The Problem With Research - Part 2

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-01 15:53:11

The irony of this is that WT knew back in 1922 that all historical evidence pointed to 587 BC, not 607 BC, but they chose even back then to disparage the messengers rather than accepting the message.
The WT can be read on this web site:
https://archive.org/details/1922WatchtowerArticlesOnChronology
and click on "PDF" to read it.

Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-01 17:18:44

Thanks for the research on the article . The only thing that used to make me think that perhaps they were correct was that in 1914 the first world war started and it seemed to tie in with matthew 24 . I used to present the talk IS IT TIME FOR GOD TO RULE THE WORLD but in the end refused to give it even if requested . Besides the fact that the 607 date was wrong when we look at the formula for arriving at the date its an obvious fabrication . Come on its like a patchwork quilt we have to connect daniel 4 s 7 years add 2 verses from revelation 12 then add ezekiel 4 1 chronicles 29 is added somewhere and then add the magic number to a spurious date of 607 . Or subtract it from 1914 to support 607 . Is that any way at all to read the bible to cherry pick verses to create a cocktail of bible "truth " . ?.. and in doing so provide a message that not even the apostles knew or jesus himself really .

• Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-02 05:29:55

  What really used to get me though about that talk . That i had just "proved " that 1914 was the date of jesus return and then applied that to revelation 11 v 15 the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of his lord and christ and he will rule forever . Come on that date is over 100 years ago jesus rule is supposed to usher in a new world in which righteousness is to dwell . Its obviously wrong

  • Reply by Out of Africa on 2016-01-02 13:17:40

    As I Witness, I would have answered with: "We know Jesus is ruling as he is overseeing the preaching work and gathering righthearted ones for salvation".
    Now that I have learned to think a bit more critically, it has occurred to me that it is obviously impossible as so many have already died due to the long delay in bringing kingdom rule to the earth. I used to think that even though the first ones have died off already, the greater numbers gathered would boost the preaching work to gather in the final vast multitude, but that is also being proven false with the latest yearbook figures.

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-01 17:52:49

The problem is when the entire authority structure balances on a belief, and the belief is questioned. This challenges authority. And authority will always win and crush out of existence anything which stands in it's way. When you believe you have the authority to judge the sheep, and take disfellowshipping action against them over a difference in understanding, how is this not beating the sheep into submission? It really is "unity at all costs" as bought out in the Walsh trial. The sad results of all of this are starting to surface. Pride is most certainly before a fall. The changed generation teaching is simply an inability to swallow pride, albeit at an organisational level. If they had changed to the correct understanding of 587 BCE years ago, and realised the great tribulation had only one application to the destruction of Jerusalem, they wouldn't have had to stretch the generation into an overlapping monstrosity. By the way, an interesting side point is that Michael the archangel is not Jesus, a view taught by William Miller to prop up his speculations, which was not accepted by his contemporaries. If only he had listened to what was pointed out to him, he wouldn't have had egg on face in 1843. History repeats itself. What a tangled web we weave.....

Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-01 18:01:52

Just thinking about your comments about ed dunlap getting shunned was that about the time when new light came through about those verses in 2 john must of been quite handy that at the time . I would love to know how jehovah communicates these messages to them .

Comment by Lightflashup on 2016-01-01 20:33:50

Very good article, it expose the lies that have been told to us for years and the effort made to cover it up, it is no wonder why they try to silence those that try to ask the right questionside to get to the truth, I thought this was what they were about , discovering and teaching truth but I guess we have some issue to face..............

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-01 21:14:05

Even more serious than the flawed teaching about 607 BC is what it stands for, which is that it's the first link in a chain of reasoning that ends with the claim that 1914 began the last days. A large part of that "chain" is the interpretation of Daniel. Each link in that piece of the chain is flawed. They have been completely mistaken about Daniel. (A number of other commentators have detailed why this is so.) They then point to 1914, with their "prize" piece of evidence being the outbreak of WWI. Yet, a clear analysis of ALL the so-called signs shows that they did not occur, or are events that have occurred throughout history. No one explains this better than Carl Olaf Jonsson's book "Sign of the Last Days When?" which I highly recommend.
When all this is considered, there is basically not a shred of evidence to support WT's claims. It is a house of cards that will collapse with the slightest nudge.
These YouTube videos from Watchtower Examinations I found to be interesting and informative on this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkHyUaSuV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qOhvhqWdXU

• Reply by Willy on 2016-01-03 11:12:35

  Hello brother TRA, you write: they have been completely mistaken about Daniel. Can you tell me where I can find more about the right explanation, I like to read about Daniël.
  Thank you,
  Willy

Comment by AR on 2016-01-01 22:51:18

Great follow up, like the quotes from" freedom of the sons"book, yes I've heard old recording of talks, we're prominent brothers almost give their right hand that 1975 was the year of the great tribulation. If only brother Macmillan was around, he would of warned the brothers of being fixated on dates, as he himself learnt the hard way, that's its none of their business. Just recently a humble bro who was appointed, sent me a text, asking if I could help him understand, and explain in a simplified way how we get to 1914. I remember at school when doing a math equation, I got the answer correct, but the process was wrong!! The teacher was baffled, however, in this case, the stakes are higher, as it involves our very relationship with Jehovah, and Jesus said don't stumble even the least of his sheep. I hate pointing the finger, but I think there is a tendency for people(including those of the GB) to get rigid and caught up in their beliefs of what is right and wrong, and they lose sight of what Gods Word really teaches. Especially to those mentioned in this article.

Comment by jabez on 2016-01-01 23:19:53

setting dates is a very tricky house of cards the only way to continue is to keep bringing out new dates in the hope that the failed dates are forgoten very soon new calculations will start being made as to the age and life expectancy of the younger ones within the overlapping generation

Comment by Out of Africa on 2016-01-02 03:54:53

No doubt by Divine Providence, we have an abundant of research tools we can use independently of WT. I personally find e-Sword extremely useful. It is available for free download at http://www.e-sword.net. Once installed, open the menu tab ‘Download’ and select whichever commentary, bible translation, dictionary etc etc you want to add.

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-02 11:06:13

  Thanks for the tip. I had never heard of e-Sword before your post above. It looks like it has a long history, about 15 years, and is quite a mature piece of software. They have had the program downloaded millions of times, so evidently it is well-liked. It looks like it could be very useful and helpful.

  • Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-02 14:28:57

    Hi, Bible Discovery is good as well. It allows for free bible downloads but also some shareware bibles. Basic tool is free but I purchase the full tool. I like it very much.

