Opposers Dismythed
Suggestion Box [2]

Go to Suggestion Box: [__1__]  [__2__]  [__3__]

We are not out of ideas for blog posts, but we are interested in what you want to know more about. What issues may be hanging you or someone you know up that do not involve anything we have already written (See the list of articles on the left sidebar) or which you believe what we have already written does not adequately address. This is not a discussion, but a suggestion box.

If a subject is not extensive enough for its own post, we will add a comment below addressing the subject that is the same as a post.

This site only addresses claims made about God, the Bible, science and Jehovah's Witnesses. See the JW Advisor page for personal advice. We do not provide spiritual food.

Note: This suggestion box is only for those seeking understanding and research. Please do not post with rude statements seeking only to cause trouble. Your posting here says that you have no such intention. (John 8:42-47; Revelation 21:8) We accept comments regardless of a person's feelings about Jehovah's Witnesses as long as they are respectful to the reader in general and are not obviously from former members of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Comments

Thad said…
Is there an equivalent interlinear for the Hebrew Scriptures due ever?
If not, what would you recommend as a Hebrew equivalent to the KIT?
Thank you.

Thad
Not likely. There's no real need for it because of all the decent interlinears that exist. I use as many interlinears as I can get my hands on. I would never support one over another. They all have their merits because there is little merit to corrupting the text. I would only say to avoid any interlinear that includes spurious texts translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate and then translated again into English. That's as corrupt as it gets.
cornyh said…
Hello. I just found your blog and found it really interesting. I very interested on Trinity, hell and kingdom-paradise subjects. I enjoy reading the articles on the examining the trinity and defend jw blogs over and over. Also, I have come across non JW sites . . . It seems to me that there is a wave of some people from christendom rejecting the trinity, but adopting Socinian/adoptionism beliefs. Would you, or the brothers from the similar blogs, mind writing a deep study on why we hold to Christ's pre-existince? I think it could be very helpful for people who are ready to reject the trinity but not sure what other view is correct.
Dismythed said…
cornyh:

We're glad you appreciate our blog. That is a decent subject. Unfortunately, we are currently backlogged with articles. If someone would like to submit an article on the subject, we would be glad to post it.
Dismythed said…
Philip:

It is no great secret that the Organization accepts being named as beneficiaries of trust funds, hedge funds and other arrangements as private donations. They do not set up those things for benefit to themselves, which is why the fund in question was set up by the person in question and names the Watchtower Society as beneficiary back just before the "Jehovah's Witnesses" donation arrangment was put in place. They have many such trusts donated or willed to them. It is not them participating in corporate money-making since they are not the ones setting up those accounts.

Just to be clear, that is the way private individuals choose to provide continuous donation arrangements to us.
Robert said…
It has been known that the organization accept such donations, as this has been made available for public consumption. Here is one such article:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/charitable-giving/

Usually, its our lying apostates that claim something "secret" is going. This is in part why the organization encourages people to make it their responsibility to find out about Jehovah's Witnesses by reading for themselves.
Dismythed said…
Thanks for the link, Robert. That's perfect.
Robert said…
You are welcome. All it takes is a little bit of research on their part. I simply typed "trust funds" in the search box on our website and it netted me a lot of articles.

Easy, and it takes hardly any time. Of course, it takes a desire for truth to do that and accept what's uncovered, though propaganda and confirmation bias is easier to come by.
Philip Fletcher said…
Yes thank you so much, as someone who does investing as well, I figured that is what it was. I just could not find enough evidence for it. Again thanks
Philip Fletcher said…
This is a great help. Thanks
Unknown said…
Whoops, just made a comment on the achieved one. Sorry about that
Dismythed said…
It's done, but thank you for acknowledging it. I replied. Also, I'm glad you like salvation-vs.blogspot.com.
Dismythed said…
You also have the option of submitting content to us to post here.
Dismythed said…
You're a little late on that issue. There is no "scandal". Just opposers trying to wave magic wands to turn a molehill into a mountain.

https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2016/01/response-to-royal-commission-of.html

Note my latest comments at the bottom of the page.
Robert said…
"Scandal"? Just a word also used to get emotional reactions, namely, outrage and anger, from the public at large.

