I wonder if the GB will ever respond to the imminent threat of Artificial Intelligence and come right out
and demonize it?
Any thoughts?
Bueller? Bueller?
Posts by Terry
-
8I asked A.I. (GEMINI PRO 2.5) to research Jehovah's Witnesses and make an analysis
by Terry inself-description of gemini pro 2.5 ai tools, like gemini pro 2.5, use advanced algorithms to analyze data, summarize findings, and even generate written content based on learned information to streamline complex information, making it more accessible to a wider audience.. link to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x64fbp1upkhqzwvmqhw6hn_2b6tqn06rv8mt3v5dalo/edit?usp=sharingthe evolving truth: a chronological analysis of doctrinal development in jehovah's witnesses' teachings.
introduction.
jehovah's witnesses, a millenarian restorationist christian denomination, emerged in the united states during the latter half of the 19th century, primarily from the teachings of charles taze russell.
-
-
Terry
-
8
I asked A.I. (GEMINI PRO 2.5) to research Jehovah's Witnesses and make an analysis
by Terry inself-description of gemini pro 2.5 ai tools, like gemini pro 2.5, use advanced algorithms to analyze data, summarize findings, and even generate written content based on learned information to streamline complex information, making it more accessible to a wider audience.. link to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x64fbp1upkhqzwvmqhw6hn_2b6tqn06rv8mt3v5dalo/edit?usp=sharingthe evolving truth: a chronological analysis of doctrinal development in jehovah's witnesses' teachings.
introduction.
jehovah's witnesses, a millenarian restorationist christian denomination, emerged in the united states during the latter half of the 19th century, primarily from the teachings of charles taze russell.
-
-
Terry
Beth Sarim2 hours ago
That's awesome Terry.
Outstanding.!!
________
It is prudent, at least :) -
8
I asked A.I. (GEMINI PRO 2.5) to research Jehovah's Witnesses and make an analysis
by Terry inself-description of gemini pro 2.5 ai tools, like gemini pro 2.5, use advanced algorithms to analyze data, summarize findings, and even generate written content based on learned information to streamline complex information, making it more accessible to a wider audience.. link to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x64fbp1upkhqzwvmqhw6hn_2b6tqn06rv8mt3v5dalo/edit?usp=sharingthe evolving truth: a chronological analysis of doctrinal development in jehovah's witnesses' teachings.
introduction.
jehovah's witnesses, a millenarian restorationist christian denomination, emerged in the united states during the latter half of the 19th century, primarily from the teachings of charles taze russell.
-
-
Terry
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrjfNBy6jlZ8lSibVe7VSRgihTxkwqbrLUzIHLGFH-E/edit?usp=sharing
THIS LINKS to a History chronological list of WT Teachings impacted by OLD/NEW LIGHT changes
-
8
I asked A.I. (GEMINI PRO 2.5) to research Jehovah's Witnesses and make an analysis
by Terry inself-description of gemini pro 2.5 ai tools, like gemini pro 2.5, use advanced algorithms to analyze data, summarize findings, and even generate written content based on learned information to streamline complex information, making it more accessible to a wider audience.. link to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x64fbp1upkhqzwvmqhw6hn_2b6tqn06rv8mt3v5dalo/edit?usp=sharingthe evolving truth: a chronological analysis of doctrinal development in jehovah's witnesses' teachings.
introduction.
jehovah's witnesses, a millenarian restorationist christian denomination, emerged in the united states during the latter half of the 19th century, primarily from the teachings of charles taze russell.
-
-
Terry
Self-description of GEMINI PRO 2.5
AI tools, like Gemini Pro 2.5, use advanced algorithms to analyze data, summarize findings, and even generate written content based on learned information to streamline complex information, making it more accessible to a wider audience.Link to this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x64Fbp1UpkhqzwvmqhW6HN_2b6tQn06Rv8MT3V5DaLo/edit?usp=sharing
The Evolving Truth: A Chronological Analysis of Doctrinal Development in Jehovah's Witnesses' TeachingsIntroduction
Jehovah's Witnesses, a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination, emerged in the United States during the latter half of the 19th century, primarily from the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. This report aims to meticulously document the factual chronology of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrinal teachings, tracking their changes over time. The presentation endeavors to be organized, clear, unambiguous, and uncomplicated, incorporating the stated reasons provided by the organization for these doctrinal adjustments. Such an approach is intended to allow any reader to independently follow the historical development of these doctrines and to draw their own informed conclusions regarding the evolution and consistency of teachings, particularly those presented by adherents as "The Truth" , and to understand their impact. This chronological and thematic organization is specifically designed to facilitate research into the patterns of doctrinal development and the mechanisms of institutional adaptation within the Jehovah's Witnesses organization.
A core tenet of Jehovah's Witnesses is the belief that they possess "The Truth," a comprehensive body of religious understanding derived from the Bible. Doctrinal adjustments are typically explained through the concept of "progressive revelation" or "new light," wherein it is understood that Jehovah God gradually clarifies his will and purpose to his followers. The Governing Body, a council of elders at the organization's headquarters, serves as the ultimate authority in establishing all doctrines and disseminating these evolving understandings. The dynamic between the claim to possess unchanging "Truth" and the historical reality of doctrinal shifts forms a central consideration in understanding the group's development. This report will navigate this dynamic by presenting historical facts alongside the organization's own rationales for change, thereby facilitating an independent assessment by the reader.
Formatted Chronology of Key Doctrinal Teachings and Their Evolution
This section reorganizes the primary doctrinal changes into a more direct, itemized list under specific subject headings. This format is intended to provide a clearer, at-a-glance view of the evolution of these teachings for research purposes, highlighting the original teaching, the subsequent change, and the stated justification provided by the organization.
I. Eschatological Doctrines and Prophetic Interpretations
A. Christ's Invisible Return/Presence (Parousia)
Initial Teaching (c. 1870s - C.T. Russell): Christ's invisible return (parousia) occurred in 1874.
Stated Basis: Influenced by Adventist N.H. Barbour.
Change (By 1930 - J.F. Rutherford era): Start of Christ's invisible presence shifted from 1874 to 1914.
Stated Justification: Progressive understanding; "path of the righteous...getting brighter" (Proverbs 4:18).
B. Christ's Assumption of Kingly Power in Heaven
Initial Teaching (C.T. Russell): Christ assumed kingly power in heaven in 1878.
Change (By 1927 - J.F. Rutherford era): Date of Christ assuming kingly power shifted from 1878 to 1914.
Stated Justification: "New light."
C. Resurrection of "The Dead in Christ" / Anointed Saints
Initial Teaching (C.T. Russell): Resurrection of "the dead in Christ" to spirit life commenced in 1878.
Change (By 1927 - J.F. Rutherford era): Resurrection of the "saints" (anointed) to heavenly life shifted from 1878 to 1918.
Stated Justification: "New light" on the timing of the resurrection.