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-02 09:40:47

Great write up on this, thank you for your hard work!
I lived next door to Charles Ploeger's brother Stan a missionary CO and a very good knowledgable brother for many years. (Was also my PO at the time) I met Charlie a couple of times just prior to the 80-81 purge over this issue he seemed to be a troubled brother and was disfellowshipped shortly there after. His brother always told me "he just lost his mind" and that his privilege of being Raymond's right hand man went to his head, of course now I understand why.
I have tried to locate (Charles) him in the past does anyone know if he is alive and where he may be?

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-02 14:43:28

  Anon,
  Interesting story, thanks for sharing. I'm sure he was troubled.
  Who of us aren't troubled when we begin our awakening?

  • Reply by Jesusjeffrey on 2016-01-02 18:27:43

    Just curious Sopater.
    Were you one of those who “taken (took) speculation, conjecture and false expectation to family, friends and neighbors.”
    Or where you back in the early 70’s a Beroean asking “But where are these teachings found in God’s Word? “ and refused to teach this speculation?
    If you refused, I commend you.
    Although well researched and put together, I think your argument may be over simplifying the issues raised.
    I wonder if anyone agrees with me?
    JJ

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-02 18:47:19

      Jesusjeffrey,
      Your question regarding Sopater's view in the past is impertinent, especially on a public forum. Best to avoid this type of question.
      Meleti

      • Reply by Jesusjeffrey on 2016-01-03 00:55:14

        Hi Meleti Vivilon
        I disagree with your assessment of my question. I would like to defend myself because I think your censuring of me was rough and unfair. My question was well meant and pertinent to me. True it may have been revealing but my intent was not to expose hypocrisy rather open up the subject to a more subjective analysis. I will say no more though. You should start a section were people can vent without consequences. I don’t feel I can respond freely or even contribute unless it’s backslapping.
        JJ

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-03 06:33:13

          Jesusjeffrey:
          If you wish to "vent without consequences" there are many forums on the web that would welcome you with open arms. By all means, avail yourself of them. Those who frequent this forum do so in part because they wish to avoid the climate created by such venting.
          As to your question: what you meant to convey may well have been something other than what came across to your readers. When commenting, please bear in mind this inspired counsel:
          “Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.” (Col 4:6)
          I recognize that this can be a challenge for many. One of the stages we go through as we awaken is anger; anger at being deceived for so long; anger at having wasted so much time in the service of men rather than the Christ. But God is patient because he does not wish any to be destroyed, but all to attain to everlasting life. (2Pe 3:9) Those words were directed not to the world at large, but to the Christian congregation.
          So when you comment, please endeavor to make your words palatable to others. Our effort should always be to build up. I'm sure that you could have expressed your idea in a way that would not be taken personally.
          As for your desire to open up "the subejct to a more subjective analysis", I'm not sure what you mean but would be interested to learn. It is for just such situations that Apollos created www.discussthetruth.com, so that anyone can open up their very own topic and have it researched and analyzed by others. Of course, there are site guidelines there as well.
          As for your final statement, please understand that you are free to point out flaws in anyone's argument or reasoning. However, we should never let our discussion become personal.

          • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-03 09:46:51

            Hello Meleti,
            I have been reading this exchange between you and Jesusjeffrey. With all due respect to both of you and to Sopater, Meleti, you need some counsel on this matter. I will do my utmost to offer it in a kindly and respectful way, but you need to listen. OK?
            First things first. When you tell Jesusjeffrey that questioning Sopater’s view in the past is impertinent, you are wrong.
            The Beroean Pickets web site is filled with impertinent people asking impertinent questions about impertinent subjects. Why, you yourself are impertinent for even hosting this web site. The questions raised here would get any current JW disfellowshipped. You aren't just impertinent - you are MR. Impertinent. (I am tempted to go so far as to say you are the King of Impertinence. But, I can't picture you as having kingly ambitions, so I will limit my accolades to just "Mr. Impertinence.")
            Don't get me wrong. I don't disapprove of impertinence. Quite the reverse: I believe it's absolutely vital if one is to maintain a good conscience.
            Picture this scene: You as a JW walk into the KH and ask the elders, "Why have you been lying to me?" Their response? "Such impertinence! Get out!"
            Personally, if I were going to hold Jesusjeffrey accountable on grounds of impertinence, I might pick on his forum handle, which seems to tiptoe in the realm of disrespect a little. But would I object to his questions? Do I? No.
            You know, Meleti, as people get older, they come upon realizations they'd never have imagined in their youth. You wake up one day and say to yourself, "Wow, I have become my own parents!" I have concerns that this happened to you, and not in a good way.
            Truly, do you want to become the caricature of the stern schoolmarm shaking their finger at the naughty classroom (or worse, a Catholic school teacher/nun with a ruler and a threatening look)?
            "Best to avoid this type of question"? Seriously? That's what the elders in the judicial committees say just before they threaten someone with expulsion for daring to ask questions. Is THAT who you want to be, after all we got through to be here?
            To employ an overworked but still useful example, when the Wizard of Oz says to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, are you going to follow along, and tell everyone else to do the same and not ask impertinent questions? Or, would you respond with, "H--- no, I will ask the questions I want to ask. I don't need your permission, thank you very much." Meleti, you should take care not to become the very thing you purportedly stand against.
            To me, the sentiments of Luke 12:-13-14 apply: "Then a certain one of the crowd said to him: "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." He said to him: "Man, who appointed me judge or apportioner over YOU persons?"
            In the same vein, Meleti, why are you interceding in behalf of Sopater? As John 9:21 put it, "Ask him. He is of age. He must speak for himself." I don't see Sopater mounting any objections to the question. Maybe he is busy and didn't see it yet, or simply didn't care one way or the other. He is an adult. I do hope he sees this and responds, one way or the other, because it's important to resolve this issue.
            Meleti, I *know* you mean well, and want to keep the conversion "civil". That is an entirely commendable sentiment. But you should not attempt to overstep your bounds and try to become the conscience of other people, especially over matters that are not that critical or serious. That's what got the Pharisees in trouble, and what's getting the GB in trouble. Is that the sort of trouble you wish to bring upon yourself as well?
            Besides, let's get down to the real question here, which is, what exactly is just so impertinent about the question? The definition I found for "impertinent" was, "not showing proper respect; rude; not pertinent to a particular matter; irrelevant". I would submit that, on that definition, Jesusjeffrey's question is not impertinent, because it is neither rude nor irrelevant.
            Meleti, I personally have been rude on this forum. I am sorry to say, I am an expert on it - an expertise I am trying shed, by the way. I would know "rude" if I saw it, and this is not rude. A little blunt, maybe, but not rude.
            What about being irrelevant? I don't see how it is, and what's more, even if it WERE irrelevant in your eyes, it shouldn't be. Why not?
            Well, what is the purpose of the Beroean Pickets forum, anyway? Not just to dabble in scriptural interpretations and pithy banter. We are here because our consciences bother us for being part of a false religion, one that swore it was the only true one on earth. (There is a reason your mother told you not to swear.)
            So, Jesusjeffrey asks this so-called impertinent question, and you're bothered by this? Why? That may be what YOU say, but I say to you that you NEED to be bothered. We were (or for some of us, we ARE) part of an organization that is doing seriously wrong things. We are all accountable to God, to each other, to the world at large, and yes, to ourselves too, as to what our consciences did or did not allow us to find acceptable or not. There is every reason in the world why we should be bothered by our part in that. When Jesusjeffrey asked his question, it spoke to matters of conscience, and they are well worth asking. They are not irrelevant at all, but to the contrary, are the whole purpose we should be here discussing this.
            That is the real reason Beroean Pickets exists - or, at least, that is the reason it should exist. The pursuit of that realization, that understanding, that coming to terms with our own consciences, is neither impertinent nor irrelevant, and it's not rude to ask about it.
            What Jesusjeffrey asked was neither rude nor disrespectful nor vulgar. It's sort an "in your face" question, I will admit, but he did ask nicely :-)
            My advice to you, Meleti, given in all sincerity, is to lighten up a little. You are taking yourself too seriously. Don't be "Mr. Grouch Face" in your old age. It just puts more wrinkles on you. (This is spoken from experience.)
            Finally, I have a few words about Discuss The Truth. For a long time, that site has been degenerating. I truly cringe every time you suggest that someone go there. The very name "Discuss The Truth" sounds so kindly and genteel, like something a couple of old ladies would indulge in over afternoon tea. Instead, Discuss The Truth is more like a gang fight in a back alley. It consists of nonstop arguing and bickering. Nothing is resolved and nothing is accomplished there. Discuss The Truth has become a place that dishonors God, and shows precious little honor to people, either. From the bottom of my heart, I ask that you seriously consider shutting down Discuss The Truth, and at the very least, stop telling people to go there. It causes far more harm than good.
            Meleti, in spite of my need to counsel you in this way, I have nothing but respect for you, and I wish you all the best.

            • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-03 11:34:26

              TRA,
              I do not personally feel that counsel is warranted for Meleti's response to JJ's question to me. As the founder and moderator of this site (for years), Meleti (and the other brothers involved) have gained experience and discernment in commenting etiquette. I have no problem respecting the guidelines provided for commenting. I feel they are reasonable and designed to prevent a spirit from developing that threatens the peaceful interchange and "worthwhile" fellowship we enjoy here at BP.
              I personally received JJ's comment and question as interrogating and judgmental. It bothered me throughout the night. If I misunderstood the point he was attempting to make, I welcome his clarification. But the way it was presented was unsettling, not encouraging. Especially inviting others to agree with his position?
              In the big scheme of things, does it make any difference whether someone here taught the 1975 doctrine or not? Are we of lesser worth to our Heavenly Father if we did so? Some here may have been teaching the Trinity and a burning hell back then? Does that matter at all today? Should anyone be judged or diminished in the eyes of others for this?
              So, I agree with Meleti that the question was impertinent. It is completely irrelevant to the information presented in the articles I presented, though I have no issue with responding.
              How does what I personally taught or believed 45 years change anything? Doesn't it seem a bit self-serving to even ask the question?
              The fact is, we are all individuals with our own situation and personal circumstances that we must navigate. The struggle is incredibly difficult for all. No one has the right to judge how we quickly we navigate our journey.
              Like the ugly wooly worm that through metamorphosis changes into a beautiful butterfly, it's emergence out of the cocoon can't be rushed. It must be allowed to struggle desperately on its own will. If any of us attempt to rush it along, its wings are damaged and it may never soar. Those who may be ahead of us in the awakening process should respect this.
              IMO, the loving attitude for a person who may have awakened decades ago would be to show compassion, kindness and understanding. To be supportive, but not judgmental, remembering that he too was once an ugly wooly worm.
              I have great respect for you TRA and appreciate your contribution here.
              Phileo,
              Sopater

              • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-03 13:43:21

                I am sorry. I in no way condone insulting or disrespectful behavior. However, if I can summarize my long answer above, I want to ask you something.
                This forum exists to discuss matters of deep importance, that affect the conscience of everyone who reads and who contributes to its content. This is no idle matter, but is extremely important, affecting the very lives of the people who associate here - indeed, affecting even the most intimate aspects of our lives. Are you saying that, in spite of the enormous stakes involved herein, you and those involved in hosting this site are beyond question, that your motives, feeling, aspirations and conscience are totally irrelevant, while at the same time you write about matters that affect the conscience of everyone here? Is that fair, or honest, or honorable, to hold yourself aloof from the consciences of other people, when you yourself are directly affecting them?
                Are you really, honestly, saying that people don't even have the right to ask such questions - whether posed in a "polite" way or not?
                Must I remind you that Jesus admonished the Pharisees because they wanted others to do as they said, but not as they did? By holding yourself up as a contributor to this site, but holding yourself off-limits from any inquiry, aren't you doing the same thing? Forgive me if that, too, is impertinent, but I'd like to know.
                It's not right to impact the consciences of other people without taking responsibility for it. I am truly sorry you were offended by this person's post. But I must ask, is this level of taking offense justified? Is it really so bad? More to the point, instead of taking offense, don't you suppose it would benefit other people if you overlooked this "impertinence" and just answer the question? Yes, it might be a hard question to answer. But, every day on this forum, people are struggling with terribly hard questions all the time. We all need to be adults and be respectful; that is not in debate. We also need to avoid being hypersensitive. If we are to live with the courage of our (present) convictions, we must not be so easily offended that we cannot honestly face our pasts. The hardest thing we can do is face the fact that we were wrong. Saying so publicly is not going to bring you harm, but will only strengthen your resolve.
                Label this person's question "rude' or impertinent if you like, but I maintain it's still a good question.

                • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-03 14:52:02

                  TRA,
                  What I have written about is the results of research. I've tried to present facts that speak for themselves. I pray the "facts" themselves move a person to use their own conscience. To accept or reject that the information is truthful and fairly presented is the readers choice.
                  I certainly feel that anyone has the right to ask a question about anything. With asking comes the responsibility of accepting the effect it that it may have on the person receiving the question. I had absolutely no problem with answering JJ's question. My conscience is totally clear. I was troubled by the question, but had no issue answering it at all.
                  My brother, it seems you are implying that I am somehow not willing to honestly face my past, the fact that I have been wrong? Please allow me to clarify.... I accept and admit I have been wrong about many things, and I continue to learn each day all that I've been wrong about.
                  I had no desire or intention to comment at length on this, it seems this "question" thing has grown legs and become something more than it really is. Candidly, I'm taken back by the whole thing. Please don't take this the wrong way, but It almost seems that you've been looking for an opportunity to vent about this for some time. Fine, we all have our moments.
                  To respond to your question "Was the question really so bad" the answer is No, It's certainly not something that has merited this much discussion. I think if you read my response to JJ's post it conveys that.
                  But I ask you, "Did Meleti's response in sticking to commenting etiquette (clearly spelled out on the website) deserve such harsh "counsel?" Was it really that bad?
                  Out of respect for you and our friendship, I forgive any possible misunderstanding there has been and ask that you please forgive me if I've somehow offended you.
                  Phileo,
                  Sopater

                  • Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-01-03 16:38:24

                    I would just like to add that this sort of things is often a side effect of the written medium since, to a great extent, the tone is supplied by the reader. I have a close friend with whom I can discuss these topics in person without it becoming an argument, but when we try to discuss it by email it quickly becomes a heated interchange. So it's worth taking care, where tone is concerned, not to give our brothers' comments the least charitable reading.

                    • Reply by father jack on 2016-01-03 18:49:06

                      Never mind brothers you know we are all different and see things from different perspectives . Im not sure its about what we say that proves what we are but how we react to what others say . We should all be humble enough to take counsel or even criticism sometimes paul even took delight in insults . Its always good to see ourselves through the eyes of others . Its loving one another is the important thing 2 john

                    • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-04 04:32:45

                      Just reading the exchange if any . I think my question would have been if any , are we still teaching things that we know to be wrong . ? Do we teach one thing from the platform at the KH and in the ministry , and then another online here . This question is not directed at any individual but just one for all to consider

                      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-04 06:35:19

                        Father Jack,
                        Your question is a good one.
                        First may I say I don't think there is a black/white answer. The phrase "we know to be wrong" is subjective to each. While one person may view a teaching as "wrong", another may view it as doubtful, but still within the realm of Biblical possibilities.
                        Secondly, defining what "we know to be wrong" depends upon the stage of awakening. Early in the journey, there may be only a few things "we know to be wrong." Later in our journey, through deep study, research and prayer we discover more and more.
                        As to "teaching" something, those who can no longer freely associate with JW's (df'd or da'd) are unable to teach an active JW anything except if that person disregards the directive to shun, or they happen into a site like BP.
                        Those who remain currently associated (for personal reasons) do have the advantage of "teaching" someone how to do outside the box research for themselves. Then, allow the research and God's holy spirit do its work. I believe much good can be accomplished by helping those who sincerely seek truth learn (and not to fear) how to do research.
                        There are teachings of JW's that are.... "technically speaking"..... within the realm of biblical possibilities, though very doubtful. A case in point is Prov 4:18. There are a few scholars that allow this verse to apply to light of truth that gets brighter. Of course, they do not support that the "FDS" has been appointed to dispense "new light" and dismiss "old light."
                        Most (outside JW theology) do not feel this is what the scripture imparts when considering the context (myself included). But can I dogmatically rule out that the verse can not be applied to the light of truth getting brighter?
                        My opinion is there are some JW teachings that can not be definitively "ruled out" without becoming dogmatic. Ray Franz commented that debating teachings that could go either way is really an act in futility. If the scriptures are inconclusive, love should abound and allow each to believe as they will.
                        Here's an interesting thought Father Jack:
                        Imagine if BP been an available outlet for Ray Franz, Ed Dunlap, and Reinhard Lengtat during the 1970's. They could feel safe openly and anonymously sharing the results of their research.
                        Do you feel what they would have "taught" online would have been different than what they "taught" from the platform at conventions and the KH, and in their ministry?
                        Of course in due time, they had a decision to make. They were given the option to be silent, keep their mouth shut and wait on Jehovah. Or, be kicked out. That same decision will inevitably come to those of us who remain actively involved today, even in "teaching" capacity.
                        But until my time of decision is forced upon me, just as was the case with the aforementioned, my conscience remains clear.
                        Sopater

                        • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-04 07:06:24

                          FJ,
                          May I add that I certainly struggle with "teaching" something I personally disagree with. I'm able to side step many things. For one, I can not give the memorial talk. And there are several PT outlines that I no longer give. I can refrain from commenting on something that I disagree with.
                          But overall, I view it just as was the case with these brothers who for over a decade (after doing Aid book research) had to continue to conform to teachings they disagreed with, even teaching them in schools. As they were able to balance this, so can I.
                          But isn't it interesting that these brothers were able to interject new thinking here and there in some of the articles and books they produced? Subtle as it may have been, they were able to "teach" something from what they had researched and learned. They must have felt a measure of satisfaction knowing that millions were learning from their outside research.
                          ,
                          Sopater

                          • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-04 13:08:08

                            Yeah thanks for the explanation sopater i can see where you are coming from . Its great to understand one another . The question was one for personal reflection . Im so sorry if you felt you had to provide an answer. You did not . You mentioned your conscience is clear and that is the key i feel . What you do is your buisness . As far as i can see the only person we have to answer to is jesus himself . I think one of the major problems that J W s have is the religion fosters a very judgemental attitude . Im pretty sure this is not what the bible teaches . We have to live and let live and love and let love . Thanks brother for a couple of very good articles and keep up the good work . Warm christian love . K ev .

