Posts by Cold Steel

45

A Mormon manages to awaken from mind control with a little help from Jehovah's Witnesses...

by cedars in

jw
friends

a brilliant, honest, well presented video.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s4hqkiiz5a.

.

cedars.

Cold Steel

As a true believing Latter-day Saint, I found this production to be a slickly produced anti-Mormon video based on nothing but an extremely superficial straw man argument.

The differences between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are far more different than they are similar, and charts and diagrams prove little.

The similarities, according to the video, basically center around the fact that both sects:

are hierarchal in structure
are led by men said to be chosen of God
claim that they are God’s true church on Earth
believe that apostasy is a serious sin

These points also are true of Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy, and perhaps many other sects as well. In modern times, there’s a decided antipathy towards organized religions, and people who get out of one organized religion don’t usually notice the intricacies of another.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, has many aspects that are foreign to other faiths, including the JWs. For example, the LDS church differs in these critical areas, in which they believe in:

Restoration: Although both the JW and LDS faiths believe in an apostasy from the ancient church, only the LDS church believes in a restoration of the gospel, with all the gifts, powers and authority of the ancient church; further, that the initiative for this Restoration came not from Earth, but from Heaven.
Revelation: The JWs believe that all communication was done away with the passing of the ancient church, thus ending man’s ability to commune with God or with his angels; receive visions, prophesize, or to speak by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Authority: Many sects believe that the authority to act in God’s name is derived from the Bible. Latter-day Saints, however, believe that authority comes from God through others in authority. Jesus told his ancient apostles, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit....” (Jøhn 15:16) The apostles held the Keys of the Kingdom, or the authority to bind on Heaven and on Earth. These keys were given to govern the authority of others in the church and prevent interlopers from claiming authority they didn’t have.
Apostles: The JWs believe that no more apostles or prophets were needed or called and ordained after the ancient church fell. As the chief officers of the church, apostles are special witnesses of Christ who work to spread the Gospel to other nations, direct missionary work and tend to the affairs of the church at large.
Church Officers: Besides apostles, the LDS church believes other officers of the ancient church were restored. These include the Seventy, Elders, Deacons, Priests, Evangelists, Bishops, and so forth.
Canon of Scripture: Like many Christian sects, the JWs believe in a closed canon of scriptures, made up of the Holy Bible as the complete and inerrant word of God. Like the ancient church, the LDS have an open canon. Thus, if the Lord adds to man’s knowledge by restoring or revealing new doctrines, it can be added to that canon. The LDS church, in fact, is known for its belief in the Book of Mormon, a collection of scriptures written by prophets who lived in the Western Hemisphere. As followers of Christ were called “Christians” in the First Century, so believers in the Book of Mormon (published in 1830) were called “Mormons.” (The Book of Mormon is available free from the church, or may be downloaded free from Amazon Kindle and other formats.)

These are only a few of the differences between the two religions, and there are many additional foundational and doctrinal differences.

The LDS church views the Jehovah's Witnesses as manmade organizations and we’re frequently at a loss to understand them when they criticize other Christians (including us) as “manmade.”

18

Predicted Armageddon would come when?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

predicted armageddon would come when?.

today i added a new article to my blog highlighting watchtowers play-toying with predictions of armageddon.

the organizations governing body apparently knows how to cry wolf!

Cold Steel

Yes, by what authority did the WTS conclude that Armageddon was the “antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom” when neither the Old or New Testament writers indicate this is the case? John writes, for example, of the temple the Jews will build in the latter days (Revelation 11), and the deaths of the two prophets the Lord will raise up to the Jewish people during the battle of Armageddon. “ And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,” he writes, “where also our Lord was crucified. ” (Rev. 11:8)

Here, Armageddon’s wrath isn’t aimed at Jerusalem. Jerusalem is merely the “modern antitype” of “Christendom.” But to the apostle John, the antitype of Jerusalem was “Sodom and Egypt.”

How, then, could Armageddon be “against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom”?

