The mods took down my prior post because I disclosed I used some A-I to help format and organize my thoughts. Womp Womp! So, i'm reposting this non-AI assisted version because I think it's important to counter the nonsensical dogma being dished out by the GB. I hope this gets past the censors and can stay up.

Stephen Lett's seven "facts" were not facts at all but logical fallacy's and theologic assertions.

Fact 1: "At Pentecost 33 CE, 120 were chosen, then 3,000 added."

This is a literal reading of Acts 2, which is fine, but Stephen fails to include the the 5,000 mentioned as being baptized in Acts 4:4. By Acts 21:20, James is tell Paul that the number of believing Jews numbers in the thousands, which could mean tens of thousands. The biblical account itself describes explosive growth. That is conveniently left out.

Fact 2: Fact 2: "Thereafter, growth was steady but modest because they met in private homes."

Just because they met in homes, does not necessarily mean the movement's growth was modest. There could have been 50,000 Christians by the end of the first century scattered throughout the Roman empire in house churches of 30-50 people. Some historians estimate the early church grew at a 40% rate per decade, eventually reaching millions by the 3rd and 4th century.

Fact 3: "Some wicked men and imposters slipped in, who undoubtedly never received the heavenly calling."

Who's the judge of who was an "imposter" verses a genuine Christian? Letts says they "undoubtedly" weren't anointed? Based on what? How does he know this "undoubtedly"?

Fact 4: Fact 4: "Some first-century Christians proved unfaithful."

Like with any movement or sect, some people would not stick around. But what was the rate of depature? 1%? 5%? 50%? There is no data provided to backup this claim because no data exists. Lett is just trying to make sure the numbers of 1st century Christians feels as small as possible.

Fact 5: "During the many centuries following the death of the apostles, the number chosen must have been very limited."

This is just begging the question and assuming the conclusion. He says "must have been", but this is not a fact, it is merely an assumption, again based on no data. It also relies on the 19th century restorationist movement fallacy of the "Great Apostasy", the erroneous claim that "true" Christianity went completely extinct for the 1,800 years until the Millerites and later C.T. Russell showed up.

Fact 6: "Some who received the calling in modern times did not remain faithful."

If people in the 20th century fell away, it contradicts his argument. Why is apostasy reduced the number in the 1st century then logically it reduced the number in the 20th century. Why does this prove that more of the 144,000 were chosen in later times?

Fact 7: "In modern times, many who served alongside the anointed were never called, e.g., my grandfather in 1935."

The bit about his grandfather is an anecdote, not evidence. Could it be that people suddenly thought they had an earthly hope because it was invented by Rutherford in 1935 to deal with the increase in numbers and the fact that the 144,000 seats were at capacity?

Stephen concludes his talk by seeing it is both "possible" and "plausible" that "the vast majority of 144,000 have been selected during the last days since 1914." But also "we can't be dogmatic". So in the end it what it amounts to is a whole lot of nothing.

At some point, they'll have to confront the "fact" that like the rest of the book of Revelation, the 144,000 is a symbolic number and they'll have to issue some more "clarifications".

I have not watched it yet but have read the other posts on how the Borg is conditioning the faithful to not trust their lying eyes. What I mean by that is they want to sow as much doubt and distrust about any source that is negative and unflattering about them so that the indoctrinated, lobotomized PIMIs will only trust jw Borg content. So exJW YouTube activists who share clips of JW videos will now be accused of doctoring the content. Sites like jwfacts.com that show screen shots of magazine articles will be accused of making it up. It’s “fake news”.

This parallels the novel “1984”. The Party’s ultimate psychological demand: commanding citizens to disregard the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
The protagonist, Winston, notes that the Party would eventually proclaim that 2 + 2 = 5, and the public would be forced not merely to say it, but genuinely believe it. Common sense becomes the ultimate heresy. The Party's philosophy denies that an external, physical world exists outside of the mind, ensuring that if the mind is controllable, reality itself is whatever the Party dictates. O'Brien, the primary antagonist, clarifies the underlying motive behind this manipulation: the Party does not seek power for wealth, luxury, or the welfare of others, but solely for the sake of pure power, the ability to inflict pain, reshape minds, and dictate reality itself.

Replace “party” with “GB” in the above and you can see how 1984 is a blueprint for their modus operandi.