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-03 19:39:23

              I think our disagreement may be based on a misunderstanding of the word “impertinence”. My use of it was in line with the dictionary definition shown below:
              1. lack of respect, rudeness, insolence, impoliteness, bad manners, discourtesy, disrespect, incivility
              Your statement, “Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disapprove of impertinence. Quite the reverse: I believe it’s absolutely vital if one is to maintain a good conscience”, makes no sense given this definition. Lack of respect, rudeness, insolence, impoliteness, bad manners, discourtesy, disrespect, incivility have nothing to do with maintaining a good conscience.
              This leads me to believe that you understand the word to refer to the right (or lack thereof) to question one’s superiors. If so, then please understand that is not how I was using it.
              Consider the true meaning of the word in light of your statement: “The Beroean Pickets web site is filled with impertinent people asking impertinent questions about impertinent subjects.” We could rephrase this for clarity thus: “The Beroean Pickets web site is filled with rude, bad mannered, discourteous, disrespectful, uncivil people asked rude, bad mannered, discourteous, disrespectful, uncivil questions about rude, bad mannered, discourteous, disrespectful, uncivil subjects.”
              What I think you meant—correct me if I’m wrong—is that Beroean Pickets is filled with courageous people who are not afraid to ask challenging questions on uncomfortable or taboo subjects.
              That is the type of web site I’m honored to be able to host.
              If you’ll reread my reply to Jesusjeffrey, you’ll see I wasn’t so much bothered by his question but the way he asked it. In that way, it became something of a personal attack, a questioning of another man’s integrity. If he could rephrase it so as not to give undue offense, then we could handle that. Question all you like the reasoning and argument of anyone, but let us not become personal.
              As to why I interceded in the discussion, please understand that these are not private exchanges. These are discussions that all are witnesses to. It is as if two people were to engage in a loud and heated exchange during a party I was hosting. As the host it is my duty to maintain an atmosphere of cordiality and mutual respect. If I do not, many will leave because the discord makes them uncomfortable. I have learned over the years hosting this site that such is the case in the virtual congregation we enjoy here.
              I will not be intimidated away from my duty to maintain a cordial and respectful atmosphere on this site.
              You give as an example to justify your view: “Picture this scene: You as a JW walk into the KH and ask the elders, “Why have you been lying to me?” Their response? “Such impertinence! Get out!””
              They may claim that is impertinent, but they would be wrong.
              Your example is not relevant to this situation. Instead, allow me one. Picture this scene: You as a JW walk into the KH and ask one of the elders, “How do you feel when you get on the platform to teach us knowing that 30 years ago you cheated on your wife?”
              That would be an impertinent question, unless you feel that a man should continue to be punished long God has forgiven him.
              Imagine the Corinthians challenging Paul because he had once been—by his own admission—an insolent man and a persecutor of Christians. Constantly reminding him of his past would have been impertinent.
              I hope this helps to clarify the meaning I was putting to the word in my exchange.
              By the way, it is interesting that you find fault with me, the site’s host, for interceding in an exchange while you are doing that very same thing.
              Finally, as to holding ourselves above question, the very fact I’m responding to you shows that not to be the case.

              • Reply by Billy on 2016-01-16 20:06:28

                Dignity and respect are crucial qualities to operate by when involved in discussions. I have seen this to be a problem on other discussion groups I commend you meleti for upholding high Christian standards

    • Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-02 20:06:34

      And what if he was one that ("took)speculation, conjecture and false expectation to family, friends and neighbors”? It seems apparent that you personally were not fully indoctrinated and under mind control. Having been the "Jehu of the Watchtower" myself since I was five, I personally taught many things I knew that were not quite right, or I disagreed with totally. (144,000, the generation, explanation of celestial phenomena, and others)You did that because Jehovah would "fix" it in his "due time". It was "God' Organization". A persons desire to stay with the organization and teach falsehood has little to do with wanting to be a "Borean". You need to "wake up" to the point that you can clearly think and reason properly. It is not just a religion. It is a cult.

      • Reply by Jesusjeffrey on 2016-01-03 00:35:14

        Hi Vincent Gomez
        I agree, “A persons desire to stay with the organization and teach falsehood has little to do with wanting to be a “Borean”.”
        The author made the connection not me.
        You may have been a cultist but I was not. I’m “Awake to that”
        At lest you don’t seem to be blaming them for your time furthering the interest of a cult by preaching known (to you) falsehoods. Taking responsibility for our own mistakes in life is an absolute necessity. Well done!
        JJ

        • Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-03 11:11:40

          I agree that we need to take responsibility for our mistakes. But this is not a "mistake". Especially when you are born in. I suggest you read Steve Hassen's latest book about mind control. It truly is mind control. YOU were not as indoctrinated. I know many people like yourself in the organization. Even if you have read the book, your words clearly show you don't understand the whole picture. As Steve Hassan said, you don't choose a cult, they choose you. It is like a family. Do you blame a child when he has been molded by bad parents? What choice does he have? Later, such a person needs to make wise choices once he is mature enough to understand them. It is not like you had a real choice to study "apostate" sites. It wasn't like you were ever given both sides of the story as you grew up in the organization. It is like a child being given drugs. Until he can get help, no amount of willpower will save him. That is why when a witness looks back, they wonder, how on earth did we ever believe that? Now that I am awake, I can see that I was an entirely different person. Many in the Watchtower stay due to friends and family, not God. Clearly such ones should take a stand if they are awake. But others are victims of "undue influence" just like Hassan, when he was a Moonie. A truly indoctrinated person wakes up almost instantly when he is "startled" by something. He goes from day to night with a snap of a finger. One day he is in, the next day he is out completely. Now that is mind control. It is like you have a helmet on. That is why, I personally believe that God will have mercy on the majority.

    • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-03 05:15:06

      Brother Sopater, Thank You for your effort and research and time that You put in THE above article. Kind regards.

      • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-03 08:40:43

        Willy, thank you for your kind words. We all share a kindred spirit and build each other up (Heb 10:24;Matt 18:20)

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-03 09:14:29

      JJ
      My answer is yes, I was one who did such. I was a teen completely dedicated to a religious movement I was born into, that my parents believed to be the "truth".
      From your comment are we to assume you separated from JW's during the 1975 campaign? That you are one that asked: "Where is this teaching in the Bible?"
      If you did, good for you.
      But why belittle those of us who didn't, for whatever reasons? Why judge a brother (or sister) who may just be beginning their awakening journey now?
      Do you feel you should be elevated among the group, simply because you awakened years ago? What is your point?
      Does this build up? (1 Thess 5:11; Rom 14:19)
      If you are here to build up, then welcome my brother. If not, as Meleti pointed out, there are many blogs and forums that would welcome your contribution.
      Respectfully,
      Sopater

• Reply by TJ Brother on 2016-01-03 03:15:52

  I 'm also curious about Reinhard Lengtat and Charles Ploeger .

  • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-03 08:18:30

    I had a contact at Bethel in 1980 who knew him and told me Reinhard was sent to Washington state as a special pioneer. I have heard that he remained active over the years, that being said, he obviously didn't push the envelope.

