal error of your own. I can see where the conjecture as JWinsider frames it can easily be applied to you and him. I don’t believe Jesus’s words to be imperfect but the more understood application of Jesus had to deal with imperfect men. Then it becomes a difference of what you mean by your application.

In this case, I will agree with JWinsider, when you and he, state to test the spirit. Jesus meant the spirit of false prophets. Like those Pharisees who knew the law but refused to apply it properly. Those who change the spirit of what Christ taught us, can be summarized by exact knowledge and understanding. These are good areas to test the spirit.

The question I would ask both of you? How did God touch your heart personally to know when the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed or manipulated scripture in order to be accused of such?

Where would the scriptural understanding of “having nothing to do with them” be applied to such a tested spirit here? Ephesians 5:7-9

JWinsider earlier comment suggested that all of us are faithful and wise Stewart's with the same consideration of the faithful and discreet slave. I can expand that with suggesting the Elders have the same capability. That was the impression with the comment. 

I don’t know which Bible is being understood here, but Scripture itself has a different take on such understandings.

When I test the spirit within these comments, then I have to honestly remain in Jehovah’s Holy Spirit by not accepting such conjecture, using JWinsider's own words of determination of what is truth and what is made up to be seen as the truth.

Sometimes we tend to focus on one scripture rather than the entire Bible.

This is in effect the reason the Governing Body of Jehovah’s witnesses don’t submit to their own understanding but wait upon Jehovah’s Holy Spirit to guide them.

Given that understanding, people should submit themselves to the letter of Jesus' teachings without having to use conjecture as a format to implement a personal understanding that would change Christ's teachings. Romans 12:1-3

Now I can debate Titus 3:10, but it will not yield fine fruit. I did not enter this site to have endless debates on perception or conjecture as per JWinsider own words.

[Srecko Sostar]

@Sean Migos you are not "newbie".  :)))

33 minutes ago, Sean Migos said:

How did God touch your heart personally to know when the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed or manipulated scripture in order to be accused of such?

Please go to G. Jackson testimony before  Australia Royal Commission. He said something that whole word was heard - you are free  to disobey GB instructions and doctrines, if you, as one of JW member, find in  your personal reading  of your own Bible something that your understanding and conscience  tell you is different than GB has said. 

Of course, you will be dfd because of that at the end of a day :))) 

BUT he, as Legal Representative of WT, JW  and GB said, you are NOT obligated to obey Them IF YOU THINKING DIFFERENTLY. In other word you are free to Think in Critical way of Thinking. In other words - to testing spirits -  this wording is for those who have issue or problem, if  hear words "Critical Thinking"

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Sean Migos said:

The question I would ask both of you? How did God touch your heart personally to know when the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed or manipulated scripture in order to be accused of such?

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.

This actually turned out to refer to literally over ONE HUNDRED teachings that we were now admitting had no scriptural basis. All at once, we were DROPPING at least ONE HUNDRED TWENTY teachings.

Then there were 80 more of these types of teachings, which were reviewed in a 1981 Watchtower

*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.

I knew that we had spent hundreds of hours studying these in Congregation Book Studies from the time I can remember my very first Tuesday night meetings. Then, at Bethel, in 1980, I became a study partner with a Gilead student who lived next door to me on the third floor of the 107 building. My own set of Gilead Notes (I have 2 full sets) contained MONTHS worth of study of these specific kinds of teachings, and some students fretted that they could not keep track of them all.

But what caught my attention in Brother Splane's talk is that they were being compared to the Pyramid doctrines under Russell and Rutherford. Brother Splane admitted that Brother Bert Schroeder (died 2006) had already come up with this change and had provided the current definition now being published in the 2015 Watchtower.

*** w15 3/15 p. 9 par. 7 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype.

*** w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.

The questionableness of such doctrines had already been discussed in a Watchtower from back in 1972, where even though it came very close to admitting just how questionable such teachings were, the decision was made to keep teaching them.

*** w72 8/15 pp. 502-503 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. For example,. . . .[long example skipped]
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No.