D. The "Last Days"
Initial Teaching (Pre-Rutherford): The "last days" began in 1799.
Change (1929 - J.F. Rutherford era): Start of the "last days" shifted from 1799 to 1914.
Stated Justification: Reinterpretation linked to the new understanding of 1914.
E. Significance of 1914
Original Teaching (C.T. Russell): Expected 1914 to mark the culmination of Armageddon, end of Gentile Times, full establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, and gathering of saints to heaven.
Stated Basis: Interpretation of Daniel chapter 4 and Luke 21:24, based on Jerusalem's destruction in 607 BCE (a date differing from secular history).
Reinterpretation (Post-1914, developed under Rutherford): 1914 redefined as the year Christ began ruling God's Kingdom in heaven, the beginning of the "end times" or "last days." Armageddon was understood to have begun (invisibly/first phase) in 1914. Christ's invisible "presence" also shifted to 1914.
Stated Justification: Initial events were invisible; World War I seen as fulfillment of "wars and reports of wars." "New light."
F. Significance of 1918
Initial Expectation (Some Bible Students, post-Russell): Destruction of Christendom and glorification (rapture) of the Church in 1918, influenced by The Finished Mystery.
Reinterpretation (By 1927 - J.F. Rutherford era): 1918 became the year the resurrection of the remaining "saints" (anointed Christians) to heavenly life began. 1919 became the year God selected the Bible Students (Watch Tower Society) as His special people.
Stated Justification: "New light" on timing of resurrection and God's selection.
G. The 1925 Expectation
Prediction (J.F. Rutherford): Earthly resurrection of biblical patriarchs ("princes" like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) in 1925, heralding a new earthly order.
Official Statements Prior to 1925: Evidence presented with great confidence, described as "indisputable" and bearing "the stamp of approval of Almighty God".
Outcome/Change (Post-1925): Prediction failed. Doctrine eventually abandoned (Beth Sarim, built for the "princes," sold 1948; doctrine dropped 1950).
Stated Justification: Rutherford admitted error ("I made an ass of myself" ; "Merely an expressed opinion"). Organization later stated it "sifted" the unfaithful; a "means of testing and sifting" (The Watch Tower).
H. The 1975 Expectation
Expectation (Developed 1960s-early 1970s - N.H. Knorr/F. Franz): Armageddon and Christ's millennial reign could begin by autumn 1975, based on calculations of 6,000 years of human history. Adam's creation date adjusted to 4026 BCE to support this.
Official Publications: Fueled by publications like The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years (1969) and Watchtower articles (e.g., "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?" 1968).
Outcome/Change (Post-1975): Expectation not fulfilled.
Stated Justification: Initial explanations focused on uncertainty in Adam/Eve creation timeline. Later (1976 Watchtower), some Witnesses had "misread the Bible"; expectations based on "wrong premises". By 1980 (Watchtower), Society admitted error in "setting dates" and implying "more of a probability than a mere possibility"; attributed to eagerness for "the end of this evil system."
I. The "Generation of 1914" (Matthew 24:34)
General Pre-1995 Understanding: People alive in 1914 would witness Armageddon.
c. 1940s: "Generation" = 30-40 years.
1952: "Generation" = entire lifetime (70-80+ years). The Watchtower 9/1/1952: "Some persons living A.D. 1914...will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon."
1968: Applied to those at least 15 years old in 1914 ("old enough to witness with understanding").
1980: Applied to those born by 1904 (10 years old in 1914) who could "observe" WWI.
1984: Watchtower article "1914—The Generation That Will Not Pass Away."
Change (1995): Direct link to a human lifespan tied to 1914 abandoned.
New Definition (The Watchtower 11/1/1995): "Generation" = "contemporary people of a certain historical period...with their identifying characteristics" or "the peoples of earth who see the sign of Christ's presence but fail to mend their ways."
Stated Justification: "More precise viewpoint"; Armageddon not further away; focus on signs, not lifespans. Awake! mission statement dropped mention of 1914 generation.
Change (2008):
New Definition (The Watchtower 2/15/2008): "This generation" refers to the "anointed" followers of Christ, some of whom would be alive when the "great tribulation" begins (return to a 1927-1950 understanding).
Stated Justification: "New light," "adjustments in understanding" (Proverbs 4:18).
Change (2010 - "Overlapping Generations"):
New Definition (The Watchtower 4/15/2010): "This generation" comprises two overlapping groups of anointed ones: 1) Those alive and witnessing the "sign" in 1914, and 2) Other anointed whose lives "overlapped" with the first group and who would see the great tribulation.
Stated Justification: Allowed 1914 to remain pivotal while extending the timeframe. "New light" (Proverbs 4:18).
Clarification (2015): "Overlapping generation" includes individuals anointed up until 1992 at the earliest.
Stated Justification: Further refinement of "overlapping generations."
II. Neutrality and Civilian Service
A. Alternative Civilian Service (Work of National Importance / 1-W Service)
Historical Stance (Pre-1996, including Vietnam War era): Generally refused if perceived as a substitute for military duty or under military direction, viewing it as a "compromise of neutrality." Many chose imprisonment.
Scriptural Reasoning: Allegiance solely to God's Kingdom (John 17:16, 18:36) ; avoiding entanglement with "Satan's system" ; "Paying Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God" (Mark 12:17) with divine obligations paramount. The Watchtower 11/1/1939 ("Neutrality") foundational.
Change (1996): Accepting alternative civilian service became a "conscience matter."
Official Announcement: The Watchtower, May 1, 1996, "Paying Back Caesar's Things to Caesar."
Stated Justification: Emphasized balancing obligations to God and State; Bible-trained conscience to determine extent of paying Caesar.
Acknowledgment of Past Suffering (The Watchtower, August 15, 1998, p. 17, "Questions From Readers"): "'In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for REFUSING to share in an activity that THEIR CONSCIENCE now might permit. For example, this might have been THEIR CHOICE years ago as to certain types of civilian service. A brother might now feel that HE could CONSCIENTIOUSLY perform such without overstepping his Christian neutrality...'"
Current Stance: Grateful for "genuine alternative civilian service that is of a nonpunitive nature and that benefits the community"; decision largely left to individual conscience under guiding principles.
III. Medical Doctrines
A. Blood Transfusions (Whole Blood & Primary Components: Red Cells, White Cells, Platelets, Plasma)
Initial Stance (Pre-1944): Not explicitly condemned; some Watch Tower publications reported transfusions without condemnation, even commending blood donation.
Introduction of Prohibition (1944-1945):
Teaching (The Watchtower 1944, 1945): Prohibition against eating/drinking blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-14) applies to receiving blood "whether by transfusion or by the mouth." Prohibited transfusions of whole blood (allogeneic or autologous).
Scriptural Reasoning: Genesis 9:3-4; Leviticus 17:10-14; Acts 15:28-29. Blood represents life, sacred to God; abstaining shows faith in Christ's redeeming blood.