Amos wrote that the Lord God will do nothing save he reveal it to his servants the prophets. (3:7) The reason WTS founders did not apply the prophecies to Jerusalem is because they didn’t know the Lord was going to subsequently gather Judah back to the lands of their inheritance, even though the Lord revealed it centuries before. For example, Isaiah writes:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isa. 11:11-12)

This is a literal prophecy that had a literal fulfillment, though it’s an ongoing one. To the prophets, they knew how things would end; however, for the blind leaders of the blind, one has to grasp the closest straw one can find!

7

gonna write my annulment letter

by QueenWitch in

i know it may not mean anything to the boys in brooklyn but it's therapeutic.

thinking of sending in on the anniversary of my dunking, may 30.. i hereby declare my baptism null and void on the primary grounds that i took this action before i reached the legal age of consent.

secondary grounds include lack of full disclosure of the terms involved.

Cold Steel

This is what I would write:

Gentlemen:
Please remove my name from your records immediately.
I was baptized on May 30, 2012. It's now almost my one-year anniversary and the destruction of this wicked, worldly system of things has NOT happened. Also, the cheap ink you guys use on your cheap paper that we give to others is giving ME a rash. Besides, when I try to explain things about the battle of Armandhammer, no one knows what I'm talking about! And the last time I tried telling an elderly man the "Good News" of the end of things, he excused himself, came back with a shotgun and said, "No, the good news is that there ain't gonna be no one on my porch in fifteen seconds!" One of the elders at my Kingdom Hall asked me, "What steps did you take?"
I said, "Bloody long ones! I'm not an idiot!" He said I should have died for the cause and I replied, "I joined this religion to see other people die, not giving them the chance to see me die!"
So I want out. I don't see anyone in the Governing Body complaining about misquitoes, dog bites and discussions of the intricacies of the Second Amendment! The only thing you guys gripe about is whether the air conditioning or heat is set right in those big, ugly buildings of yours in Brooklyn! I'd like to reqest a copy of my records, but with 3.2 million square feet of building space, I wouldn't want to make any of you walk to the nearest Xerox and make copies. (Oh, I forgot, you have girls to do that sort of thing!)
Look, let's just put it this way: Don't call me, I'll call you! And if you send any elders to my house, I'm gonna scream and yell "Rape!"
Sincerely,
QueenWitch ψ

.

33

RELIGULOUS...Please watch it.

by Fed-up in

i know it's been commented on before here.

if you haven't seen it (i'm sure it's on netflix) please take a look.

it's the other side of the coin, presented in a funny way that really makes you think about religion and worship.

Cold Steel

Yes, I noticed Maher spoke to two disaffected Mormons when he ridiculed the LDS faith. He never asked the Mormon apologists at BYU for comments, but sought LDS business people and church authorities. Apparently they smelled a rat. In fact, Maher disclosed: "It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.' It didn't work everywhere. We went to Salt Lake City, but no one would let us film there at all."

Regarding the great flood, I'm no geologist, but it's interesting to note that the legend of a great flood is had by many throughout the world, including the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Asians, Amerindians, Olmecs, Mayans, Aztecs and even as far south as Peru. To me it's clear that some event happened that was so stupendous that it made an impression on the ancient world.

One open source retorts:

It is interesting to note that many of these quotes come from reviewers who actually liked the film. A sample of media quotes about the film:

"At one point the film presents a cartoon about Mormon beliefs almost as if it’s Sunday-school material — when it is in fact from a notorious anti-Mormon film."

—Mark Hemingway, Maherly Fair, National Review Online, Oct. 7, 2008.

"He [Maher] loves the sound of his own voice and the intellect and seeming intelligence behind his own theories. Nowhere in this movie does he really attempt to get answers."

—Gary Wolcott, Religulous doesn't have much of a prayer, Tri-City Herald, Oct. 2, 2008.

"If you can accept the comedian and talk show host's ill-mannered shtick and can stand a robust lecture from someone who speaks critically of what others hold sacred, Religulous will reinforce what you already think."

—Duane Dudek, There’s no doubt ‘Religulous’ rips faith, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 2, 2008.

"I enjoyed Religulous, but I think it would be better if Maher had the confidence to spend more time talking to articulate believers."

—Chris Hewitt (St. Paul), 'Religulous' has a host so good, it will renew your faith in the docu-essay, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oct. 4, 2008.