The real answer was obvious, but before that article was complete, the writers had found some twisted reasoning to be able to keep these dozens and dozens of false teachings that we had come to accept from old traditions. Brother Splane gave the example of the brother(s) who really loved the Pyramid doctrines and how they had to have the humility to suddenly change their viewpoint when Rutherford dropped it. (Rutherford said these teachings were ultimately from Satan.) It almost sounded as if Brother Splane was saying that these "antitype" doctrines could not be changed until certain people who still loved them had dropped off the scene. When he mentioned that this "new" way of looking at it had already been stated so well many years earlier by Brother Schroeder, this was another hint that this change had been in the works for quite a while.

[Sean Migos]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it should have been understood as doctrinal refinement. The organization makes critical refinements when something new is learned. Witnesses understand such logic. What is unacceptable is a concise view of doctrinal error when a revision is made as an error, much more than a new approach and understanding. 

Hebrews 6:1-4

“Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.  And this we will do if God permits.”

 

There are no detrimental changes other than a different approach to Bible understanding

 

*** w15 3/15 p. 9 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***

A SIMPLER, CLEARER APPROACH TO BIBLE NARRATIVES

⁷ If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible. How so? In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. Is there a Scriptural basis for prophetic pictures? Yes. For instance, Jesus spoke of “the sign of Jonah the prophet.” (Read Matthew 12:39, 40.) Jesus explained that Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish—which would have been Jonah’s grave had Jehovah not preserved him alive—was prophetic of Jesus’ own time in the grave.

 

This is what Jehovah's witnesses should be familiar with. Just as Scripture stipulates to think like God, we should think like the Governing Body. Walk a mile. 

I will stick with the understanding provided by the GB. I cannot in good conscience submit to such conjecture from past understanding, with a modern view that removes the value of past generations.  Each generation is unique. 

 

[Witness]

21 minutes ago, Sean Migos said:

This is what Jehovah's witnesses should be familiar with. Just as Scripture stipulates to think like God, we should think like the Governing Body. Walk a mile. 

Oh my.  It would be life threatening to think like the GB; to walk in their shoes, taking their twisted path of continually seeking "new light", and prominence over their spiritual brothers.  Matt 24:48-51  That would be glorifying men; and you've taken it up another notch by suggesting our thinking should not only be like God, but like the GB.   Simply,  blasphemy.  

We should think like Christ.  We should walk only his path.  1 Cor 2:16; 1 Pet 2:21

 

A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
    the way for the Lord;
make straight in the desert
    a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be raised up,
    every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
    the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
    and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”  Isa 40:3-5

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it should have been understood as doctrinal refinement.

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.

For example, there was a change that happened in 1943 that changed the time for Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914. In the long run that is just a minor adjustment of 40 years. But it doesn't mean that 1874 is still a true doctrine. 536 BCE for the destruction of Babylon was changed to 539 BCE, even a smaller change, but this doesn't mean that 536 BCE is still a true teaching. Yes it's a type of "refinement," but a "refinement" that must still admit that the previous teaching is false. 

For example, the Watch Tower publications once taught, under Russell, that the "superior authorities" were not the secular authorities, but were God and Christ. Then, in Rutherford's time, the WT changed the view to just the opposite. Then, in Knorr's/Franz' time, the WT changed the view to the opposite again, so that it was right back to what Russell had taught. The Watchtower treated this as an adjustment, a refinement, and even claimed that there were advantages to having been wrong (without using the word "wrong" of course). This is clearly a matter of just not wanting to admit that a false doctrine was ever "false." Haughty people don't like admitting they are wrong, so this gives the impression of haughtiness.

So was Naboth a prophetic type of Jesus or the anointed? Is it the case that this is true, and that the only reason we don't teach it that way is because it's too complicated to tell the whole truth? If it's still true, then someone should say that it's still true and we won't hold back from telling you "all the truth"? Of course, if it's actually a change in "understanding" then we are admitting that the former understanding is wrong, therefore it is no longer true. As you tacitly admitted, as Witnesses, we can never admit to having had a false doctrine. So we use different words. False doctrines must be re-worded as "refinements" "improvements" "clarifications" etc.

We see this type of explanation in the very articles that explained the changes to "types" and "antitypes" which had no Biblical basis to be treated as prophecies. The article appeared not to admit that these had ever been wrong. Only that the:

• "faithful and discreet slave" was becoming steadily more discreet.
• discretion was leading to "greater caution"
• these older explanation were unduly difficult to grasp
• the details can be hard to remember and apply
• the former explanation tended to obscure more important moral lessons

None of those points actually admits that the former explanations were wrong, only that we were now being more careful, more cautious, more discreet, more simple and clear. Watch very carefully how this was done:

*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 pars. 10-11 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper.