• Reply by Andrea Bergin on 2018-06-01 11:09:19

  I was in the Utica Congregation in Brooklyn until 1974. Charlie Ploeger was my absolute favorite speaker. Now I know better. I too was "waking up" to Jesus.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-06-01 17:15:12

    Welcome Andrea. Good to have you with us!

Comment by noblemindedthinker on 2016-01-02 13:45:38

Great article, excellent for the newcomers and those already awake. I didn't know about the "Life Everlasting..." book and that it was removed from the WT Library.
Thank you for your service. I pray that especially my wife and all my friends and family would start to love truth and do some research outside the walled garden approved by Tight Pants Tony and the Governing Body.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-03 08:25:50

  NMT,
  Thank you. And that is our prayer also, and what motivates us to devote much of our personal life to preparing and sharing helpful information.

Comment by Menrov on 2016-01-02 14:36:21

See here for pictures of the relevant pages in the book Life Everlasting
http://perimeno.ca/1975_&_Life_Everlasting_Book.htm

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-02 17:18:28

  Thanks Menrov. I "borrowed" the hard copy I now claim ownership to from our KH library several years ago. No one had touched the old relic in years. I have given it a nice cozy place where it will be forever appreciated. I have asked Jehovah for forgiveness for borrowing it indefinitely :<))
  I love to watch the expression on friends faces when I show them these pages and then ask if they still consider the 1975 doctrine was just folklore, an urban legend, the idea of anxious zealots who ran ahead of the organization?
  I consider it a wonderful piece of memorabilia that deserves more than to be thrown away with all the other "old light" books when the directive comes down from NY to get rid of them!!

Comment by Sean on 2016-01-02 18:19:10

Excellent article. I have often wondered why the GB simply dont make the necessary changes that are so clear to so many people after having carried out some simple research. Your reasons why the GB stubbornly dig their heels answers that question!

Comment by Justin Michesloff on 2016-01-02 21:14:13

Thank you for the rational article. The reasoning presented is irrefutable. Those of us who have spent more than 40 years as a Jehovah's Witness have certainly seen a great deal of "new light" and the associated confusion, and if you should doubt or question anything, watch out. 2 Timothy 3:12,13 comes to mind where we are reminded that "....all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted. But wicked men and imposters will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."
Therefore, if you know that you are misleading others, THE BIBLE clearly categorizes you. And if you persecute those who expose untruth, yikes, dangerous position to be in!!
Hebrews 10:26 tells us "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left". So to know the facts of chronology and to stick to untruth, well...
Thankfully, I was raised to believe that if you can't prove it from the Bible, then it's not truth. Although I lost my way for a while and blindly followed, (and blindly led) my conscience eventually spurred me to reject untruth. To avoid persecution from family members, I have kept my opinions to myself.
I thank Jehovah for this forum where I can both be encouraged and hopefully encourage others. Please keep up the good work.

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-03 00:29:05

w68 8/15 "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?"
607 is referenced in this article as well. Seems laughable reading it now

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-03 00:38:07

(“Signs of the Times relating to the Second Coming of Christ”- Volume 1 April 15, 1840)
EIGHT FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN MILLER'S THEORY OF THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.
For the benefit of those who have not studied Miller's theory, we point out the following fundamental errors.
1. He dates the vision of the oppression of the Church of God, Jewish and Christian, from the edict of Artaxerxes, given B. C. 457, to Ezra, to build Jerusalem, and restore the Jewish State; which was so effectual, that Jerusalem and its temple flourished, with slight interruptions, for about 500 years, until destroyed by the Romans, A. D., 70. How preposterous to date the duration of the "Sanctuary's being trodden under foot," from an edict thus to build it up!
2. Mr. Miller dates the assumption of Roman supremacy, from A. D. 534; whereas all standard histories agree, that the emperor Phocas conferred upon the Bishop of Rome the title of "Universal Bishop," A. D. 606.
3. He declares that Papacy has lost its civil sword and triple crown, since A. D. 1798! Whereas, the Pope of Rome is new just as much an absolute sovereign, as anyone in Europe.
4. He makes Michael, in Dan. xxi. 1, to mean Christ, who is about "to stand' up" to judge the world, and raise the dead, and his theory cannot subsist, without this interpretation; but St. Jude, verse 9th, informs us, that Michael is an archangel. Thus with the main pillar the whole system comes to the ground.....
But in relation to the prophecies, Mr. Miller is in an error. We say plainly, and if there is anything to risk in the way of reputation we risk it, that the events predicted by him to take place in 1843, will not take place; or to come a little nearer home, that those predicted to take place next August, will not take place. And what will be the mortification of Mr. Miller, and those who have embraced his opinions, when next Autumn arrives, and everything goes on as heretofore? Will they then, frankly confess their error, and acknowledge their delusion? What does experience sav on this question? It says that most men who have tenaciously adhered to, and zealously defended a system, have too much pride for this. They prefer, if possible, to avoid the mortification of a humble confession, and cast about to find somebody or something upon which they may shift the blame. And upon what-will Mr. M. cast the blame? Why upon the Bible of course. He verily believes that if the Bible teaches anything, it teaches the system he has been seven years preaching, and sixteen years studying. Now if these events do not happen, as predicted, what will be the effect? Why, that the Bible does not teach anything. We have no doubt that a large portion of Mr.Miller's adherents, will cherish this infidel sentiment. And would not this be consistent with their present belief? We hope God will overrule these things for his glory; but the prospect now is, that Mr.Miller's lectures will do infinitely more harm than good.

Comment by BeenMislead on 2016-01-03 13:44:17

Here is a quote from a 1966 Awake that also proves that they said Armageddon was coming in 1975!!
“In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975." This is worthy of notice, particularly in view of the fact that the "last days" began in 1914, and that the physical facts of our day in fulfillment of prophecy mark this as the last generation of this wicked world. So we can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and his promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end." – (Awake, Oct 8, 1966, P. 19, How Much Longer Will It Be?)

Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2016-01-03 14:22:37

These may be long quotes, but I believe they will give you elation and you will mark them for future reference. They are taken from the 1889 Watchtower, pages 1136-1140.
"But as for a clerical class, God does not recognize it as his elect
teachers; nor has he chosen many of his teachers from its ranks.
The mere claim of any man to be a teacher is no proof that he is
one by divine appointment. That false teachers would arise in
the church, who would pervert the truth, was foretold. The
church, therefore, is not to blindly accept whatever any teacher
may set forth, but should prove the teaching of those whom they
have reason to believe to be God's messengers, by the one
infallible standard --the Word of God. "If they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
(Isa. 8:20.) Thus while the church needs teachers, and cannot
understand God's Word without them, yet the church
individually--each by himself and for himself, and himself only-
-must fill the important office of judge, to decide, according to
the infallible standard, God's Word, whether the teaching be true
or false, and whether the claimed teacher is a true teacher by
divine appointment"."
"We exhort all God's true church--the one church, which includes
all consecrated believers--to awake to the principles of the
Reformation, to a recognition of the right of individual judgment
upon religious questions. Demand Scriptural proofs for all you
are asked to believe; take neither the decisions of Rome, nor
those of Westminster, nor those of any smaller councils or
synods, as final settlements of the question, "What is truth?"
And be sure that you believe and confess nothing that you do
not understand fully and clearly. To subscribe to, or confess,
what you do not understand, and therefore cannot truly believe,
is solemn lying in the presence of God and witnesses, no matter
if it be true that others, by the hundred, have done the same
before you. If you did this once, thoughtlessly, even though it
were years ago, in joining church, now that your attention is
called to it, you are bound to procure a copy of the "covenant,"
or "articles of faith," the belief of which you confessed publicly,
and after careful, prayerful study of it, if you find that you do
not so believe, you will be bound to deny it as publicly as you
confessed it, or else forfeit in God's sight all claim to honesty."
Require of all who shall attempt to teach in the name of the
Lord, the exact words of the Lord or the Apostle which they
claim support their teaching. Get the chapter and verse and look
the matter up for yourselves, critically, examining the text and
the context. Weigh and test every item of teaching which you
receive as your faith, regardless of how much you esteem the
person who presents it. We know that no fellow-mortal is
infallible, and that his word is the only standard by which God
wishes us to square and measure and build up our faith."
"And this
decline in individual liberty and equality is regarded by the
clergy as desirable, as a supposed necessity, because here and
there in their congregations are a few "peculiar people," who
partially appreciate their rights and liberties, and who are
growing both in grace and knowledge beyond the clergy. These
are causing trouble to the
creed-bound clergy by questioning doctrines long unquestioned,
and by demanding reasons and Scriptural proofs for them. Since
they cannot be answered Scripturally or reasonably the only way
to meet them and to settle them is, by brow-beating and a show
and claim of clerical authority and superiority, which holds itself
bound to account in doctrinal matters only to fellow-clergymen
and not to laymen.
But some in the pews are to-day as well or better educated than
the occupant of the pulpit, and it will no longer do to claim that
the laity are so ignorant that they could not comprehend; and the
people have learned that the big words of technical, clerical
phraseology are used to hide and not to teach the truth. Hence
the individual and educational superiority of the clergy can no
longer be given as an excuse for arbitrary definitions of
Scriptural statements and doctrines"
"In view of these facts and tendencies, we sound an alarm to all
who hold to the original doctrine of the Reformation-- the right
of individual judgment."

• Reply by Chris on 2016-01-03 15:52:02

  I'm a Bible Student and many of us don't believe in 607 as when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. We believe 587 BC. But we believe that Nebuchadnezzar entered Jerusalem in 610-607. It wasn't until 587 that it was destroyed. I like the quote. Russell's Bible Students are a far cry from the JWs.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-03 17:05:19

    The start of the 70 years of Babylonian domination of the nations was in 609 BCE, as they finished in 539 BCE, when the King of Babylon was called to account (Jere 25:12)

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-03 16:18:09

I can't believe how much Miller was considered to be mostly right in his calculations by Russell. Reading Millenial Dawn books like "Thy Kingdom Come" Russell says that the bridegroom tarried in 1843 and that the Miller movement had a sifting effect, sorting out the true believers from those who gave it away in disgust. William Millers dream is not only mentioned in "The Three Worlds" (the jewels of truth were scattered but then restored), but it was also reproduced word for word in "The Finished Mystery". Since when did we start believing that people's dreams have any relevance to Biblical interpretation? I still am in shock as to how much of a spinoff of the Millerites we are. That's why we believed in 1874 for so long. It would appear we are just another religious sect, with some very strange interpretations of the Bible, with end times Armageddon our main focus. The difference with Russell is he started to believe Jesus prescence was invisible, after a reader wrote in citing parousia as an explanation for why Jesus hadn't returned visibly. It was also the reason for the booklet "The Object and Manner of Our Lords Return" published in 1877. George Storrs wrote a short review of the booklet.
"Such is the title of a pamphlet of sixty four pages. The author is one of my very dear friends, and is a sincere lover of truth. I have not the slightest doubt of his stern integrity, and nothing but a full conviction that it is the truth he is promulgating which will lead him on in the work which he is engaged. His sacrifice of time and money shows his faith. Much that he has written is interesting. His belief that Christ "has come" -- "is present" -- in the Scripture sense of His "second time," I cannot for a moment admit; but as the time for its demonstration is in the next few weeks, I shall not enter into controversy on the subject.
BRO. CHAPLIN, Editor of THE RESTITUTION, in noticing the above named pamphlet, has expressed views of the "Second Advent" of our Lord which I heartily agree. He says: "We think that the coming Messiah is the same Jesus that died, was buried, rose from the dead, and subsequently ascended from Mount Olivet into heaven; and we also think that He will change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. We look, for more tangibility in the resurrection than our brother seems to expect. We also think that Christ in the first stage of the advent will only descend to the aerial regions where He will be met by his raptured saints, with whom he will afterward descend to earth." Such I regard as a true statement of the facts to be realized in that glorious return of our Lord "from heaven."
Of course Russell had his pet theory of an invisible presence and stuck with it, which is why to this day we are stuck believing the last days began in 1914. You were allowed to express your pet theories and private ruminations back then. If this is all truly inspired of God I throw my hands in the air and admit defeat.

Comment by AndereStimme on 2016-01-03 16:40:44

Is there a youtube video where I can see Tony Morris deliver the memorable 'forget about it and go out in service' line? I'd love to see/hear it for myself.

Comment by AndereStimme on 2016-01-03 16:43:05

If you want to make a CO squirm, ask him the following question: If the publications are not inspired, are we obligated to believe everything in them?