"Thought is absent in Religulous, as is imagination. The movie is Maher's monument to Maher, as ugly and hateful as anything he decries in the film."

—Glenn Whipp, Maher ridiculous in 'Religulous', Los Angeles Daily News, Oct. 3, 2008.

"Bill Maher does something amazing in Religulous. He makes Michael Moore look incredibly likable in comparison."

—Mick LaSalle, 'Religulous' - comic on a crusade, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 3, 2008.

"[Maher's] scattershot and ad hominem attacks against many different forms of religious hypocrisy don't add up to a coherent critique, and he's not qualified to provide one."

—Andrew O'Hehir, Bill Maher vs. the "talking snake", Salon.com, Oct. 2, 2008.

"A provocation, thinly disguised as a documentary, that succeeds in being almost as funny as it is offensive."

—Joe Morgenstern, 'Religulous', Wall Street Journal, Oct. 3, 2008.

"In the end, for all its genuflections towards free inquiry and rational debate, Maher is as close-minded as any of the preachers he despises."

—Stephen Whitty, Religious 'doco' funny but a fixed fight, Newark Star-Ledger, Sept. 30, 2008.

"Maher’s first film project, Religulous, is a major disappointment because here, unlike on Real Time, he aims for laughs instead of insight -- and aims low."

—J. R. Jones, Fishes and Loaves in a Barrel, Chicago Reader

"One of the rules of satire is that you can't mock things you don't understand, and Religulous starts developing fault lines when it becomes clear that Maher's view of religious faith is based on a sophomoric reading of the Scriptures."

—Neely Tucker, Religulous , Washington Post, Oct. 3, 2008.

"For most of the film, Maher uses the devout as straight men to set up his jokes. Though initially sidesplitting, over the course of Religulous, Maher has diminishing comic returns."

—Carrie Rickey, Comic Maher has faith in his lack of faith, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 2, 2008.

"Maher's antireligion documentary, Religulous, has numerous blasts of raucous humor amid passages that feel like a screed."

—Colin Covert, Maher finds 'Religulon' in documentary, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct. 2, 2008.

"Being snarky and smug doesn't equate to providing insight, and there's more than one occasion when the filmmakers lose sight of this in their zeal to spread the Gospel According to Maher."

—James Berardinelli, Religulous, ReelViews

"Employs a debilitating brand of smug disingenuousness, feigning interest in discussion while arrogantly and speciously preaching in the very same manner that its subjects are ridiculed for."

—Nick Schager, Religulous, Slant Magazine, Sept. 20, 2008.

"The film is basically 100-plus minutes of Maher making fun of others for their beliefs. However, he does nothing to prove his own points and contentions."

—Jeff Vice, "Maher is Smug in 'Religulous'", Deseret News, Salt Lake City

"In the end, Maher suffers from the same rigidity of thought - the certitude that he's right and those who disagree are wrong - that he dislikes in people of faith."

—Sean Means, Review: Maher takes on religion but sounds like he's preaching to the agnostic choir, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 2, 2008.

"Leaves the viewer wondering how much more interesting the movie might have been had Maher picked on more people his own intellectual size."

—Gary Thompson, "Maher's 'Religulous' fights to a draw", Philadelphia Daily News

"This movie doesn’t seriously explore how religion affects politics; it’s just a snide attack on religious belief."

—Armond White, The Gospel According to Maher, New York Press

"It's a nasty, condescending, small-minded film, self-amused and ultimately self-defeating. Its only accomplishment is to make atheists look bad -- and in this political climate they didn't need Maher's help with that."

—Rafer Guzman, 'Religulous', Newsday, Oct. 1, 2008.

41

New May Awake! Am I being unreasonable or does this sound crazy!?

by toweragent in

my friends usually walked me home after dark.

but one evening i was so tired that i decided to call a taxi.

the driver didnt take me home.