Notice how even the idea that we no longer understand it the same way is worded in such a way as to be very ambiguous about whether the previous understanding was actually wrong. This is one of dozens of such ambiguous wordings, and I can show you cases where this exact kind of wording apparently "fooled" the translator into creating inconsistent (less ambiguous) results in Simplified English, French, German and Greek. And I'm sure there are several other examples I don't even know about.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

To fully understand what has been going on, you need to read George Orwell's famous book "1984" and pay particular attention to the "new light" that the main character Winston Smith was charged with archiving.

It might even be a good idea to see the movie, also, which is not as good as the book, but it is a terrific movie.

The chilling conclusion to the book is a goal that most Witnesses have been taught to seek, to have peace in the Congregations, and harmonious unity of thought.

One of the most serious and heartbreaking paragraphs in all of human literature.

" He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

 

“Oh mother, tell your children

not to follooooo True Tom’s decorum.

Spend your life in sheer futility,

Battlin’ villains on the World News Forum”

@divergenceKO

[Sean Migos]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.

A fine example of conjecture and not following scripture. Humility starts with each individual who obeys Jehovah. What kind of humility can be said about causing division among the brothers regardless if it’s out loud, in private or in secret? Since you are being frank about the opinion of dishonesty and false doctrine. I shall be frank as well. How can you be a true witness?

 Honesty determines how to follow Jehovah’s servants. Just like ancient Israel, just like Jesus. Especially when Christ left clear instructions about spiritual leaders.

 Anna and you mentioned an individual unknown to me. Anna mentioned something about a trio. Are you, Anna and ComfortMyPeople considered that Trio?

 

Galatians 6:6-10 American Standard Version (ASV)

 6 But let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10 So then, [a]as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith.

 When the Governing Body makes adjustments, that should be a good thing for all witnesses, it’s done in accordance with scripture. When the GB receives enlightenment by God’s Holy Spirit, they communicate it to those that are taught God’s word. Then Jehovah is the one that “teaches” his faith servant, not man as your conjecture implies. Romans 14:11-12, John 15:5-8

[Sean Migos]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

To fully understand what has been going on, you need to read George Orwell's famous book "1984" and pay particular attention to the "new light" that the main character Winston Smith was charged with archiving.

I found George Orwell to be an interesting, read. Have you read the clergyman’s daughter? How about Animal Farm, Burmese farm, coming up for air, Keep the Aspidistra Flying.

 Right now, I’m reading “the ministry of truth” in the biography of George Orwell’s 1984, by Dorian Lynskey

[divergenceKO]

7 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

I found George Orwell to be an interesting, read.

It is an interesting read. Can you find the parallel on how people debate error with prophesy about the Watchtower, and yet Mr. Orwell made a predication in 1946, that no one seems to debate.

It is of no value my brother to debate those that are inclined to see things their way. Jehovah's disapproval is upon them.

Take to heart Paul words.

Galatians 1:7-9 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

7 that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the good news of the Christ;

8 but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be!

9 as we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!

Romans 16:17 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

17 And I call upon you, brethren, to mark those who the divisions and the stumbling-blocks, contrary to the teaching that ye did learn, are causing, and turn ye away from them.

There is no reason to be disappointed for the things you read here. The purpose if you continue is to understand how the world thinks. Accept what you cannot control. Except those that oppose the Org. They have been placed by the God of this world. Their actions must take place in order to fulfill prophecy.

I recommend, you don’t antagonize the true owners of this forum. TrueTomHarley and JWinsider. They are the ones to decide if you stay or get removed for promoting the truth or give negative reviews. That’s been the experience of others I know to have taken place.

People here can’t see beyond what is logical. If you see a group of outsiders defending each other or supporting each other by the emoji, they can’t see when other groups of people can’t do the same. Then it becomes not one group but a single person. I call that hysteria. There can be no other groups of dedicated brothers to speak the truth. Only here is the truth spoken by the opposition.

Continue steadfast and strong.