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-04 09:37:06

Meleti excellent article. I was 13 years old in 1975. My family were getting ready for Armageddon and the entire congregation truly believed that the year 1975 was the end of the system of things. I used to cried at nights because I was really afraid that I wouldn't survive Armageddon because I wasn't good enough. On those years in Lima Peru there were many American missionaries and my family were very closed to them and all of them believed the end was coming on 1975. We used to believe that we'll never get old or die.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-04 09:56:52

  Actually, this article series is written by SopaterOfBeroea, or Sopater for short. My own life experience mirrors yours however. Double your age and change the South American country and you have me. I remember sitting in an English class we gave to the employees of a large American multinational on Christmas Eve. There was no one in the class as they all took the day off to prepare for Christmas, 1970, so we got paid for the hour for just being there. I remarked to him, "Just think, four more years and it's all over."
  So stupid. So blind. So trusting. So indoctrinated.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-04 13:40:10

    Oops ! Thank you for the clarification Meleti.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-04 10:18:15

  Thank you Anon,
  My story is very similar. I recall thinking how all the kids I knew in HS were going to die very soon, so why get to know any of them? They were just faces.
  And of course we had it all figured out.
  I recall a brother that was counting the days to Oct 1, 1975 and had them listed in his daily text. At the meetings he'd go around saying "we only have 3 years and XXXX days left." Are you ready?
  How could we have bought into such nonsense hook, line and sinker?

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-04 14:44:20

    I just learned that you were the author of this excellent article. Sorry for the confusion.
    I would like to add that it took me many many years to found that I wasn't in the truth. In the 70s in a Spanish country with not any other resource but the books of the organization it was very difficult to realized that we weren't in the truth, plus I was raised as JW. Nowadays, with the internet there is access to websites such this one that helps us to realize that we are adoctrinated with false teachings. I left the organization just a year ago.
    What it hurts me more is that my two sons now 14 and 16 years old were adoctrinated by me, and my husband became JW because of me.
    I'm reading the Bible to them and trying to erase what we used to believe before, sometimes can be confusing and frustrating. Therefore, when I read articles like yours I know I'm not the only one feeling this way.

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-04 15:17:29

      Anon,
      It was the same for most all of us, Did you read Part 1 of the article? It discusses having only limited resources for research at length.
      Glad you have joined us and look forward to your comments. . .
      Phileo,
      Sopater

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-04 15:22:19

        I will look for part one.
        Thank you : )

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-04 11:44:42

To all contributors and participants of the Beroean Pickets web site:
I am deeply disturbed by the tone this site has recently taken. And, I do not appreciate being attacked for defending the rights of another poster to ask questions. The fact that many readers have chosen to "vote down" my defense of asking questions shows this issue is not limited to the contributors and hosts of this site, and so it is not an isolated issue.
In a community dedicated to investigating matters of the deepest moral, spiritual and personal importance, which speak to the very motivations of our mind, heart and conscience, no one should be above being questioned or being accountable for their words, since we who purport to be Christian have an obligation to not only show godly love but to respect the consciences of each other.
However, the hosts of this web site evidently believe differently, and have condemned me for challenging them. In defending that right to ask questions, I have done nothing wrong. Given the same circumstances, I would make the same choice again, because it was the right thing to do then, and it remains the right thing to do now. I am disappointed and ashamed of you for not seeing this.
We have either escaped, or are trying to escape, from an environment in which asking questions can result in a 'spiritual death sentence'. To see a sword of authority being waved to suppress questions here is disheartening beyond my ability to put into words, especially when doing so is inappropriate overkill and totally unnecessary.
I can no longer in good conscience be a part of this. I will make no further commentary on this forum.
I hereby give permission and direct the hosts of Beroean Pickets to delete all reader comments in all Beroean Pickets articles that contain my screen name. I not only give you permission, but I urge you to immediately take this step as soon as possible.
I leave you with the words of Galatians 5:1 as wisdom, and warning: "For such freedom Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery."
The Real Anonymous is gone.
Goodbye.

• Reply by AndereStimme on 2016-01-04 12:49:11

  TRA, if you read this, I would only ask that you meditate on the following:
  I am deeply disturbed by the tone this site has recently taken. And, I do not appreciate being attacked for defending the rights of another poster to ask questions.
  When I first read "the exchange", I made the comment that with the written medium it's easy to misread someone's tone. If you'll notice the above quote from your "final" comment, it is precisely this highly subjective element of the exchange that you find most disturbing, and it leads you to the conclusion that you are being "attacked". When I read the replies given by Sopater and Meleti, they seem quite measured and respectful. There is, therefore, a wide range of possibility in the subjective assessment of tone, and that, in turn, should limit how much stock we should put in our own perceptions. Why get upset about something that, for all we know, is not as we perceive it to be?
  Your contributions here have been quite positive and much appreciated. I'll be sorry to see you go, if you feel you must. Perhaps, if you give it a little time, you'll see the comments of the brothers in a more positive light. Whatever you choose, I wish you peace and spiritual prosperity in your journey.
  Kind regards,
  Andere Stimme

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-04 16:04:06

    TRA,
    I believe Andere makes a good point and I concur with him that I'm sorry to see you go as you have made valuable contributions to the site's fund of knowledge.
    Meleti

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-04 17:55:34

  TRA,
  I'm very sorry my brother. I do hope you'll reconsider. If not, know that we will miss your spiritual contribution.
  I join Andere and Meleti in wishing you peace and joy in your spiritual journey.
  Phileo,
  Sopater

• Reply by OTT on 2016-01-04 19:43:29

  TRA pity that mate ive really enjoyed your comments .

• Reply by Willy on 2016-01-05 03:43:28

  TRA, I hate to see you go, for I am in the middle of a huge rebuilding my faith process, and I enjoyed your comments and you are a wonderful teacher. Kind regards

• Reply by Karen on 2016-01-18 01:18:37

  I agree with Willy... I am new at this having recently began a leaving process so am very raw and hurting still. I am unaware of any negative comments made towards you, as I said I am new and not as totally 'informed' as the some many commenters out there. You are absolutely correct when you say the asking of questions has been a potential death sentence in the past, we must be free to question and discuss without fear of penalty ... ... I am a grand mother and so I ask please kids ... Say sorry and play nice .... Pleeeeaaase do not become a hierarchy and prevent questions... Please don't become another WT ....
  "The Real Anonymous .... Come baaaaack and ask your questions... We are all asking questions and are looking for answers .... As my dear old dad used to say: If you don't ask how will you ever find out xx

Comment by ANTONINVS on 2016-01-16 22:39:27

Carl Olof Jonson's book on the Gentile times is a masterpiece.

• Reply by alskadedotter2 on 2016-02-09 10:54:41

  Join the discussion

  • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-02-09 11:27:34

    Welcome Alaskadotter2
    Happy reading.
    Sopater