Cold Steel

“My friends usually walk me home after dark, but one evening I was so tired I decided to call a taxi. The driver didn’t take me home. Instead, he drove me to a desolate beach, where he tried to rape me! I screamed with all my might, and he backed off. When he came toward me again, I drew my small .357 revolver from a concealed holster and fired two rounds of 125 gr. JHPs into his chest, just as my instructor taught me to do at the range. In the past I had often thought, ‘How can screaming and shooting someone help?’ But I’ve learned that it works!”—AMANDA

Amanda's approach is better. She screamed a warning to Bad Bob which, if heeded, would have saved his scrungy seedy little ass. Undaunted, he continued his assault and was struck down by Jehovah, not to mention the hot .357 rounds launched from her Ruger LCD. The fireballs that erupted from the barrel were the last things Bad Bob saw in his sorry life. Amanda knew that the use of a weapon to secure her honor was clearly upheld not only in the Mosaic Law, but in Christian tradition. She also had learned a valuable lesson as a child in one of the many books she had been allowed to read before her family joined the Jehovah's Witnesses. It was, simply: God Helps Those Who Help Themselves!

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

Cold Steel

Mark 3:31-35:

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

I see nothing remarkable about this passage, as Jesus is simply explaining that as he has an earthly, human side, and a heavenly pedigree. He has a human family, with brothers and a mother; however, as the Christ, the literal Son of God, he had a mission to perform. And he organized a church to launch not only his teachings, but to testify of his resurrection, which the apostles then knew nothing about. They were still learning. Their view of the Messiah was consistent as a great deliverer who would save them from their enemies —and this was a role he would later fulfill, according to scripture. But Jesus was clear that the Jews would first be scattered to the four corners of the earth and then brought back to the lands of their inheritance. Only then would the enemy (not the Romans, as the Jews had hoped) come down on them. Ezekiel writes directly to the great antichrist: " ...in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them. Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee. " (Ezek. 38) In other words, Jesus not only provides spiritual salvation, but temporal salvation, and those who recognize and follow him are of his heavenly family. For " he is the Only Begotten of the Father—that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

As the apostles made their scriptural transition from that of Jewish tradition to the teachings of Jesus, they understood. After his resurrection, he spent 40 days with them teaching them the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Christian scholars note that Jesus treated his followers like family. There were even jealousies that arose between them. I've often reflected on Jesus and the woman at the well. If she only knew who she was speaking with, she would have been astounded.

.

33

RELIGULOUS...Please watch it.

by Fed-up in

i know it's been commented on before here.

if you haven't seen it (i'm sure it's on netflix) please take a look.

it's the other side of the coin, presented in a funny way that really makes you think about religion and worship.

Cold Steel

Uhh...you better do some checking on Maher's claims regarding those other "messiahs" before accepting them hook, line and sinker. He did a lot of stretching of facts. I'd also do some checking into messianic prophecies, especially the last few verses of Isaiah 52 and the entire chapter of Isaiah 53. There are many more allusions: the riding of the coal into the city on Passover, the return of Christ to the Mount of Olives to save the Jews during the battle of Armageddon, being born in Bethlehem, of being pierced, and so forth. In fact, this last scripture would make if difficult for me not to believe in Christ:

And I [Jehovah] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced , and they shall mourn for him , as one mourneth for his only son , and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn . (Zech. 12:10)

In this scripture, Jesus appears in heaven and descends upon the holy city, which lies in ruins. Gog's army is systematically taking over the rest of the city when they see a man descending out of heaven clothed with white and wearing a red robe symbolizing that he has tread the winepress alone. The survivors amongst the Jews will begin moving towards the Mount of Olives, which is where the messiah is prophesied to return. As he approaches, both the Jews and Gog and his army will look in wonder. But within moments, Gog and his army (except a sixth of them) will burst into flames, for no man can see God and live. Only the Jews and the remaining sixth of the invading army, will be spared, for the Spirit of God will come upon them and preserve them, just as it did Moses when he spoke face to face with God on the mount. The scriptures say that the destruction would be so horrific and widespread that survivors would spend seven months burying the bodies and as many years burning their weapons. (See Ezek. 38-38)

Bill Maher isn't the first atheist who has graced this earth with his presence, nor will he be the last. And he's wholly incapable of thinking any thought that has not already been thought by people who came before. The scriptures also say that in earlier days, the judgments that the Lord will send upon the earth would have convinced the wicked to repent. But in our day, their natural inclination (education?) is such that their tendency will be to curse God and die. But the Lord later states that they will not be able to "utter" against him, for, he adds, he shall not be mocked.

