How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole chanel, and at the same time accept that they can err?

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

How would you feel if one person falsely accused you of something deserving disfellowshipping, and you were disfellowshipped on the basis of that one person's testimony?

I know of a couple of Witnesses who were both disfellowshipped based on the ZERO-witness policy. Both were very good friends of mine, and were about my age. One never tried to be reinstated, and neither are JWs today.

This was 1976. He was about 19, and was considered a spiritually weak, immature brother who had delayed getting baptized until just that year, and his father wasn't a Witness. He began dating a sister, 18, who had just begun regular pioneering. The gossip was tough on her from the beginning because neither her own family or many others in the congregation thought she should date a young, newly baptized, irregular publisher if she wanted to continue pioneering. He was accused of finally getting baptized just so he could date her.

She worked in a hospital in the city on some kind of "candy striper" program that had turning into an internship, and she had to work til about midnight, and didn't drive, and wanted to stay in the city near the hospital. My parents had sold our country house in 1975 and had just moved into the city to rent, so that my mother could also pioneer. I had already moved to another congregation about 100 miles away where my brother had started a business. So my parents would often give this sister my old room in the rented city house.

One night she stayed overnight with the brother she was dating at his home (when his parents were away). She claimed that they hadn't even gone on a date that night, that nothing happened, and it was just for temporary convenience that she remained there after falling asleep. She normally would have come to our house that night and slept in my old room. He also claimed that nothing had happened. They claimed it was one of those "Wake up little Susie, wake up!" situations after both of them fell asleep.

Well, my parents had already informed her parents that she hadn't come to our house that night.  (This was pre-cell phone days.) Her parents ended up finding out she was at the brother's house at around 5 am. She normally got up early from our house and got a ride home in the daytime.

They were disfellowshipped for fornication, even though both of them denied it. They were obviously not repentant because both of them denied it. She had admitted staying at his house. He was the one who tried to get reinstated. He called me at Bethel the next year to ask about what might be done since he had not realized that he could have appealed it. I visited him on a summer off from Bethel in 1977 and he got reinstated within a few weeks after that. His own father WANTED him to stay disfellowshipped because he thought it would discourage him from going back to the Witnesses. He got reinstated, but was bitter about it. I have no idea if anything actually happened that night, but he (and she) always denied that anything at all happened.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I know of a couple of Witnesses who were both disfellowshipped based on the ZERO-witness policy. Both were very good friends of mine, and were about my age. One never tried to be reinstated, and neither are JWs today.

This was 1976. He was about 19, and was considered a spiritually weak, immature brother who had delayed getting baptized until just that year, and his father wasn't a Witness. He began dating a sister, 18, who had just begun regular pioneering. The gossip was tough on her from the beginning because neither her own family or many others in the congregation thought she should date a young, newly baptized, irregular publisher if she wanted to continue pioneering. He was accused of finally getting baptized just so he could date her.

She worked in a hospital in the city on some kind of "candy striper" program that had turning into an internship, and she had to work til about midnight, and didn't drive, and wanted to stay in the city near the hospital. My parents had sold our country house in 1975 and had just moved into the city to rent, so that my mother could also pioneer. I had already moved to another congregation about 100 miles away where my brother had started a business. So my parents would often give this sister my old room in the rented city house.

One night she stayed overnight with the brother she was dating at his home (when his parents were away). She claimed that they hadn't even gone on a date that night, that nothing happened, and it was just for temporary convenience that she remained there after falling asleep. She normally would have come to our house that night and slept in my old room. He also claimed that nothing had happened. They claimed it was one of those "Wake up little Susie, wake up!" situations after both of them fell asleep.

Well, my parents had already informed her parents that she hadn't come to our house that night.  (This was pre-cell phone days.) Her parents ended up finding out she was at the brother's house at around 5 am. She normally got up early from our house and got a ride home in the daytime.

They were disfellowshipped for fornication, even though both of them denied it. They were obviously not repentant because both of them denied it. She had admitted staying at his house. He was the one who tried to get reinstated. He called me at Bethel the next year to ask about what might be done since he had not realized that he could have appealed it. I visited him on a summer off from Bethel in 1977 and he got reinstated within a few weeks after that. His own father WANTED him to stay disfellowshipped because he thought it would discourage him from going back to the Witnesses. He got reinstated, but was bitter about it. I have no idea if anything actually happened that night, but he still denies that anything at all happened.

Thank you for drawing attention to the aspect of circumstantial evidence. In this case, this was counted as a witness. Not hard to do since it was known that the couple in question was already romantically involved.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

The good thing is, by the time one gets baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses one should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book". 

Sorry about this, but I'm going to play the "Bible's Advocate" here for a bit. First of all, there is nothing to disagree with on any of those questions because the answer is given only with Scripture, not interpretation of those Scriptures. Not one of the questions mentions "the generation," nor 1914, nor 1919, nor 1922, nor the United Nations, nor the "great crowd," nor the "other sheep," nor the "anointed," nor the meaning of at least a thousand different prophetic interpretations.