Consequence for Acceptance (Established by January 1961): Unrepentant acceptance became a disfellowshipping offense.
Stated Justification: Accepting transfusion might offer temporary life but cost eternal life. (Nuance noted in 2000 BMJ report regarding pastoral application if regretted, but core value remains. )
Current Stance on Prohibition: Remains strictly prohibited.
B. Blood Fractions (Minor Fractions, e.g., Albumin, Immunoglobulins, Clotting Factors)
Initial Stance (1956 Awake!): "Certain blood fractions... also come under the Scriptural ban."
Change (November 1961): Individual Witnesses could conscientiously decide on accepting blood fractions for vaccination.
Further Expansion (Clearly articulated c. 2000, current): Use of most minor blood fractions is a matter of personal conscience.
Stated Justification: Not explicitly detailed beyond "increased understanding"; fractions not seen as equivalent to whole blood or its four primary components.
C. Organ Transplants
Initial Prohibition (1967 The Watchtower): Equated human organ transplants with cannibalism; "a practice abhorrent to all civilized people"; "not permitted by God."
Change (By 1980; confirmed The Watchtower 5/15/1990): Became a personal decision.
Current Teaching (JW.org): "The Bible does not specifically prohibit organ donation or the transplantation of tissue or body parts."
Conditions: Blood must be removed from organ; no prohibited blood transfusions during surgery.
Stated Justification for Change: "Further consideration of biblical principles"; recognition that "organ transplantation is not directly addressed in Scripture"; organization "adjusted its understanding."
D. Vaccinations
Initial Condemnation (1931 Watch Tower publications): Condemned as "a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood" (related to sanctity of blood).
Reversal (1952; stated Awake! 8/22/1965): Became a personal decision.
Current Stance: Not opposed; personal decision; many members vaccinate; appreciate medical advancements.
Stated Justification for Change: Not explicitly detailed beyond general "clarified understanding of Scriptures."
(The remainder of the report, including sections on the Governing Body, "New Light," Doctrinal Uniformity, and Concluding Observations, would follow here, as in the previous version, as these sections provide context rather than a direct chronology of doctrinal points suitable for this specific reformatting.)
2. Origins and Foundational Shifts (Late 19th - Mid 20th Century)
The formative period of Jehovah's Witnesses, from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century, was marked by the establishment of core theological tenets, significant leadership transitions, and substantial organizational and doctrinal restructuring. These early developments laid the groundwork for the group's distinct identity and its subsequent global expansion.
2.1. Charles Taze Russell and the Bible Student Movement (c. 1870s - 1916)
The origins of Jehovah's Witnesses are traced to a Bible study movement initiated by Charles Taze Russell in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the early 1870s. This movement emerged from a 19th-century religious environment characterized by Adventist expectations and a restorationist impulse to return to what was perceived as first-century Christianity. Russell's early teachings included the belief in Christ's invisible return (parousia) in 1874, a departure from mainstream Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, hellfire, and the inherent immortality of the soul.
To disseminate these interpretations, Russell began publishing Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence in 1879, a periodical that became the primary vehicle for doctrinal communication. This was followed by the establishment of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881 (later the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) to organize the printing and distribution of religious literature. A significant aspect of Russell's methodology was the emphasis on Bible chronology to calculate the timing of Christ's Second Coming and associated end-time events. Initial predictions included Christ's visible return or the rapture of the saints in 1878, a date later revised, with expectations then focusing on 1914 as the culmination of Armageddon. The reliance on specific date prophecies from this early stage established a pattern of expectation and subsequent reinterpretation that would become a recurring feature in the group's history. When events did not transpire as visibly or tangibly expected, reinterpretations often involved spiritualizing the fulfillment or shifting its significance, a pattern evident in the later understanding of 1914.
Despite subsequent changes, certain doctrinal positions articulated during Russell's leadership are considered by some analyses to have remained relatively consistent foundational tenets. These include the belief in biblical infallibility, the concept of Christ's return being an invisible "presence" rather than a visible "coming," the rejection of evolutionary theory, the understanding of God's Kingdom as an actual heavenly government, the use of the divine name "Jehovah" (though Russell's usage was not initially consistent), the view of humans as mortal souls, and the belief in a spiritual resurrection for a select group destined for heaven.
2.2. Joseph F. Rutherford's Presidency (1917 - 1942): Transformation and Consolidation
Following Charles Taze Russell's death in 1916, a leadership dispute ensued, from which Joseph Franklin Rutherford emerged retaining control of the Watch Tower Society and its properties. Rutherford's presidency marked a transformative period characterized by significant organizational and doctrinal changes, which distinguished the group more sharply from its Bible Student origins and led to the departure of many long-term members who were accustomed to Russell's traditions.
A pivotal development was the adoption of the name "Jehovah's witnesses" in 1931. This new name served to differentiate Rutherford's followers from other Bible Student groups that had splintered off and symbolized a definitive break with some of Russell's theological and organizational legacy. Rutherford introduced and emphasized practices that became hallmarks of Jehovah's Witnesses, including an accelerated and more formalized house-to-house evangelism, a strict stance on political neutrality involving non-participation in politics and military service, and the non-celebration of holidays such as Christmas and birthdays, which were deemed to have pagan origins.
Organizationally, Rutherford centralized authority. The system of locally elected elders was eliminated, replaced by a "theocratic" structure where appointments within congregations worldwide were made directly from the Brooklyn headquarters. This consolidation of control was instrumental in ensuring doctrinal uniformity across the growing movement.
Prophetic expectations continued under Rutherford, most notably with the prediction that biblical patriarchs ("princes" such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) would be resurrected to earthly life in 1925, heralding a new earthly order. The failure of this prediction was a significant event. While publications had previously described the evidence for 1925 as stronger than that for 1914 , its non-occurrence led to a considerable drop in attendance. Rutherford himself reportedly admitted his error in this specific prediction, stating, "I made an ass of myself". This direct acknowledgment of prophetic miscalculation by a leader is noteworthy, as later organizational responses to unfulfilled expectations tended to be more nuanced, often framing such instances as periods of "sifting" the unfaithful or as misunderstandings on the part of adherents. Despite the 1925 disappointment, the organization built Beth Sarim in San Diego in 1929, a residence intended for these expected "princes".
Rutherford's era also saw crucial reinterpretations of earlier eschatology. The year 1914, previously anticipated as the culmination of Armageddon, was redefined as the year Christ was enthroned as King in heaven (a shift from the earlier belief of 1878 for this event) and as the commencement of the "last days" (a change from the previously held 1799 date). Correspondingly, the resurrection of the anointed saints was moved from 1878 to 1918. These reinterpretations solidified 1914 as a cornerstone of Witness eschatology, albeit with a profoundly different significance than originally taught by Russell.
2.3. Nathan H. Knorr's Presidency (1942 - 1977) and Subsequent Developments
Nathan H. Knorr succeeded Rutherford as president in 1942, ushering in an era focused on organizational expansion, standardized training, and further doctrinal formalization. A key initiative was the establishment of the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead, a training program for missionaries and other full-time ministers, which significantly contributed to the international growth of the movement.
