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, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting reference

If you have the time, this might be interesting. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/12/howard-mazzaferros-defense-of.html

He appears to get flustered and finally go for the ad hominem sometimes, but otherwise he uses some interesting arguments.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

It's easier to misinterpret than accept who is doing the ad hominem attacks with their self-governed interpretation of scripture.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more!

As you said previously, we should have a "PASSION FOR TRUTH." A passion for truth necessarily requires that we avoid error.

[Anna]

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

[Melinda Mills]

A very good digest, Ann.

[Shiwiii]

On 2/8/2017 at 6:34 PM, JW Insider said:

Exactly. I couldn't agree more!

As you said previously, we should have a "PASSION FOR TRUTH." A passion for truth necessarily requires that we avoid error.

I like this, as we all should strive for the truth and not negate others positions unless we hold it up to scrutiny and see if it is indeed truth. This leads me to a question, not just to you JWInsider but to all here, and it comes from reading a portion of your previous post:

 

On 2/7/2017 at 0:43 PM, JW Insider said:

The biggest things that came from "lights or flashes" as the "GB" claimed at the time were 1925, 1935, and the "higher powers" of Romans 13 (not civil authorities, but Jehovah and Jesus). We've since dropped all three of those interpretations. Romans 13 was considered to be one of the most "inspired" of all the teachings that the GB (Rutherford) ever came up with, and was even made to be the fulfillment of prophecy. By that I mean that prophecy was supposedly fulfilled by the very fact that the interpretation was made known, and that coming up with this (wrong) interpretation had proved the superiority of the Watchtower over Christendom's teachers. Since then, we have gone back to teaching what Russell and Christendom had taught about Romans 13.

 If present "truth" replaces previous "truth" as seen here in this quote, and future "truth" may replace present "truth", what is the definition being used here for "truth"? 

On 2/10/2017 at 7:32 PM, Anna said:

Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB.

Hi Anna,

I am glad that you have not had reason to be distrustful thus far. Your description here brings to mind the times when vaccines were rejected based on the teachings of the society, as well as organ transplants. Those people held to the society's position, and some of them died. Now when the new "truth" came out and made these things acceptable, what then do you say to the families who lost loved ones? Oops? Sorry, we just didn't understand? I am glad to hear you have a balanced view, and most likely have a difference of opinion on somethings than what the society's position is, I think that is healthy. While I do agree that there are some who have much greater knowledge than I in various aspects, I respect them very much, I still hold to something you said :

On 2/10/2017 at 7:32 PM, Anna said:

  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things)

 

I'm glad you made this statement, it describes exactly how we should be approaching God's word, individually with help. I do not believe we should hold ANY man/men's interpretation as anything more than information for us to ponder and reflect. Sometimes we will align and sometimes we will not. God wrote to us individually and as a whole. We do not come to God as a group, but rather humbly as individuals. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

 

From Wikipedia:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,^[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.^[2][3]

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,^[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.^[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.^[6] Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982.^[7][8] Janis used the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed invasion of Castro's Cuba in 1961) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as his two prime case studies. Later studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink model.^[9][10]

I just checked, the blue links worked when I tried them ....

[Anna]

On 2/22/2017 at 11:55 AM, Shiwiii said:

Your description here brings to mind the times when vaccines were rejected based on the teachings of the society, as well as organ transplants. Those people held to the society's position, and some of them died. Now when the new "truth" came out and made these things acceptable, what then do you say to the families who lost loved ones? Oops? Sorry, we just didn't understand?

To be honest, I didn't really research the issue of vaccines and organ transplants much since I guess I was fortunate enough not to have to deal with it. But what I do know is that when vaccines started coming out they did not have a good start at all. People in general were very suspicious of them, not surprisingly since at the experimental stage they were outright dangerous.  Even now, informed mothers (non JW) will refuse some types of vaccinations for their babies/children. Of course our biggest concern (JW) was how some vaccines were produced (involving blood). I have not heard any stories of Witnesses dying or contracting a fatal disease because of refusing a vaccine, but I am sure there must have been some. Just like there were some non JWs who died because of not being vaccinated by choice. It appears our view changed quickly.  WT 58/9/15 Question from readers says:

●Question:  Are we to consider the injection of serums such as diphtheria toxin antitoxin and blood fractions such as gamma globulin into the blood stream, for the purpose of building up resistance to disease by means of antibodies, the same as the drinking of blood or the taking of blood or blood plasma by means of transfusion?—N. P., United States.
No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category, although we have done so in times past. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden. Thus when mankind for the first time was permitted to eat the flesh of animals, at the time of the restatement of the procreation mandate to the Deluge survivors, blood was specifically forbidden. (Gen. 9:3, 4) In the law of Moses blood was forbidden as food, and therefore we repeatedly find it linked with fat as things not to be eaten. (Lev. 3:17; 7:22-27) And so also in the days of the apostles; it was in connection with eating meat sacrificed to idols that the eating of strangled animals and blood was forbidden.—Acts 15:20, 29.
The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s expressed will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not". I am not familiar with what our magazines said regarding vaccines prior to the above article. I am sure someone else on here would be able to dig it out....

Regarding organ transplants, I have never heard that being an outright ban but rather it was  left to conscience. I know there were insinuations to cannibalism etc. but then again we were not the only ones in the world with that view. Similarly to vaccines, organ transplants were viewed with suspicion, especially with regard to the trial and error experiments in the wake of organ transplant research. Organ rejection by the body is a gruesome death. Even now, it is no fun when immunosuppressant drugs fail to work or cause adverse side effects. Of course there have also been a lot of success stories and medical advances keep extending and improving lives of people who otherwise would have died. But it wasn't always like that. Opposers and ex- JWs like to paint a picture of everyone in the past being saved by transplants and JWs either dying or being disfellowshipped if they accepted one. I do not know the truth of this, because I have never heard of someone being disfellowshipped for accepting an organ transplant.