Even the question, about the Governing Body spells out no specific opinion to disagree with, because the term is never mentioned in any of the scriptures:

*** od pp. 201-202 Part 3 Jehovah’s Arrangement of Things ***
12. What is the Governing Body of the Christian congregation, and what role does it fill today?
“Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: ‘Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue.”—Acts 15:1, 2.
“As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem. Then, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number day by day.”—Acts 16:4, 5.
“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.”—Matt. 24:45-47.

If anyone had studied the verses in Matt 24:45-47 carefully, along with the Watchtower's explanation, I would think it should have been obvious to them that the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be that faithful slave of Matt 24:45. So the question itself, when applied to the Scripture, would only go so far as to indicate that the Governing Body, like all good Christians, would only HOPE they are faithfully participating in fulfilling a role of a faithful and discreet slave.

The reason, of course, has already been explained, but I'm always willing to explain again.

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

What is the moral of your story

That many of us, perhaps most of us, are aware that there have been cases of disfellowshipping when there were ZERO witnesses. As Anna mentioned, it's true that "circumstantial evidence" can be counted as a "witness." But even this type of "witness" has sometimes been ignored in cases of CSA.

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Spending the night, when with someone regardless if nothing happened is wrong.

I agree with this. It's excellent counsel to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, both for our brothers and as "witnesses" on display to the world. And it is excellent counsel to avoid the situation that might result in temptation because the heart is treacherous.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

CSA's cases are taken very seriously.

Normally yes. But we now, unfortunately, have court testimony on record in at least three U.S. states where elders have admitted to not taking "circumstantial evidence" seriously, when the same person had been accused by a second victim -- which is now considered strong circumstantial evidence, but still not a "second witness." I'm not saying this is the fault of advice given by the WTS, but it still happened in spite of the elders looking to get advice from the WTS. It can be blamed on local elders. I hope it doesn't happen again. But if past is prologue . . .

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it was just for temporary convenience that she remained there after falling asleep.

"Play with fire get burned" principle unfortunately. Elders SHOULD have looked for extenuating circumstances and presumably found none. Why would anyone in  their right mind go in  to a house, unchaperoned with a romantically involved partner, and in danger of falling asleep? They must have presented very badly to the elders involved.

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

They were obviously not repentant because both of them denied it.

Denied what? What they hadn't done? Their attitude is what got them disfellowshipped most likely.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Problem with that is, that so many things have been changed in the last 40 years or so that basically if it was in the world it would be breaking the contract. 

No, that is not a problem at all. None of the items of baptism are affected.

If the map changes because roads have been added or deleted, do you burn the city down?

You are so silly, John.

[JW Insider]

59 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Their attitude is what got them disfellowshipped most likely.

I suspect that's a possibility. The young man told me that she claimed she was offered a "reproof" and, of course, loss of pioneer privileges if she would just admit to whatever they had done. He says she was very upset over this. But I only know the "he said" details, none of the "she said."

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The devil is on the details. This makes for hearsay evidence not admissible! 🤔

Absolutely! But again this had nothing to do with whether they were guilty of fornication, and for all I know, they might have been. This was only shared to remind us that we haven't always treated the "two-witness rule" as sacrosanct.

[JW Insider]

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Discreet: dis·creet (dV-skrKtù) adj. 1. Marked by, exercising, or showing prudence and
wise self-restraint in speech and behavior; circumspect.

Your definition provides a clue as to why the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." This does not mean that they are not well-meaning in their goal to participate as a class of faithful and discreet slaves. And this does not mean that they will ultimately fail to live up to their goal.

(1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5 (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?) 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.

I suppose that Rutherford might not have qualified, based on some of these criteria, and I think most of us would agree that Hayden Covington was a "newly converted" man, relatively speaking. But I think we have excellent reasons to accept the current Governing Body members as qualified overseers, and they therefore deserve respect, double honor, deference, benefit of the doubt, and our willingness to follow their leading example, and, as we see how their conduct works out, to imitate their faith.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Which one of these definitions are lacking for these faithful servants of God and Watchtower anointed members in charge of dispensing spiritual food?

This is, in fact, a pretty easy question to answer. You did hit the nail on the head, as it were, with the definition of "discreet."

Here's where we can begin to see why.

The primary Watchtower that changed our current definition of the FDS was back in July 15, 2013. The article claimed that the FDS was now specifically and uniquely associated with the Governing Body. There we see the following, which I am including again here, not for you, but mostly for those who might not have read it carefully.

*** w13 7/15 p. 20 par. 3 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics. The slave represents all anointed Christians on earth as a group at any one time since then. The domestics refer to the same anointed ones as individuals. In 1919, Jesus appointed the faithful slave “over all his belongings”—all his earthly Kingdom interests.

The first part of that old view goes back to Russell: that all of the anointed made up the faithful slave. Russell kept that view from 1879 to until about 1897. The assumption was that they would be appointed over all his belongings at the time of their resurrection. Then, in 1897, Russell discreetly published an article stating that the slave was only one person, one individual. Then, very indiscreetly, began publishing letters and articles that addressed himself as that faithful and wise servant (FDS), allowed himself to be referred to like this at conventions, and began referring to the Watchtower publications as "food at the proper time" or "meat in due season."