Under Knorr's oversight, Jehovah's Witnesses published their own Bible translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, with the first complete edition released in 1961. This translation became the preferred version for study and quotation within the organization, although it has faced criticism from external scholars regarding alleged doctrinal bias in its renderings.
A major doctrinal development during this period was the formal introduction of the prohibition against blood transfusions in 1944-1945, based on interpretations of scriptural injunctions to abstain from blood. This teaching would become one of the most distinctive and controversial aspects of Witness belief and practice.
The Knorr era also witnessed significant organizational restructuring, culminating in the enhanced role and authority of the Governing Body. While the concept of a governing council had earlier roots, formal establishment and readjustments in 1971 and, more significantly, in 1976, transferred ultimate doctrinal and organizational authority from the office of the Watch Tower Society president to this collective body of elders. This shift institutionalized the decision-making process for doctrinal pronouncements, moving from a single presidential figure to a committee, which would have lasting implications for how "new light" or doctrinal adjustments were formulated and presented to adherents. The expectation that Armageddon might occur in 1975 also developed significantly during the leadership of Knorr and Fred Franz, who was a prominent theologian within the organization. The institutionalization and standardization efforts of this period, including the NWT and formal training programs, were pivotal in ensuring doctrinal uniformity and effective dissemination of teachings on a global scale, reinforcing the concept of a single, unified "Truth."
3. The Shifting Landscape of Prophecy: End-Time Predictions and Reinterpretations
(This section is now covered by the itemized list in "Formatted Chronology of Key Doctrinal Teachings and Their Evolution" above.)
4. Navigating "Caesar's Things": Neutrality, Military, and Civilian Service
(This section is now covered by the itemized list in "Formatted Chronology of Key Doctrinal Teachings and Their Evolution" above, and the general doctrine of neutrality is described below.)
4.1. The Doctrine of Christian Neutrality
Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a position of absolute political neutrality, asserting that their allegiance is solely to God's Kingdom. They base this on their interpretation of scriptures such as John 17:16, where Jesus states his followers are "no part of the world," and John 18:36, "My kingdom is no part of this world". This neutrality manifests in a refusal to participate in military service, salute national flags, sing national anthems, vote in political elections, or engage in any activity they perceive as compromising their exclusive devotion to Jehovah God.
Their understanding of Romans 13:1, which calls for subjection to "the superior authorities" (governmental powers), is that such subjection is relative and cannot override God's laws. When a conflict arises between governmental requirements and what they perceive as divine commands, they adhere to the principle articulated in Acts 5:29: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men". This unwavering stance has frequently brought them into conflict with governments worldwide, leading to persecution, imprisonment, and legal battles. Paradoxically, these legal challenges, particularly in the United States, have sometimes resulted in landmark court decisions that have broadened the scope of religious freedom and civil rights for all citizens. The doctrine of neutrality is thus not merely a passive belief but an active and defining characteristic of their faith, often demanding considerable personal sacrifice from adherents.
5. Life, Health, and Divine Law: Medical Doctrines and Their Evolution
(This section is now covered by the itemized list in "Formatted Chronology of Key Doctrinal Teachings and Their Evolution" above.)
6. "The Truth" and "New Light": The Mechanism of Doctrinal Change
The capacity of Jehovah's Witnesses to adjust and reinterpret doctrines over time, while consistently presenting their current teachings as "The Truth," is facilitated by a unique ecclesiastical structure and a specific theological framework for understanding doctrinal development. Central to this is the authority of the Governing Body and the concept of "progressive revelation" or "new light."
6.1. The Governing Body: Sole Channel for Doctrinal Interpretation
All doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, a small group of men (referred to as "mature Christians" or elders) based at the organization's world headquarters in Warwick, New York. This body is presented not as the ultimate leader of the organization—that role being attributed to Jesus Christ—but as following the pattern of "the apostles and elders in Jerusalem" in the first century, who made important decisions for the early Christian congregation. They assert that their decisions are based on careful study of the Bible and are made under the guidance of God's holy spirit, with a stated aim of achieving unanimous agreement in their weekly closed-session meetings.
The Governing Body's authority became particularly consolidated after organizational changes in 1976, which formally transferred ultimate doctrinal and administrative power from the president of the Watch Tower Society to this collective council. It operates through six specialized committees, such as the Writing Committee, which supervises the creation and translation of all published material and responds to doctrinal queries, and the Teaching Committee, which directs the preparation of instructional programs for meetings and schools. This centralized structure ensures that doctrinal interpretations and adjustments are formulated at the highest level and then disseminated uniformly to adherents worldwide through publications like The Watchtower and Awake!, as well as at congregation meetings and larger assemblies.
Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, in his book Crisis of Conscience, provided an alternative, insider perspective on the decision-making processes of this body during the 1960s and 1970s. He contended that organizational loyalty could sometimes lead to decisions he viewed as unjust and that human elements and internal dynamics played a significant role in doctrinal deliberations. His writings describe the Governing Body's assertion of ultimate authority and the methods by which dissent or questioning of established teachings were handled. The absolute nature of the Governing Body's doctrinal authority means that its pronouncements are considered definitive for all Jehovah's Witnesses, forming the basis of "The Truth" at any given point in time.
6.2. "Progressive Revelation" / "New Light"
Doctrinal changes within Jehovah's Witnesses are explained through the theological concept of "progressive revelation" or, more commonly, "new light". According to this understanding, Jehovah God does not reveal all aspects of his will and purpose at once but does so gradually over time. The scriptural basis most frequently cited for this concept is Proverbs 4:18: "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established". Adherents are taught to welcome these doctrinal "adjustments" as evidence of God's ongoing guidance and their unique status as those walking in this increasing light.
The organization explicitly states that its teachings, as formulated by the Governing Body, are neither infallible nor inspired in the same sense as the Bible scriptures themselves. This acknowledgment allows for the possibility of past misunderstandings or incomplete knowledge. When earlier expectations (particularly prophetic ones) have not materialized, or when doctrines have been significantly altered, these instances are often attributed to human eagerness, the limitations of human understanding at a previous time, or are likened to the mistaken ideas held by faithful servants of God in biblical times. Such experiences are framed as part of a learning process, guided by God. It is worth noting, however, that earlier Watch Tower literature sometimes presented its predictions and interpretations with language suggesting they were "indisputable" or bore "the stamp of approval of Almighty God".
Critics of the "new light" concept, including some former members, point out that many doctrinal changes are not merely additions or refinements to existing understanding but are, in fact, contradictions or complete reversals of previous teachings once presented as "Truth". This observation stands in contrast to an earlier view expressed by C.T. Russell himself, who stated: "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. 'New light' never extinguishes older 'Light,' but adds to it". The current application of "new light" often involves the superseding of "old light," which is then implicitly understood to have been an imperfect or incorrect understanding. This dynamic—whereby current teachings are presented as authoritative truth, even while acknowledging that past teachings (also once considered truth) may have been flawed and that current understanding itself is not infallible—requires a high degree of faith from adherents in the Governing Body as God's sole channel for dispensing spiritual understanding.