This week, the congregation book study was all about the patriarch Abraham. These are some of my thoughts as I sat in the audience as the material was reviewed and the comments I wish I could have made.

In the "Dig Deeper" section, this question is asked What evidence is there that Abraham was a historical person? The accompanying picture is of a wall relief in Karnak, Egypt, which mentions the “Field of Abram”. To the Governing Body and those on the teaching committee, this is "proof" of the historicity of Abraham.

An actual "deeper dig" reveals that the relief at the Temple of Amun in Karnak (on the "Bubastite Portal") depicts the military campaigns of Pharaoh Shoshenq I (the biblical King Shishak) around 925 BCE. Among the list of over 150 captured Levantine sites and regions, one place name is transliterated from hieroglyphs as Pȝ-ḥwqrwỉȝ Ỉwbȝrȝm, traditionally translated as "The Field of Abram" or "The Fort of Abram", located in the Negev region. What it proves is that by the late 10th century, a specific geographic feature, settlement, or fort in the Negev desert was named after "Abram" (Abraham). Genesis explicitly places Abram living and traveling extensively in the Negev (e.g., Genesis 12:9, 20:1). The presence of a "Field/Fort of Abram" in that exact region 300 years after the traditional patriarchal age shows that local traditions linking Abram to the area were active very early in Israelite history. The writers of Genesis, who were likely levite priests writing hundreds of years later, merely wrote down those traditions. It also demonstrates that "Abram" was a known West Semitic personal or ancestral name used for geographic landmarks by the 10th century BCE, but does not confirm the narrative details of Genesis.

It's akin to how the city of Troy is a real ancient city in western Anatolia (Turkiye) but it doesn't mean that a Mycenaean named"Helen" was abducted and brought there which ignited an epic 10 year long war as portrayed in the Iliad.

They love leaning on archaeology when it "supports" their presuppositions but refuse to accept that same archaeological evidence that disproves their beliefs.

The other references provided as "proofs" are an Awake article that reference clay tablets with the names of Abraham's relatives. These again are merely toponyms. In ancient Near Eastern tradition, clans and towns were frequently named after patron ancestors or vice versa (eponymy). Proving that a city named "Nahor" or "Terah" existed does not prove that an individual patriarch by that name lived out the personal life, family dialogue, or divine encounters described in Genesis.

They also point to the fact that Genesis (11:31) says Abraham immigrated from "Ur of the Chaldeans". The ruins of this city were discovered in southeastern Iraq. Again, this proves geography, not biography!

Interestingly, they never mention the anachronism in this reference at Genesis 11:31. The Chaldeans (Kasdim), a West Semitic people, did not inhabit or rule the region of Ur during the early 2nd millennium BCE (Abraham's traditional era, c. 2000–1800 BCE). Chaldean dominance in southern Mesopotamia occurred much later, during the Neo-Babylonian period (1st millennium BCE, around the 7th–6th centuries BCE). Most scholars view the phrase "of the Chaldeans" as an anachronism inserted by later scribes writing or editing the text during or after the Babylonian Exile to help contemporary readers identify the geographic location.

ICYMI - https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/s/IMhrDCYU6R

A relative of the JW who died posted the following on their own Facebook page. I had an image of the text but since it had the persons name (their profile is public) it got flagged here as breaking rule 2 so I copied the text and redacted it.

The relative (apparently the deceased’s granddaughter) pulls no punches in exposing the hypocrisy of that side of the family. But it’s no surprise to anyone familiar with JW dynamics.

>The mask has finally slipped, and the truth is out for everyone to see.
For years, my mom and my auntie talked about the aggression, the abuse, and the mistreatment they endured when they lived with [the deceased]. And what did the [family of the deceased] do? They tried to cover it up. They denied it. They tried to paint this public picture of a helpless, weak, 75-year-old woman with congestive heart failure who wouldn't hurt a fly. They wanted everyone to think she was too brittle to do anything.
But God has a way of bringing what's done in the dark straight into the light.
This video from the Fort Wayne Tim Hortons shows exactly who she really is. That is NOT a weak, fragile woman. That is the exact same aggression she took out on my mom and my aunt for years. The only difference is, my mom and my auntie were defenseless and vulnerable. The people in this video weren't. They gave her back blow for blow, because we are in a new day and age of "fuck around and find out."
You can't hide behind a narrative anymore. The camera doesn't lie, and the cover-up is officially over. I am so thankful that the truth is finally standing up for my family.