Watchtower publications have said that Russell personally admitted to being the FDS in private. The publications have also stated that, when asked, he would sometimes respond: "Some say the Society is [that servant] . . . some say that I am."

An attempt to apply another faithful steward parable to Rutherford began shortly after Russell died. But Rutherford himself continued to teach that Russell had personally been that faithful and wise servant. 

That didn't last more than a decade, though, because Rutherford went back to Russell's original view that all the 144,000 made up the faithful slave class, and that they fed one another, including themselves, as the domestics. Later it was added that 1919 had been the year that they were appointed over all Christ's belongings. By the 1950's, the "governing body" as the representative officers of the Watch Tower Society began associating themselves more directly with the work of that "faithful and discreet slave."

*** w58 1/15 pp. 45-47 pars. 17-23 Overseers in Apocalyptic Times ***
Can it still be true that the holy spirit appoints overseers over the congregations of true Christians today? Since the spirit is God’s invisible active force and is silent and unfeelable, how could we be sure that the appointing of overseers is by it today? The Holy Bible, God’s Word, makes this certain.. . .  Since 1919 God’s organization has risen up to let the light of his glory shine amid the gross darkness of this world, and the time has come for the fulfillment of his promise: “I will . . . make thy chiefs peaceful and thine overseers righteous.” (Isa. 60:1, 2, 17, AS; LXX; Thomson; Bagster) We are living also in the time of final fulfillment of the prophecy to which the apostle Peter referred on the day of Pentecost, namely: “It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” (Joel 2:28, 29, AS; Acts 2:16-18) We should therefore expect the spirit’s activity to include appointing overseers.
¹⁹ As in the days of the apostles, the Christian flock of Jehovah God has over it a visible governing body. It acts for and in expression of the “faithful and discreet slave” whom Jesus Christ has appointed since coming into his kingdom in the heavens in 1914. When warning his apostles about his coming for the judgment of his followers at an unknown hour in the time of the end of this old world, Jesus said: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.” (Matt. 24:45-47) Since 1919 this “faithful and discreet slave,” who is a composite person made up of all anointed Christian joint heirs of Jesus Christ, has been taking care of “all his belongings” on earth. The slave has been faithfully giving out the spiritual, Biblical food at the proper time, so that there is no spiritual famine among the Christian witnesses of Jehovah. To make this “faithful and discreet slave” class equal to their heavy responsibilities in these last days, God through Christ has poured out his spirit upon them in these last days, in complete fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
²⁰ The governing body of the “faithful and discreet slave” class is taken from the members of this same anointed, spirit-filled class. By God’s spirit it is functioning. So, then, when the appointment of overseers is made by this governing body in harmony with the requirements laid down for overseers, it is really by the spirit that such overseers are appointed, although through human intermediaries. As the modern history of Jehovah’s witnesses shows, this is specially true since 1932, when the system of elective elders and deacons [ministerial servants] was done away with in their congregations.
²¹ The governing body of mature members of the “faithful and discreet slave” class always seeks the guidance of God’s holy spirit in appointing responsible men in the congregations overseers, together with their assistants, the ministerial servants. They do not act according to any personal favoritism or any bias. . . .
²² When, now, the governing body designates overseers that meet those plainly stated requirements, it is really the holy spirit that leads to the appointing of such overseers; it is really the holy spirit that makes such overseers. This fact becomes more evident when we note that it is also the fullness of the indwelling of the holy spirit in the candidate for the office of overseer that influences his appointment. The candidate must show that he is filled with the spirit by the way he conducts himself and his family (if he has one). . . .
²³ In consideration of the spirit’s fruitage produced by the candidate and in harmony with the written requirements set out in the Holy Scriptures written by men under the operation of the holy spirit, the governing body acts, being itself moved by the holy spirit for which it prays to God that it may guide the governing body. In every respect, then, the spirit of God comes to the fore in the matter of appointing overseers. So today as well as in Paul’s day it may be said that the holy spirit appoints overseers over the flock of God that he purchased “with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28, Schonfield) If in course of time any overseer turns out bad, we must remember that even Judas Iscariot, whom Jesus himself selected to be an apostolic overseer, turned out bad, betraying his own Overseer, the Chief Shepherd, to his enemies to be killed.

I included a little extra from the context of the earlier Watchtower as foundation for discussing some related aspects such as the actual meaning of spirit-led organization, etc. But the main point is to keep in mind the two primary views most of us have held during our lifetime as Witnesses:

• (1950's-2013) The GB, especially since 1919, acts for and in expression of the FDS, which has included all the anointed since 33 CE., but which has been appointed over all Christ's belongings since 1919.
• (2013-present) The GB, since 1919, is now the same thing as the FDS, which no longer includes all the anointed, but only the GB, and has only been appointed since 1919, but will not be appointed over all Christ's belongings until a future time when all of the anointed are in heaven.