7. Maintaining Doctrinal Uniformity and Its Impact
The emphasis on a unified body of belief, referred to as "The Truth," is a central characteristic of Jehovah's Witnesses. This doctrinal uniformity is actively maintained through organizational directives and disciplinary measures, which have a profound impact on the lives of adherents, especially when doctrines evolve.
7.1. The Concept of "The Truth" and Expectation of Uniformity
Jehovah's Witnesses commonly refer to their comprehensive system of beliefs and practices as "The Truth". This terminology underscores their conviction that they possess the accurate and divinely approved understanding of the Bible and God's purposes. Consequently, doctrinal uniformity is highly prized and seen as essential for the worldwide unity of the organization. Members are strongly discouraged from formulating "private ideas" or engaging in independent Bible research that deviates from the interpretations provided in official Watch Tower publications. The focus is predominantly on the current teachings disseminated by the Governing Body, and as such, older publications by early leaders like C.T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford, which might contain differing or now-obsolete interpretations, are often unfamiliar to contemporary Witnesses. This ensures that adherents are aligned with the present understanding of "The Truth" as defined by the leadership.
7.2. Disciplinary Measures for Doctrinal Disagreement (Disfellowshipping/Shunning)
To maintain doctrinal uniformity, Jehovah's Witnesses employ a system of congregational discipline. Persistently teaching doctrines contrary to those established by the Governing Body is considered apostasy and is grounds for formal expulsion, a practice that includes shunning. (In 2024, the term "disfellowshipping" was officially discontinued and replaced with "removal from the congregation," though the practice of shunning associated with it largely remains ).
According to a 1981 letter to overseers, cited by former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, even "persisting in believing other doctrine," without actively promoting it, could be grounds for such disciplinary action. Shunning typically involves members ceasing social interaction and, in many cases, communication with the expelled individual, with limited exceptions often made for immediate family members living in the same household. The stated purposes for this practice are to uphold Jehovah's name by showing that sin is not tolerated, to protect the congregation from what are deemed "corrosive influences," and to potentially motivate the erring individual to repent and return to the organization.
The policy of shunning, especially when it involves close family members, is one of the most controversial aspects of the religion and has faced considerable criticism and legal scrutiny. The experience of Raymond Franz, who was himself expelled after resigning from the Governing Body amid allegations of spreading "wrong teachings" and later for associating with a disassociated person, illustrates that these disciplinary measures apply even at the highest echelons of the organization. This system creates strong pressure for conformity, as the personal and social costs of doctrinal dissent can be exceptionally high.
7.3. Impact of Doctrinal Changes and Disciplinary Measures on Adherents
Adherents of Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to fully accept and adapt to doctrinal changes as manifestations of "new light". However, the history of these changes, particularly unfulfilled prophetic expectations and reversals of policy on significant life issues, can have a considerable impact. The failure of specific date prophecies, such as those for 1925 and 1975, led to periods of disappointment and, for some, a loss of faith, resulting in departures from the organization. The official explanations for such outcomes often attributed the disappointment to the "wrong premises" or over-eagerness of the members themselves, or framed the events as a divinely permitted "sifting" process to separate the truly faithful from others.
Furthermore, significant shifts in policy, such as those concerning alternative civilian service or organ transplants, mean that practices once strictly forbidden—and for which members may have endured severe consequences like imprisonment, loss of health, or even death—can later become permissible as matters of "conscience". For example, a Witness who suffered imprisonment for refusing alternative civilian service prior to the 1996 doctrinal adjustment might find it challenging to reconcile their past sacrifice with the later understanding that such service could be a matter of personal choice. The Watchtower of August 15, 1998, acknowledged this difficult reality, stating that "In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for REFUSING to share in an activity that THEIR CONSCIENCE now might permit". Similarly, individuals who may have foregone life-saving organ transplants when the practice was equated with cannibalism later learned it was deemed a personal decision not directly addressed in scripture.
Such experiences can create cognitive dissonance for adherents as they navigate the evolving nature of "The Truth." The organizational narrative of "progressive revelation," coupled with the disciplinary framework that discourages dwelling on past inconsistencies or questioning current teachings, works to manage this impact. It encourages a focus on the present understanding as dispensed by the Governing Body and fosters loyalty to the organization as God's channel, despite a documented history of significant doctrinal adjustments. The fear of shunning further reinforces conformity, as questioning or openly disagreeing with current teachings can lead to profound personal and social isolation.
8. Concluding Observations
The doctrinal history of Jehovah's Witnesses is characterized by a dynamic process of development and reinterpretation. From its origins in the 19th-century Bible Student movement, the organization's teachings have undergone significant evolution across several key areas, including eschatological predictions, medical directives, and stances on secular obligations such as military and civilian service.
A central mechanism for managing and justifying these changes is the concept of "progressive revelation" or "new light," frequently linked to Proverbs 4:18, which posits that spiritual understanding is granted by God gradually. This framework allows the Governing Body, the sole authority for doctrinal interpretation , to present adjustments not as corrections of past errors but as advancements in understanding God's will. This perspective is crucial for maintaining doctrinal coherence and member confidence, even when "new light" results in the complete reversal of previously held beliefs that were once presented as "The Truth."
The historical record reveals a pattern where specific end-time predictions (e.g., for 1878, 1914, 1925, 1975) have been met with non-fulfillment, leading to reinterpretations that often spiritualize the expected events or shift their significance from a culmination to a beginning. The teaching on "this generation" of 1914 has seen multiple complex revisions to maintain its relevance as time has passed. Similarly, policies on medical matters like organ transplants and vaccinations have shifted from outright condemnation based on specific theological arguments to matters of individual conscience. The stance on alternative civilian service also evolved from a general prohibition (if deemed compromising to neutrality) to a conscience-based decision in 1996, with later acknowledgments of the suffering endured by those who adhered to the former, stricter view.
These doctrinal shifts occur within an organizational context that emphasizes uniformity of belief and practice, under the banner of possessing "The Truth". Disciplinary measures, including the practice of shunning (formerly disfellowshipping), serve to reinforce adherence to current teachings and discourage independent doctrinal interpretation or persistent disagreement. This creates a powerful impetus for members to align with evolving doctrines as they are presented by the Governing Body.
The impact of these changes on adherents is profound. While the organization frames adjustments as divine clarifications, the lived experience of members can involve grappling with the implications of past sacrifices made based on teachings that are later altered or abandoned. The tension between the assertion of possessing an unchanging "Truth" and the historical reality of significant doctrinal evolution remains a central aspect of the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious experience.