Those latest comments on the bottom of the page proves that Jws have a religious environment that positively minimizes child abuse, with the focus on prevention especially through our education of parents and children.
Dismythed said…
Seth:

At this stage in your studies, I recommend sticking to the Bible until after your baptism.

Never, and I mean NEVER argue about the Bible and ignore anyone who wants to accuse the organization. We don't kill people, we don't brainwash people and we improve people's lives and give them a hope for the future based solely on the Bible. That's what matters.

A lesson I only recently learned about teaching is never provide defenses against accusations brought to you by students exploring accusations. It only encourages them to do it more. (2Ti 2:16) No matter how many times you answer those questions, the only one they are going to remember is the last one in which you finally get fed up and say 'no more'. At that point, to them, you never answered a single question before it. Thus, it is a fruitless exercise that only ends up turning them away because they end up adopting tbe attitude of our apostates and opposers without any logical basis.

This site exists for ones to help themselves. They can come back and check it any time. It is not for new students to become familiar with accusations nor to go serching for accusations to ask us to defend.

Stick to your studies, get baptized and focus on serving Jehovah. Looking for arguments and battles to fight can only serve to impede your progress. It will do nothing to help you. It is never the accusations that are rebutted that cause problems. It is the ones you have yet to find the response to that cause the problems. So stop looking for things that need responses and you won't have a problem.

The shear volume of accusations are simply too great for one person to explore them all. A person will wear themselves out trying to answer them all and never come to an accurate knowledge of truth because they are not dedicating that time to Bible study. If you're chasing down accusations, then it means you're not studying and living your life the way you should.

Do you know how much time Jesus and his apostles spent on responding to accusations? Zero.
Unknown said…
Well, thanks, sorry i didnt see this comment. I really dont go out of my way to get into an argument but i tend to think thats what will happen anyway when addressing these topics. I just simply like warning people about the dangers of misusing the internet. Even like me, i tend to get caught up in useless junk sometimes. Thanks for this counsel, i know i need to do more studying. I just get too distracted or i just dont have the best focus. So i should probly just stop with that sorta stuff then? I still have that erg tho, so i may need to pray over it.
Dismythed said…
Yes, my point was that there is no point to addressing accusations person-to-person at all.

You can research any topic at all in the Publications Index at the wol.jw.org website or on the Watchtower Library CD-ROM.

You can contact us directly on this site using the contact form in the column to the right. I did not post a couple of your previous comments because they did not match up to our approval standards in A Note to Our Visitors.
Robert said…
And to add, a lot of those accusations are designed to wear you down spiritually and emotionally. And as was stated, Jesus never hounded down his opposers, they always hounded him down because he knew that they were trying to distract him from his work.
Unknown said…
So out of all these all cases, which ones actually have occurred and which ones are just made up or have not been proven? Do you have some other sources or links to this info or can you just use your bible trained mind for it. Hope im not a bother to you guys, i love that you go out of your way to answer questions for others. Also, is it cool to link to these sites for further information. I have been doing so in some cases, just to give some with the curiosity the chance to see other sides of the coin
Dismythed said…
Sorry for the delay. Life happens.

You do not need permission to post links. Links are not intellectual property.

I am going to assume that you do not mean “made up” in the sense of fake, but mean, instead, “just use your bible trained mind for it”.

We only use references where it is necessary. For instance, in the Positive Media for Bloodless Surgery and Non-Blood Management post, we provide many links to non-jw sources to prove that advances in non-blood management are proving superior to blood transfusions in most cases and further advances are being made frequently, as well as correcting misinformation.

In the Gay Gene post, we provide extensive references to the studies done to show that the gay gene was not only not proven, but was effectively disproven.

But in neither of those posts do we quote the organization’s literature, because it would do nothing to prove or improve claims made in those posts. However, in the post, Do Jehovah's Witnesses 'Prohibit' College Education?, we provide extensive references to the organization’s literature to prove that we have never prohibited college education.

In other places, as a personal preference, I might quote the organizations literature because I personally like the way they worded something or if I personally could not state it more clearly.