Before fully appreciating that I was in a cult, I’ve had an interest in cults and cult dynamics. Not only what drives people to join cults but what type of people are the that start cults, what motivates them.

If you have HBO Max, I recommend the following:

Heaven’s Gate: The Cult of Cults

This is a fascinating look at the Heavens Gate cult. There are many surprising similarities to JWs that I learned watching this.

Going Clear: Scientology and the prison of belief

Today’s text is yet another example of scripture cherry picking to try and keep the PIMIs from hearing anything that may be negative about the org, as reported through the legitimate news media, and conflating it with “false stories”. The comments from the watchtower starts with “If you hear negative stories regarding the organization or the brothers taking the lead”. Then a couple of sentences later, they switch to false stories so that the uncritical mind links negative with false.

But of course, a negative story is not a false story and the Bible contains several instances of an individual making a negative report about the leadership or someone in power.

These moments often highlight a tension between institutional power and moral accountability.

Here are some of the most significant instances across the Hebrew and Christian scriptures:

1. Nathan Rebukes King David (2 Samuel 12)
This is perhaps the most famous example of "speaking truth to power." After King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated the death of her husband, Uriah, the prophet Nathan confronted him.
Instead of a direct accusation, Nathan used a parable about a rich man who stole a poor man’s only lamb. When David reacted in outrage against the rich man, Nathan famously declared, "You are the man!" This resulted in David’s public confession and repentance.

2. Elijah Rebukes King Ahab (1 Kings 18 & 21)
Elijah frequently stood in opposition to King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. Two notable instances include:
• The Mount Carmel Challenge: Elijah publicly challenged Ahab’s support of the prophets of Baal, proving the king was leading the nation into spiritual ruin.
• Naboth’s Vineyard: After Ahab and Jezebel conspired to murder a man named Naboth to steal his land, Elijah met Ahab in the vineyard and delivered a searing prophecy of the downfall of Ahab’s dynasty.

3. Amos Rebukes the Priest Amaziah (Amos 7)
Amos was a shepherd, not a professional prophet, but he was sent to Bethel to preach against the corruption of the Northern Kingdom. Amaziah, the high priest of the royal sanctuary, tried to silence him and told him to flee back to Judah.
Amos refused to be intimidated, issuing a devastating personal prophecy against Amaziah and doubling down on his report that the king (Jeroboam II) would die and the people would go into exile.

4. Samuel Rebukes King Saul (1 Samuel 13 & 15)
The transition from judges to kings in Israel was marked by friction. Samuel, who anointed Saul, had to rebuke him twice for overstepping his bounds:
• The Unlawful Sacrifice: Saul took on the role of a priest because he was impatient, leading Samuel to tell him his kingdom would not endure.
• The Amalekites: When Saul failed to follow specific instructions regarding a military victory, Samuel famously told him, "To obey is better than sacrifice," and informed him that God had rejected him as king.

5. John the Baptist Rebukes Herod Antipas (Matthew 14, Mark 6)
In the New Testament, John the Baptist consistently spoke out against Herod Antipas for marrying Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. John maintained that the marriage was unlawful under Jewish law. This "negative yet truthful report" eventually led to John’s imprisonment and execution, illustrating the high stakes of such rebukes.

6. Paul Rebukes Peter (Galatians 2)
This instance is unique because it occurs between two leaders within the early Christian church. Paul publicly rebuked Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. Peter had been eating with Gentile believers but withdrew and separated himself when a group of strict Jewish Christians arrived. Paul called out Peter’s "hypocrisy" and "insincerity" to his face, arguing that Peter's actions were not in line with the gospel.

All of these instances were “negative” because they called out the bad behavior of the subject of the rebuke. And it’s the same today. The recent headlines regarding the mishandling of CSA cases, the shunning issues, the effects of the blood issue, may be negative because they highlight flaws in the GB and the “brothers taking the lead” but their certainly not false.

For a group of individuals that loves to remind everyone that they are neither “inspired nor infallible” they sure love to act as if they are beyond reproach when they are called out. Just more religious hypocrisy.