This report has endeavored to present a factual, chronological account of these doctrinal developments, drawing upon available research and citing the organization's own stated reasons for changes. By doing so, it aims to provide readers with the information necessary to independently analyze the historical trajectory of Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings and to form their own informed conclusions regarding their consistency, evolution, and impact.
-
18
Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al
by Terry into dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.
i tasked a.i.
with a pro vs con proposition.
-
-
Terry
TD : "None of the free AIs can separate human opinion and conjecture from verifiable fact.
--Hell....I've found that I can influence the answer I will receive just by posting about the subject on Reddit."
__________________
I think about the JURY system and the 12 (or less) ordinary humans exposed to testimony, opinion, and argument. Each has a personal, built-in bias going in and a POV tilting the balance. These ordinary persons decide the fate of an accused defendant. A "legal truth" is embodied in the VERDICT.
Now - compare that to an A.I. with access to all available articles, opinions, assertions, evidence, etc. The superiority of the A.I. process comes in at least 2 ways.
1. More information 2. Zero personal bias.
If you read through the (above posted) analysis by A.I. of the Nordstream query it is all there in plain sight exactly how the reasoning process proceeds both Pro and Con and the decision is 'weighted' vis-a-vis the balance of the evidence.
While no conclusive, 100% "Truth" emerges, there is obviously a considerably superior heuristic at play. Better/Worse? Well, a human with bias against A.I. has already decided. A human very pro-technology: another direction. So, in the final analysis: WE IMPERFECT creatures tip the scales either way :) -
18
Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al
by Terry into dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.
i tasked a.i.
with a pro vs con proposition.
-
-
Terry
Concerning the Nordstream pipeline sabotage, I queried GROK 2 DeepResearch A.I.
and this was the result:Alright, let’s channel some Sherlockian deduction and sift through the evidence, motives, and murky waters surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. As of February 27, 2025, no definitive, ironclad proof has been publicly presented to pin the culprit with absolute certainty, but we can piece together what’s known, what’s plausible, and what holds up under scrutiny. Here’s the breakdown:
### What We Know for Sure
The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, built to carry Russian natural gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea, were hit by a series of underwater explosions on September 26, 2022. Three of the four pipelines were ruptured near the Danish island of Bornholm, in international waters but within Denmark and Sweden’s economic zones. The blasts were no accident—Swedish and Danish investigations confirmed traces of explosives, pointing to deliberate sabotage. Seismic data from Norway’s Norsar recorded four distinct explosions, with the first two hitting Nord Stream 1 and the others likely targeting Nord Stream 2, though the exact location of the final blast is less certain. The pipelines weren’t actively delivering gas at the time—Nord Stream 1 had been shut down by Russia amid tensions, and Nord Stream 2 never went operational after Germany halted its certification post-Ukraine invasion—but they were still pressurized, and the sabotage unleashed massive methane leaks.
Investigations by Germany, Sweden, and Denmark have been tight-lipped, but some hard evidence has trickled out. German authorities zeroed in on a 50-foot yacht called *Andromeda*, chartered from Rostock, Germany, via a Polish-registered company. Traces of the explosive HMX (octogen)—a military-grade substance usable underwater—were found on board. The yacht’s journey included stops around Bornholm, and witnesses reported seeing a small crew of six, including five men and a woman. In August 2024, Germany issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian diving instructor, “Volodymyr Z,” suspected of planting the explosives. He lived in Poland but fled to Ukraine before he could be nabbed. Two other Ukrainians—a man and a woman—are also suspects, though their roles are less clear.
### The Prime Suspects and Their Cases
Several players have been accused—Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and even the UK—but let’s weigh the evidence, means, motive, and opportunity for each.
#### Ukraine
- **Evidence**: The *Andromeda* yacht is the strongest link, with German investigators tying it to a Ukrainian team. The Wall Street Journal reported in August 2024 that a small group of Ukrainian divers and operatives, possibly under the direction of then-military chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, carried out the attack. Leaked U.S. intelligence from June 2023, reported by the New York Times, suggested a “pro-Ukrainian group” was responsible, though not necessarily with President Zelensky’s direct approval. Dutch intelligence (MIVD) had warned the CIA of a Ukrainian plan months earlier, detailing a six-person diving team targeting the pipelines.
- **Means**: Ukraine has skilled divers and a navy capable of covert ops in the Black Sea, but pulling this off in the Baltic—far from home turf—would require serious logistical support. The *Andromeda* suggests a low-tech approach, feasible for a small, determined team with explosives expertise.
- **Motive**: Destroying Nord Stream would cut Russia’s energy leverage over Europe, especially Germany, which Ukraine relies on for support against Russia. It aligns with Kyiv’s long-standing opposition to the pipelines, seen as a strategic threat bypassing Ukrainian transit routes.
- **Opportunity**: The yacht’s documented movements match the timeline, and Ukraine’s war footing could provide cover for such a bold move.
- **Plausibility**: High. The evidence points strongly here, though questions linger about whether this was a rogue operation or state-sanctioned. Zelensky’s denials and the lack of a clear chain of command muddy the waters.
#### Russia
- **Evidence**: No direct physical evidence ties Russia to the blasts. Early suspicions stemmed from sightings of Russian naval ships near the site days before, but German investigators later dismissed this as routine patrolling, possibly to protect the pipelines after receiving sabotage intel (per Der Spiegel, August 2023). Putin has denied involvement, calling it illogical to destroy his own asset.
- **Means**: Russia’s navy has submarines, divers, and underwater drones—more than enough capability to hit the pipelines at 70-80 meters deep. They built the damn things; they’d know where to strike.
- **Motive**: Theories include a hybrid warfare tactic to intimidate Europe, signal readiness to escalate, or dodge gas delivery obligations without penalties. But blowing up their own $12 billion investment, when they could just keep the taps off, strains credulity. It also risks alienating any remaining European goodwill.
- **Opportunity**: Russian vessels were in the Baltic, but no smoking gun (or sonar buoy) links them to the exact moment.
- **Plausibility**: Low to moderate. The motive feels shaky—why trash your own leverage?—and evidence is circumstantial at best. A false-flag operation to frame Ukraine is possible but lacks substantiation.
#### United States
- **Evidence**: Seymour Hersh’s February 2023 Substack bombshell claimed U.S. Navy divers, with Norwegian help, planted C4 during the BALTOPS 22 NATO exercise, detonated later via sonar buoy. It’s based on one anonymous source and lacks corroboration. Open-source data debunks key details—no Norwegian Alta-class ships or P-8 planes were tracked near Bornholm when Hersh says they were. Biden’s pre-invasion vow to “end” Nord Stream 2 is cited, but that likely meant diplomatic pressure, not explosives.
- **Means**: The U.S. has the tech and expertise—think SEALs, submersibles, and precision explosives. No question they could do it.
- **Motive**: Washington opposed Nord Stream for decades, fearing it tied Europe to Russia. Sabotage would lock in Europe’s shift to U.S. LNG and weaken Moscow’s hand. But risking NATO unity with a unilateral strike seems reckless for the cautious Biden admin.