We love our Bible-based literature, but we do not use it as a crutch, or to speak for us, or in the way one might use the Bible. (The writings of the “faithful and discreet slave” are not inspired.) The “faithful and discreet slave” has trained us all to use our own words where possible and given us an extensive library of publications to research in. But they are a religious organization, which automatically causes anything they write to be suspect by standards of evidence, so they cannot be used to prove anything but what we believe and teach.
Dismythed said…
Also. I do not encourage anyone to make their own apologist blog. Many such bloggers and book writers end up getting big heads and thinking they can do better Bible study than the organization and end up apostatizing. It starts simply with slightly differing opinions and then they start calling attention to how superior their own view is to the organization, until eventually everything stated becomes "I" and "me" until their head swells too big to be contained by Jehovah's organization.

I do recommend, however, that if one has a real itch to write to cleanse others of apostate poison, that they submit articles to us by contacting us using the contact form in the right column. We provide Submission Guidelines in the main menu and personalized help to improve quality and can help keep each other i check, spiritually, so that we don't fall prey to the same inclinations to haughty attitudes of certain apologists who have deviated into self-righteous apostasy. (Pr 11:14; Ecc 4:12)
Robert said…
I was thinking: assuming you're referring to the various child abuse cases and whether or not those are true or made up, I will say that the vast majority of those cases are historical, which means in the absence of meticulous documentation, courts would be relying on human recollection and who knew what, when, and how much they knew.

This is not to say none are true as some are, but the best thing to do is to consider the reputation of the organization. We got our reputation of moral cleanliness because of our williness to disfellowship and shun unrepentant sinners incliding child abusers, and not covering them up. This protects children and members.

Trying to research details of each case is extremely time consuming as court documents are large, and it would require time that would be better spend in spiritual pursuits, or some other important tasks. It would also put you in touch with apostates.
Unknown said…
I have been thinking for a while about the resurrection of the Dead to earthly life and I would like some opinions on it regarding if all of the person has gone at death then if they were resurrected after their body has been destroyed can they truly be said to be the same person when they came back to an earthly Resurrection. I mean if the the resurrected you has all your memories and all of your scars...say.. even if that were the case but can it still be said to be you. I thought of a clone of you being next to you at the same time can it be said to be you...no... that wouldn't be true but if that the person (you) was resurrected in the future can it still be said to you.. you see as the original you.. doesn't exist.. in the end I decided it's a matter of faith and Jehovah knows what he's doing but can anyone come up with some other ideas regarding it?
Dismythed said…
Job 42:2
"Now I know that you are able to do all things and that nothing you have in mind to do is impossible for you."

Job 33:4
"God’s own spirit made me, and the Almighty’s own breath brought me to life."

Ecclesiastes 12:7
"Then the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it.“

Job 14:13-15
"O that in the Grave you would conceal me, that you would hide me until your anger passes by, that you would set a time limit for me and remember me! If a man dies, can he live again? I will wait all the days of my compulsory service until my relief comes. You will call, and I will answer you. You will long for the work of your hands."

Psalm 139:16
"Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; all its parts were written in your book regarding the days when they were formed, before any of them existed."

Isaiah 40:26
"Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing."

Isaiah 59:1
"Look! The hand of Jehovah is not too short to save, nor is his ear too dull to hear."

Jeremiah 17:10
"I, Jehovah, am searching the heart, examining the innermost thoughts, to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruitage of his works."

As these Scriptures demonstrate, Jehovah's power, memory and knowledge of our very thinking patterns is unlimited. He preserves the memory of our DNA. He is even able to preserve our very life force that he gave to us, from the day of our death, for the day of our resurrection. The dead will not be resurrected with their scars, but their flesh will be renewed. When he resurrects the anointed in these last days, they are changed in an instant. (1Co 15:51, 52) So if he changes the anointed from one kind of creature to another in an instant, preserving their lives and personalities, certainly he can restore us to exactly the way we are meant to be in perfect human flesh and it will be us, our same counsciousness. The same person that dies is the very same person resurrected.
Anonymous said…
[Originally posted by on October 1, 2017 at 7:04 AM, moved]