I can understand though the difficulty when something we have believed, changes, and we lost something because of it. As for losing life, well in the end it is our eternal life that matters since all of us are dying in this system anyway. And most Witnesses sincerely believe that. If we are written in God's memory, and he remembers us in the resurrection, then we have done well. It is the bitterness that can come after losing a loved one and then also losing ones faith. But the worst is if we feel life was lost needlessly. I understand that. I really wish I knew of concrete situations of when this was the case with regard to refusing vaccinations or an organ transplant because of what the organization taught about it in the past. Or is it something that was blown up and exaggerated by ex-JWs? I don't know. But perhaps this needs to be put in a new topic...

In the end though, we all have to make some kind of a stand and also accept the consequences that come with it. This is why it's important that we don't do anything whereby we could blame someone else for our choice. It needs to be our choice only because as you say, ultimately it is between Jehovah and us, and no one else. The GB have never contradicted that fact.

[Shiwiii]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

 

In the end though, we all have to make some kind of a stand and also accept the consequences that come with it. This is why it's important that we don't do anything whereby we could blame someone else for our choice. It needs to be our choice only because as you say, ultimately it is between Jehovah and us, and no one else. The GB have never contradicted that fact.

This is the point of the whole thread, no? It should be up to the individual to make such decisions based on their own understanding. While the wording of certain publications state this, and I'm sure some do look at it in this way, the actions still speak otherwise. For example, What reason is there that a "witness", not just a witness but a JW witness, must observe the signing of a ADD? Why must it be kept with the cong secretary? If this were really up to the individual, then there would not be a need for such forms and committees/liaisons in hospitals. 

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

For example, What reason is there that a "witness", not just a witness but a JW witness, must observe the signing of a ADD? Why must it be kept with the cong secretary? If this were really up to the individual, then there would not be a need for such forms and committees/liaisons in hospitals. 

As far as I know, no one is made to own or carry an ADD. I have never encountered an elder chasing someone down to fill in the form.

It is assumed that the person holding an ADD does so because they value it as something which will help uphold THEIR decision in case of an emergency. Why else would they have one?

It is an "official" document and therefor certain rules have to be followed in order for it to be a valid document. As for the "witness" being a JW, well I have not seen it stated anywhere that it has to be, but logically you might want someone who shares the same conviction as you to witness your signature. By the way, in some countries only an official notary is allowed to witness the signature to make it a valid document.....

The hospital liaison committee is only there for those who want to avail themselves of the service. It is not automatic. Plus the HLC has been invaluable in educating doctors and hospitals regarding bloodless surgery options in treating JWs and also in helping to find doctors who will operate without blood if a congregation member asks for that, since the HLC has a database of all relevant doctors. The liaison committee is only there to liaise between patient and doctor, if that is what the patient wants. They are not there to make decisions for the patient, nor to police the patient's decision.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This is the point of the whole thread, no?

Yes. All of Jehovah's and Jesus's instructions are perfect, without error. So in view of that, how much, or how far are we to "listen" to the GB/Slaves interpretation if we know the possibility is that it could be wrong. This is why, before we become one of Jehovah's Witnesses we have to answer over 100 questions, and be personally convinced that WE personally believe the answers we give, and that the answer to these questions we personally believe are correct, (or as correct as is humanly possible), otherwise we would not become JWs, obviously.  I do not see anything in those questions, and the Biblical answers to them, that would warrant suspicion. Interestingly, I also do not see any references to 1914 or the  interpretation of the Generation.....

[Shiwiii]

On 2/24/2017 at 2:53 PM, Anna said:

This is why, before we become one of Jehovah's Witnesses we have to answer over 100 questions, and be personally convinced that WE personally believe the answers we give, and that the answer to these questions we personally believe are correct, (or as correct as is humanly possible), otherwise we would not become JWs, obviously.

The part I find troubling is this, to whom do you need to answer these 100 questions and where in the Bible do we find these requirements to join Jehovah's organization? The simple answers are 1. Men  and  2.You don't, but people subject themselves to this on the basis of men who claim authority directly from Jehovah with no actual proof. In fact it is just the opposite, there IS proof, proof that they are not chosen, not any different that anyone else. The proof is freely admitting by means of the "err" statement, but yet still claiming this authority. They are playing with a two-headed coin!

There is only ONE requirement in the Bible to be a part of God's family, John 1:12

[Shiwiii]

June 2017 Watchtower

15. How does respect for theocratic headship reveal our love for Jehovah’s way of ruling?
15 What is our response to divinely authorized headship? By our respectful cooperation, we show our support for Jehovah’s sovereignty. Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic order. That is quite different from the way of the world, but it is the way of life under Jehovah’s rulership. (Eph. 5:22, 23; 6:1-3; Heb. 13:17) We benefit from doing so, for God has our interests at heart.

 

So does this mean that if you do not agree with the "err" that is presented, you still must support it? YES it does. It states that if we do not, then we are not showing support or cooperation for Jehovah's sovereignty. So somehow the sovereignty of Jehovah is at stake if we do not side with the wt.  

Again, no proof that ANYONE authorized this leadership but they themselves. 

 

lets not forget:

Watchtower (Study) 15 November 2013, page 20

(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/