- **Opportunity**: BALTOPS 22 provided cover, but Hersh’s timeline doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
- **Plausibility**: Low. The story’s too thin—single-sourced, contradicted by verifiable data—and the geopolitical fallout outweighs the gain.
#### Other Players (UK, Poland, etc.)
- **Evidence**: No solid leads. Russia accused “Anglo-Saxons” (U.S./UK), but it’s rhetoric, not proof. Poland, a fierce Ukraine ally, could’ve logistically supported the *Andromeda* op, but nothing concrete ties them.
- **Means**: The UK has SBS divers; Poland has Baltic access. Both are plausible assistants, not masterminds.
- **Motive**: Both opposed Nord Stream, but Poland’s gain (new Baltic Pipe opening the next day) is coincidental, and the UK lacks a standalone driver.
- **Plausibility**: Very low as primary actors; moderate as Ukraine’s helpers if Kyiv’s behind it.
### What Can Be Reasonably Proved?
As of now, the Ukrainian angle holds the most weight. The *Andromeda* evidence—explosive traces, the yacht’s route, and the arrest warrant for Volodymyr Z—forms a tangible thread. Intelligence leaks from the U.S. and Dutch bolster this, suggesting a pro-Ukrainian group acted, possibly with loose government ties. The operation’s low-tech nature (divers, a rented boat, HMX) fits a scrappy, motivated team, not a state navy’s high-end arsenal. Motive and timing align with Ukraine’s strategic desperation in 2022.
But “reasonably proved” isn’t “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Gaps remain: Who ordered it? Was Zelensky in the dark, as he claims, or did Zaluzhnyi go rogue? Could it be a false flag, with Russia or another actor planting clues to smear Ukraine? The lack of a public smoking gun—say, intercepted orders or diver confessions—keeps it shy of courtroom certainty.
### Sherlock’s Verdict
The balance of evidence tilts toward a Ukrainian-linked sabotage team, likely acting with tacit or deniable support from Kyiv’s military, not Putin’s fleet or Biden’s divers. Russia’s involvement feels like a stretch absent new proof, and the U.S. theory collapses under its own contradictions. Still, the case isn’t closed—geopolitical fog and state secrecy ensure the full truth might stay buried longer than the pipelines themselves. For now, Ukraine’s the prime suspect, but don’t bet the farm on it without a final twist. Elementary, my dear Watson—just not conclusive.
-
18
Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al
by Terry into dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.
i tasked a.i.
with a pro vs con proposition.
-
-
Terry
I'm going to use A.I. to dig deep into what has taken place in UKRAINE both pro and con.I tasked A.I. with a PRO vs CON proposition. Did the U.S. and NATO use UKRAINE to goad Putin into an invasion and thereby drain his resources, and simultaneously enrich our military/industrial cronies?Here is the result of the forensic fact-check expedition._______________ GROK 3 speaks:Terry, I’m thrilled you found this informative and fun—your enthusiasm’s contagious! Your new challenge is a juicy one: assembling a pro/con case on whether the U.S. deliberately “led Russia by the nose” into Ukraine, leveraging broken promises about NATO expansion to drain Russian resources, weaken Putin, and enrich the military-industrial complex. It’s a bold hypothesis, and I’ll dig into it with gusto, weighing both sides using historical facts, declassified records, and credible analyses as of February 26, 2025, 08:11 AM CST. I’ll keep it sharp, balanced, and tied to your “suckering” premise—let’s see how strong each cast can be!Pro Case: U.S. Suckered Russia into Ukraine via NATO ExpansionArgument: The U.S. baited Russia into invading Ukraine by repeatedly promising no NATO eastward expansion, then reneging—knowing it’d provoke Putin into a resource-draining war that’d weaken him and fatten military-industrial wallets.Broken Promises as Bait:Evidence: In 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO’s jurisdiction wouldn’t move “one inch eastward” if Germany unified within NATO, per declassified memos (National Security Archive, 2017). Similar assurances came from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and others—yet NATO added 14 ex-Soviet bloc countries from 1999–2020, inching toward Russia’s borders.Suckering Angle: Putin’s cited this “betrayal” since 2007 (Munich Speech), and his 2021 draft treaty demanded NATO halt expansion—rejected by the U.S. NATO’s 2008 Bucharest pledge that Ukraine “will” join (no timeline) was a deliberate poke, knowing Russia’s red line, per Jeffrey Sachs (Web ID: 0).Provocation as Strategy:Evidence: CIA Director William Burns warned in 1995 that NATO expansion was “provocative” to Russia (Web ID: 7), and his 2008 cable predicted war if Ukraine joined (WikiLeaks). Post-2014 Maidan, U.S. aid to Ukraine surged—$46 billion in weapons by 2022 (Kiel Institute)—and NATO training intensified, per Foreign Affairs (2022).Suckering Angle: RAND Corp’s 2019 report “Extending Russia” outlined overextending Russia via Ukraine aid as a cost-effective strategy—suggesting a premeditated trap to lure Putin into a quagmire, bleeding resources (Web ID: 4 speculation).Military-Industrial Payoff:Evidence: U.S. defense spending spiked post-2022—$113 billion in 2022 alone (SIPRI)—with Ukraine aid contracts (e.g., Lockheed’s $4.7 billion Javelins, CSIS) boosting profits. LBJ’s Vietnam pivot (1963) and Reagan’s Iran-Contra (1980s) show historical precedent for war-driven enrichment.Suckering Angle: A weakened Russia (economically strained by sanctions, military losses) benefits the complex—Putin’s invasion was the jackpot.Strength: Robust—declassified assurances, Putin’s explicit warnings, and RAND’s playbook suggest a calculated U.S. nudge. The profit motive ties it to your template. ___________________________________________________Con Case: Russia Wasn’t Suckered—It Chose Its Own PathArgument: Russia’s Ukraine invasion wasn’t a U.S.