I have a question that might have already been answered here (so I will continue to look.. )
Do you know why the brothers, when writing about th 1ST Century, write "governing body" with lower case "gb".
But when writing of the "Governing Body" today it in in upper case "GB"? Thank you in advance.
Dismythed said…
While both are "governing bodies" in the lower case, "The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses" is a legally incorporated body in the United States with a charter and incorporation papers. By identifying themselves with capital leters, they are legally associating the name "Governing Body" with that legal entity. Thus, anything said about the "Governing Body" in our publications serves as a legal document clearly outlining their role over the legally recognized corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses and its divisions, such as the "Branch Committees" and "Country Committes", Service Committee" and other departments. You can refer to them as "the governing body" and you would be correct, but by referring to them as "the Governing Body" it is a recognition of their role in governing the legally recognized corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. Thus either is correct for us, but for them it is necessary to capitalize for legal purposes.
Dismythed said…
The reason the governing body drives Lexuses is because they are among the cheapest of any brand to maintain, thus saving the organization money.
Dismythed said…
Health risks associated with aluminum featured heavily in our Golden Age publications in the 1920's and 30's because it was discovered back then that aluminum accumulation was found in association with certain diseases, cancers and disorders. However, it is not yet certain, even today if they have any causal links to those maladies, because for all the research that has been done, (And a lot has been done,) there simply is not enough data establishing a clear link. It remains murky. Researchers postulate that it is not that aluminum causes the diseases, cancer and disorders, but that those maladies accumulate aluminum as a result of the malady.

Most people are not exposed to enough aluminum to result in toxic effects. Generally, only those exposed to it in the air at or near an aluminum factory ever experience toxicity effects, usually only irritation related to inhalation.

So the Golden Age was only keeping up with the science of the day. Any blame to be had must be put on the shoulders of scientists, not publications of the Bible Students. The fact that the issue remains unresolved shows that concern in those days was not unwarranted, especially since aluminum build-up was proven to be connected to certain maladies.

Here is some useful information:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/
Dismythed said…
The Golden Age used to reprint whimsical articles from other publications, like the New York Times about the latest medical treatments. Those articles were not against any type of medicine, but were meant to highlight the doublle-edged sword of many medical treatments. The trade-offs can be quite entertaining, indeed. You have probably noticed those trade-offs even in modern medicine. The point to those articles was, not to discourage medicine and surgery, but to be sure you actually need it before you do it, as some doctors can overprescribe certain medicines and proceedures just because it is expedient or lucrative.

So before you jump to a conclusion about something taken out of context, read the whole article and ask what the point of the article is and who it is by.

For example, blurb taken out of context reads:

"If any overzealous doctor condemns your tonsils go and commit suicide with a case-knife. It's cheaper and less painful." Golden Age 1926 Apr 7 p.438

But when you go to read the actual article, the article starts with a statement about the source and why it was used. It says: "[The many members of the ever-expanding fraternity of de-tonsiled and de-uvulated citizens of the world will enjoy to the utmost this article by Professor Lewis, head of the Department of Chemistry of Northwestern University. Professor Lewis, among other things, is noted for his invention of the Lewisite gas during the World War.-Editor.]"

So that article was not a discouragement against the surgery at all. It was for -enjoyment-, by who? Not those planning to have tonsilectomies, but by those who had already had it done. As you read it, you will find that It was just a humor piece by a man who got a tonsilectomy and concluded with the joke quoted above about suicide by case-knife. (A pocket knife.) It was certainly not medical advice.
Dismythed said…
The original E.R. Squibb & Sons’ sign frame used on the Watchtower printery that was a landmark of Wallkill, New York until it was removed was not illegal. The city lost track of the permit issued for the sign from 1961, but the paperwork applying for the sign was eventually found. It was merely a case of municipal misfiling.
Dismythed said…
It has been claimed that J.F. Rutherford and Nathan Knorr did something against our neutrality and in opposition to God by, and that both assented to the following oath in order to receive passports: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.”