Again, we live in an age when many will be deceived by false prophets. That doesn't mean that everyone who claims to be a prophet will be false, nor does it mean that those not claiming to be prophets cannot be false prophets. Thus, if you were a Christian, please reconsider. But also know that one doesn't have to be a Jehovah's Witness to be a Christian. For not one Old or New Testament prophet ever foretold the rise of that organization as God's premier church on the earth. They have, in my view, failed to see that Jehovah of the Old Tesatment is the Jesus Christ of the New; plus they have erred in their prophecies of Armageddon.

.

46

Crazy Religions

by Qcmbr in

i was reading a good article regarding the relative 'craziness' of faiths (blog) and they mentioned a lot about mormons.

in short they talked about the socially accepted craziness (as opposed to actual mental illness) of mainstream , culturally accepted faiths v those that are relatively new.

we see scientology as more crazy than catholicism if we fall into the trap of judging without consideration but when examined all religions have very crazy elements.

Cold Steel

I agree that dangerous religions are a different question, a religion like early Mormonism and the Heavens Gate group are extremely dangerous (Mormonism almost tipped into full scale totalitarian hell)....

I would certainly like to see your references for the above. Joseph Smith, if anything, was anxious to "roll off the kingdom" to the Quorum of the Twelve. According to President Wilford Woodruff, who was the church's chief historian and later a church president:

I am the only man in the flesh that was with the Twelve Apostles when he turned over the kingdom of God to them and laid upon them the commandment to bear off this kingdom.
He stood for some three hours in a room delivering to us his last lecture. The room was filled as with consuming fire. His face was as clear as amber; his words were like vivid lightning to us. They penetrated every part of our bodies from the crown of our head to the soles of our feet.
He said, ‘Brethren, the Lord Almighty has sealed upon my head every Priesthood, every key, every power, every principle that belongs to the last dispensation of the fulness of times, and to the building up of the kingdom of God. I have sealed upon your heads all those principles, Priesthood, apostleship, and keys of the kingdom of God, and now you have got to round up your shoulders and bear off this kingdom or you will be damned.’ I do not forget those words—I never shall while I live. That was the last speech he ever made in the flesh. Soon afterward he was martyred....

Before Joseph Smith began forming the individual quorums by the direction of God, or so he said, he had considerable power. But as the quorums of the Twelve, and the Seventy, were formed, he surrendered much of his authority to them, as was planned. In 1839, he told several close friends that if he were faithful, he had about five years left in which to minister. In the summer of 1844 he was martyred.

There were sources then who accused him of being a tyrant, but I've never seen that part of him in my studies. One writer later wrote that had not Joseph Smith been murdered, "he would have murdered Mormonism."

Bottom line: It's unfair to compare Joseph Smith to a loon like Marshall Applewhite. Applewhite never produced any sort of a complex theology, but was instead demented. Since this is a Jehovah's Witness website, I don't want this to turn this into a debate about Mormonism. I would, however, like to know what made you think that "early Mormonism" was so tyrannical. In my opinion, the LDS church had Old and New Testament scriptures pointing to it; it had others who witnessed Smith's revelations with him, fulfilling the law of witnesses. It was organized by prophecy and held apostolic authority restored through the instrumentality of Heaven. Applewhite worked out of a website development shop in San Diego. In short, it would have been more appropriate to compare Applewhite to either Jim Jones or David Koresch, not Joseph Smith and the Mormons!

17

Is the Watchtower the most "dumbed down" Christian theology?

by cantleave in

when i was a witness i used to think that the wt's interpretation of ezekiel daniel and revelation was quite didactic and intellectually robust.. then i left and started reading the works of real christian theologians and scholars.

i was amazed at how superficial and vacuous the watchtower theology was in comparison.. since i have left it would seem the standard of scholarly insight has dropped to a new low.

i am sure that this is because for generations the message has been, "don't go to college...." and a culture of mediocrity dominates, resulting in an uneducated leadership creating doctrine.