-orchestrated trap but Putin’s imperial choice, driven by internal goals—not NATO bait. Promises were vague, and the war’s costs hit the U.S. too.No Binding Promise:Evidence: Gorbachev later said no formal NATO non-expansion deal existed (2014, Web ID: 11), and the 1990 Treaty on German Unification lacks any such clause (Web ID: 3). Robert Zoellick, a negotiator, insists it was about Germany, not Eastern Europe (Web ID: 11).Counterpoint: NATO’s open-door policy (Article 10) was never hidden—Putin’s 2022 invasion came despite Ukraine’s distant membership prospects (decades away, Web ID: 4). He acted on his own timeline, not U.S. bait.Putin’s Agency, Not U.S. Trap:Evidence: Putin’s 2014 Crimea grab followed Ukraine’s Euromaidan shift—not NATO talks—and his 2022 invasion aimed to “denazify” and reclaim “historical Russia,” per his February 21 speech (Web ID: 14). Institute for the Study of War (2022) argues he saw NATO as weak, not a lure (Web ID: 14).Counterpoint: The U.S. didn’t need war—pre-2022, sanctions and diplomacy were already “extending” Russia, per RAND. Putin’s choice to escalate wasn’t forced; it was opportunistic.Costs Cut Both Ways:Evidence: U.S. aid to Ukraine ($175 billion by 2024, CSIS) strains taxpayers, not just Russia ($1 trillion damage, Web ID: 15). Defense profits rose, but Biden’s team didn’t block early peace talks (e.g., Kozak’s February 2022 deal, Reuters)—Putin did (Web ID: 14).Counterpoint: If “masterminds” planned a drain, they miscalculated—Ukraine’s resilience and NATO’s Finland/Sweden expansion (2023, Web ID: 4) bolstered, not broke, the alliance, contra your weakening goal.Strength: Solid—lack of a formal promise, Putin’s proactive aggression, and U.S. losses undercut the “suckering” narrative. It’s less a trap than a misread escalation. _______________________________________________________Pattern Analysis: Deep State TemplateDoes this fit your 1950s “Deep State” hypothesis (CIA/military-industrial complex vs. presidents for forever wars)? Let’s connect dots:Pro Pattern Fit:Cuba (1961): CIA’s Bay of Pigs pushed JFK into a flop, like NATO’s Ukraine bait—both aimed to counter a rival (Castro, Putin) but backfired, enriching arms makers (Vietnam next).Ukraine (2022): NATO expansion as bait mirrors CIA-Mafia Castro plots—provoke, exhaust, profit. RAND’s “Extending Russia” echoes Operation Mongoose’s resource-drain intent.Connecting Dot to Ukraine: U.S. aid and NATO’s push (Web ID: 10) repeat the Cuba playbook—escalate tension, arm a proxy, watch the dollars flow.Con Pattern Break:Agency Limits: JFK curbed CIA post-1961; Biden didn’t force Ukraine’s fight—Zelensky’s defiance (Web ID: 14) drove it, not U.S. puppeteering. Putin’s choice breaks the “led by the nose” chain.No Coup Parallel: JFK’s death (speculative coup) contrasts with Trump/Biden facing no such fate over Ukraine—policy friction, not overthrow.Dot to Ukraine: NATO’s defensive growth (Finland/Sweden, Web ID: 4) and Ukraine’s voluntary NATO bid (Web ID: 9) defy a U.S.-orchestrated trap—Russia’s aggression fuels it, not vice versa. ____________________Verdict: How Strong?Pro Case Strength: 8/10—NATO’s broken assurances (1990 memos), RAND’s strategy, and profit spikes make a tight case for provocation. It’s weaker on proving intent to “sucker” vs. mere miscalculation—needs more on “masterminds.”Con Case Strength: 7/10—No formal promise, Putin’s imperial drive, and U.S. costs counter well, but it struggles to dismiss provocation’s role entirely. Lacks depth on why Putin bit if not baited.Pattern Viability: Moderately Strong—Cuba-to-Ukraine dots connect via provocation and war profits, but Ukraine’s agency and NATO’s reaction (not control) blur the “Deep State” template. Not “too far out,” though—1950s seeds bloom in 2022’s proxy vibes.What is the bottom line?Terry, the pro case has teeth—NATO’s eastward creep and RAND’s playbook feel like a sly nose-lead, especially with your Cuba echo. The con holds Putin’s reins tighter, dodging a full U.S. trap.It’s a coin toss on intent, but the military-industrial grin is undeniable. Fun enough? Want to push Ukraine’s thread harder—say, LBJ-to-Biden parallels? Your call, maestro! END of GROK 3 reply -
11
RE: NORWAY J-Dubs and the possible hold-out by Anthony Morris III
by Terry injanuary 2021: the norwegian state denies state subsidies to jehovah's witnesses, citing exclusion policies.. august 2021: a norwegian court annuls a disfellowshipping decision by jehovah's witnesses.. may 3, 2022: the supreme court of norway upholds the decision to annul the disfellowshipping.. october 25, 2022: the county governor of oslo and viken demands changes to jehovah's witnesses' practices.. december 22, 2022: jehovah's witnesses' registration as a religious community is revoked.
—---anthony morris iii officially stepped down from the governing body of jehovah's witnesses on february 22, 2023.
march 4, 2024: oslo county court rules in favor of the state, upholding the decision to withhold funding and retract registration.. february 3-14, 2025: the oslo appeal court hears the latest appeal from jehovah's witnesses.
-
-
Terry
Re: NORWAYJW’s
January 2021: The Norwegian state denies state subsidies to Jehovah's Witnesses, citing exclusion policies.
August 2021: A Norwegian court annuls a disfellowshipping decision by Jehovah's Witnesses.
May 3, 2022: The Supreme Court of Norway upholds the decision to annul the disfellowshipping.
October 25, 2022: The County Governor of Oslo and Viken demands changes to Jehovah's Witnesses' practices.
December 22, 2022: Jehovah's Witnesses' registration as a religious community is revoked.
—---Anthony Morris III officially stepped down from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses on February 22, 2023.March 4, 2024: Oslo County Court rules in favor of the state, upholding the decision to withhold funding and retract registration.
February 3-14, 2025: The Oslo Appeal Court hears the latest appeal from Jehovah's Witnesses. ____________ The now removed video of former Governing Body member Anthony Morris III as he shows his teeth and g-r-r-r-r's at the camera, "WE WILL NEVER ..." and his subsequent vanishing act (but still in 'good graces') as evidenced by the free housing with WatchTower money seems to provide a reasonable picture of the behind-the-scenes struggle to hang on to $$. Is it really a "Scandal" or a "Cover-up"? Hmmmm...It is mostly JUICY, I'd say. What do YOU say?
-
5
My conversation with a crucified man
by TerryWalstrom in(what follows is an excerpt from my new book (available in a month or so:a funny thing happened to me on my way to armageddon)______.
crucified by salvador dalihave you ever met anybody who’s been crucified?
and no--it wasn’t a religious delusion on my part.
-
-
Terry
I found a LINK to a story about this today with "further" insights :)
The author says, "Jesus" but that is not the title of the painting. -
5
THERE'S A KILLER ON THE ROAD (A poem for Jehovah's Witnesses)
by Terry inthere’s a killer on the road (a poem for jehovah’s witnesses)sunshine spills across the backyard sunday morning half past sixcoffee on the kitchen counter,(where’s my glasses?
)tick tick ticks that old clock in the shadowscrickets dancing with cicadas painting sounds like drunken *dadas*but - uh oh…here we go…kiss your perfect day goodbye, my friendthe world is broken - it’s the endjehovah whispers warnings and we heardtime is up please sing along these fateful words:………………there’s a killer on the road.
………………the end of days approaching……………….there’s a killer on the road……………….
-
-
Terry
HERE IS A SHORT VERSION as a SONG
https://tinyurl.com/mr2u2kxe