First of all, since passports were not made requirements in the United States except during its entry in World War I until 1920, and Rutherford did not leave the country during that time, Rutherford never faced the passport problem, especially given that our neutral stand was not made official until the 1920's. Having been under medical care since November 5th, 1941 and passed away in 1942, and the modern passport requirement was not put in place until November 28, 1941, whether Rutherford had a passport is a non-starter.

First of all, the passport oath is defending a document establishing the legal rights of a sovereign territory, which should not be conflated with pledging allegiance to the flag. The former is a promise of upholding the sovereign rights of a national territory, while the latter is idolatry. Nor is violence made a requirement of defending that document. It is a legal document, therefore “defending” only goes as far as its legal status.

As to Knorr, the Scriptures state: "To Jehovah belongs the earth and everything on it" (Ps 24:1) and “there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God." (Romans 13:1b) So fealty to any ruler or rulership can be seen as fealty to God. Thus Jesus' words "pay back Caesar's things to Ceasar" applies as explained in the September 15, 1964 Watchtower, p. 551. (Luke 20:25) Paul also stated: “Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities,” (Romans 13:1a) and "to be in subjection and to be obedient to governments and authorities, to be ready for every good work." (Titus 3:1)

If they ask for fealty to the state or person, then this is not incompatible with fealty to God. It is, after all, a matter of territory in the earth owned by God, not divine sovereignty.

However, the July 22, 1975 Watchtower, p. 28, explained this about the passport oath: "If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis." It also re-emphasized the 1964 article. In fact, the wording of the declaration itself indicates that it is optional when it says, "I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion. So help me God.” You cannot be said to take the pledge freely if your right to travel abroad is being held hostage based upon whether you sign the pledge or not.
Dismythed said…
Jesus was never married, neither to Mary Magdelene nor anyone else. Paul said: "Now I say to those who are unmarried and to the widows that it is better for them if they remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed with passion. ... Indeed, I want you to be free from anxiety. The unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, how he may gain the Lord’s approval. But the married man is anxious for the things of the world, how he may gain the approval of his wife, and he is divided." (1 Co 7:8-9, 32-34) Clearly Jesus was not married to a woman while on earth, as he was anxious for nothing but the kingdom of God. (John 6:38) He was not divided in the least. Saying that Jesus had a wife is also saying that he lacked self-control according to the above words.

Paul said: "We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas, do we not?" (1 Co 9:5) Note that he identifies the apostles and Jesus' brothers having wives, but does not mention Jesus himself having a wife. Jesus' figurative bride is the congregation of anointed. (Mt 9:15; 22:2-14; 25:1-12; John 3:29-30; Rev 19:7-9; 21:2)
Dismythed said…
"Bible thumping" refers to protestant evangelicals that would thump their Bibles with their hand, ranting on ABOUT the Bible and condemning people to a fiery hell, but rarely opening it. It still happens a lot today.

For the record, Jehovah's Witnesses don't classify as "Bible thumpers" because their hands end up IN the Bible, not on it, and they are taught to be polite, not overwhelming, and they don't believe in a fiery hell where the soul burns alive for eternity.
Dismythed said…
The "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania" is not the "parent organization of all of us. Wikipedia put it correctly when it says, "It is the main legal entity used worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses ... the parent organization of a number of Watch Tower subsidiaries." It does not serve any other purpose than being a legal entity. It is NOT what we mean when we say "the organization". "The organization" refers to the Biblically defined structure of congregational and regional elder bodies and administrational organs for the proper function of the worldwide congregation. (Acts 6:2, 3; 14:23; 15:2; Php 1:1) In short, "the organization" refers to the worldwide congregation without having to use so many words.
Lu Baatjes said…
[Originally posted at JWs Undestood on Oct 22, 2018]

Good day all... Has anyone ever looked into the Jewish belief of Pikuach nefesh? The belief and understanding that one can break God's laws to save a life.. I know this is not prohibited, but I am trying to look for extra reading material from a Biblical history perspective on how Jews understood things really and viewed its

Question was asked to me why we would not follow the practice of Pikuach nefesh when it comes to blood transfusions

I was not aware of this term until it was asked to me
Dismythed said…
First, blood transfusions have failed to actually prove "life-saving". Life-prolonging and "life-saving" are two different things. If you are reducing your health so that you are only prolonging your suffering and the inevitable, then what kind of choice is that?