Cold Steel

The mainstream religions all have their intellectual giants, past and present. The LDS (Mormons) have their own Universities so how good the intellectual development or breadth of knowledge their graduates have is hard to quantify for me. The fact that most remain LDS after college says a lot.

Being LDS myself, and a convert, and having graduated Brigham Young University, I was amazed at how competent Mormon professors of ancient scripture, church historians, archeologists, anthropologists and other theological professors were, and how much better they've become since the 70s and 80s. They've developed a very decent apologetics arm and, of course, those that do leave the church tend to be bitter (as are many who leave various religions), but I note that the overwhelming number of critics resort mostly to name calling and not cogent reviews, particularly as it pertains to scripture.

Currently, two of the hot topics being addressed (among many) are Book of Mormon geography and DNA and the Book of Mormon. And rather than being shills for the various professors who believe the events in the Book of Mormon took place in what is now the mid-United States, the Gulf states or in South America or Mesoamerica, they've pretty much led the scholarly push towards Mesoamerica because the preponderance of evidence points away from the other and towards middle America. There's a lot on YouTube about it; just do a search for fairlds. And they cover many other topics. In fact, Catholicism and Mormonism have worked side by side on both ancient Christian manuscripts and we've worked with the Islamic community to preserve much of their holy writings and historical documents.

Conversely, the JW scholarship is woefully at odds with that of most other religions. One thing that impressed me was that LDS scholars have earned the respect of many scholars of other faiths. In fact, one of the first high level theological addresses I attended there was by Father George McRae, head of the Harvard Divinity School. Such ecumenical endeavors would never happen at a JW facility, mostly because JW scholarship is atrocious, though I'd love to hear a lively debate on the integrity (or lack thereof) of the New World Translation of the Holy Bible.

.

18

Has anyone ever used this to refute a JW's thinking?

by nolongerconfused in

this is not "apostate" literature per say...this is straight from one of their books...bible teach book.

baptism and your relationship with god.

paragraph 24.

Cold Steel

The real issue is whether the organization has any legitimacy with God. You can talk about the various doctrines -- like whether man has a spirit or ceases to exist at death, of whether Armageddon will be fulfilled literally or will have a "spiritual" interpretation; or whether baptism is a burial with Christ or a covenant to obey an organization. You can debate them endlessly, but the real question is this: Is the Watchtower Publishing sect a manmade organization or did God legitimize it somehow...and if so, how? Amos said that the Lord God would do nothing, save he revealth his secrets to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7). If God organized those called the Jehovah's Witnesses into his Kingdom (see Daniel 2), wouldn't he have mentioned it to either the Old or New Testament prophets?

I'm no anti-JW trying to score a "gotcha." I'm just asking them or any other religion claiming to represent God for a certificate of authenticity. If I showed up at your door and tried to sell you an autograph of Jesus Christ, would you believe me? (If yes, PM me and I'll make you a special offer!) That's all I'm asking the JWs to do. In the days of the first century apostles, there were other competing Christian denominations, right? How could someone know whether a preacher had authority by God? Well, you could say they will teach true doctrines; but did the followers of the false religions think they were teaching false doctrines? No, they thought they were teaching true doctrines, otherwise they wouldn't have become followers. It all depended on point of view, just as it does now. If a JW gets cremed in a car accident and suddenly finds he or she is standing over the paramedics and emergency teams who are working on his or her now lifeless body and there was a bright light overhead, what do you suppose they'd think? Would they rejoice, or would they say, "Oh, sh--. Everything I believed is now dubitable!"

So just believing in doctrines isn't a sure fire way of determining a true religion. Even if the JWs are correct about death, that still doesn't mean they're right about everything else. After all, many adventist religions believe it. Yet I've heard JWs say, "Well, if it isn't us, who would it be?" (As if other religions didn't have tenable doctrines and a knowledge of history.) Though JWs may satisfy themselves with such logic, it isn't enough for a half dressed guy at the door. Also, I've read that little book they use in their Bible studies, several times, and it's not convincing. While I was participating in such a study, the JWs "teaching" me went from question to question, refusing to move on until I had agreed on a preconceived answer. Anyway, that's my view, and the question of legitimacy is the only real question a JW teacher needs to establish.

.