The question of blood is of greater concern than whether someone's life is saved on the Sabbath. The Maccabees even went to war on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath has nothing to do with giving us salvation. Salvation comes through the blood of a sinless man spilled as a lawbreaker. He gave up his life for us and we are under obligation to give up our lives for our brothers. (1Jo 3:16) Why not for Christ? Paul wrote:

"For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition. Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three. How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? For we know the One who said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay.' And again: 'Jehovah will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."—Hebrews 10:26-31

Now note the fundamental points in those verses. Practicing sin willfully, trampling on the Son of God by regarding his blood as ordinary, which is a greater sin than breaking the Law, and contemptuously outraging the spirit of undeserved kindness.

It is one thing to submit to sin in a moment of fear, which is why the GB has allowed for moments of weakness in their most recent update regarding blood transfusions, but to continue to make that decision over and over, as in the case of some with chronic conditions, is to treat the blood of Christ as having an ordinary or mundane value. It is disregarding the value of Christ's sacrifice. If one does not value the blood of Christ, then they do not value the gift it brings: everlasting life.
Critics of the Bible very conveniently gloss over a very important piece of the a whale's anatomy. The cavity beneath the blowhole of a sperm whale, where there is plenty of breathable air and ample space, is accessable through the mouth. (The Heb. word translated as "belly" actually means "inward parts" and can refer to the chest area, including the lungs and heart.)

Fun fact: sperm whales are the only whales that ever occasionally enter the Mediterranean when their food source grows scarce and warm currents draw them in.

Also, sperm whales, as with trains and the rearview of trucks, cannot see what is directly in front of them (or behind them as with trucks). So when Jonah fell into the sea, if dropping down directly in front of the whale as it opened its maw, would have been "engulfed" (as the Heb. word actually means, not "swallowed").
Dismythed said…
After time and consideration, that is not a subject for this site. My salvation-vs.blogspot.com site could handle adoptionism, but it is such a narrow subject that it could be a long while before I get around to it, if this system continues that long.
Dismythed said…
[Edited from August 7, 2018 at 1:03 PM reply to an unknown commenter.]

Regarding the JW Venue in Silkeborg, Denmark, we cannot really deny the imagery in the stadium's construction, though possibly coincidental given the shape of the plot of land acquired, though the result is fairly striking. It is not "the eye of Horus", but "the Eye of Providence" that it resembles, otherwise known as "the all seeing eye". The problem is that it is an ancient Trinitarian, not Freemason, symbol. The Freemasons only adopted the eye itself, not the pyramid. Its association with the Illuminati has never been established. It merely appeared on the cover of the book that created the mythology of the Illuminati. For more on that, see the following link: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170809-the-accidental-invention-of-the-illuminati-conspiracy (I have watched this conspiracy grow exactly as described here from the beginning,)

Now As to how the GB could have possibly approved its construction (1993 Yearbook), the GB likely never saw an aerial view of the stadium along with the parking lot, because stadium blueprints never include the parking lot, nor the folliage. I used to work for a mechanical contractor who worked both with the Kingdome and Mariner Stadiums, and I saw that the stadium blueprints never included the parking lot or foliage. If you look up "stadium blueprints" on Google, you will see that they do not include the parking lots.

Besides this, the foliage has been done with 3D paintings since the 1940's, so what the GB saw was a stadium blueprint, a parking lot blueprint and a foliage rendering. They never saw the three together in a single image. If it was the actual intent of the designer, then either he was a contractor (Which the organization uses when we lack members with the required expertese), or was either an apostate trying to slip it by the GB or someone who had no idea what the symbol meant.

My writing partner wrote:
I wonder if anyone ever thought of this: if the GB is so keen on hiding their alleged connections to the Masons or some other secret society, then why is it that they go out of their way to make this connection known by splashing their "Masonic" imagery all over the place; in WT magazines, in their building architecture, etc? Would you not think they would starve the conspiracy nuts so that it wouldn't infiltrate the minds of those (JWs) whom they are trying to protect from such stuff by DENYING said connections?

Think, please.