Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

During the Vietnam War MANY families were heavily invested in the agenda of prosecuting the war to it's conclusion ... even though the Secretary of State (..used to be called "Secretary of War", during Abraham Lincoln's time...) Robert McNamara later wrote in a book apologizing for the "best and the brightest" sending so MANY young men to a useless death, for no reason, except to support a flawed, and useless agenda that was WRONG.

Because these families had lost sons and brothers, and relatives in the war ... they thought that OTHERS should have to go, so that their relatives' blood would not have been be wasted.

This is a STRONG emotion that WILL send men to waste THEIR lives ...... also.

That is what happens when reason and logic is subservient to misplaced  loyalty to an emotionally charged agenda ... wasted lives ... where high ideals are transformed by emotion into EVIL.

You ask a person if he likes carrots, and he replies that rabbits are driving his dog crazy.

We are all interested in upholding Jehovah's Sovereignty, but loyalty to LIES, whether deliberate or just through common everyday  incompetence ... is WRONG ... and it gets Brothers and Sisters to carry heavy, heavy burdens that as they grow older and smarter, they realize are arbitrary and capricious ... and NOTHING to do with actual TRUTH.

There is one invariable "Shibbolith" to tell if someone is motivated by TRUTH ... or motivated by an agenda, whether it be good, bad, or not important.

If they are motivated by TRUTH ... wherever it may be found ... they will ALWAYS defend it on the basis of what is true and what is not true ... and they will ALWAYS be pleased to defend it by DIRECTLY answering direct questions ... and discuss the ideas and principles behind them.

When a Brother or Sister refuses to discuss IDEAS and PRINCIPLES ... and RESORTS to ad hominem attacks, it is a sure sign HE OR SHE KNOWS, in their heart, that what they believe is not loyalty to actual Truth ... but on loyalty to a strongly entrenched agenda in which, like the Vietnam War, they are so heavily invested, they do not want to admit that their intellectual "bank account" is seriously overdrawn, and others see their shame of their "bankruptcy".

[TrueTomHarley]

As to the thread title:

"Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?"

Perhaps the better question is: What is the scriptural precedent for it?

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If they are motivated by TRUTH ... wherever it may be found ... they will ALWAYS defend it on the basis of what is true and what is not true ... and they will ALWAYS be pleased to defend it by DIRECTLY answering direct questions ... and discuss the ideas and principles behind them.

 

Like Jesus did?

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As to the thread title:

"Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?"

Perhaps the better question is: What is the scriptural precedent for it?

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If they are motivated by TRUTH ... wherever it may be found ... they will ALWAYS defend it on the basis of what is true and what is not true ... and they will ALWAYS be pleased to defend it by DIRECTLY answering direct questions ... and discuss the ideas and principles behind them.

 

Like Jesus did?

TTH:

Not the same thing.

Jesus could read their hearts and KNEW that these people were his enemies ... seeking to generate an excuse to have him killed ..setting him up to be trapped by his own words ... MISAPPLIED!

Presumably our discussions here are to seek TRUTH, and to be reasonable about it.

Therefore, the only risk here and among general discussions is to be WRONG, which is not punished by anything except the Universe, which is not arbitrary, capricious, or merciful, even to determined idiots and weasels.

I stand by my statement " If they are motivated by TRUTH ... wherever it may be found ... they will ALWAYS defend it on the basis of what is true and what is not true ... and they will ALWAYS be pleased to defend it by DIRECTLY answering direct questions ... and discuss the ideas and principles behind them."

That's the way the REAL world of here-and-now exists and works.

All else is FANTASY!

[Anna]

22 hours ago, Anna said:

I will leave that to @JW Insider He is much more competent than me. 

Note, I never said 1914 was wrong. But I won't say it's right either.  And I actually think it's OK being undecided (in this particular instance).

 

28 minutes ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

I can appreciate your reliance on man, rather than Jah! While sitting on the fence.

How does what I said above make you conclude that I rely on man instead of Jah? And I did make it clear that there was nothing wrong with sitting on the fence with regard to SOME issues, obviously not all.  In this case, I don't think believing or not believing in 1914 really makes a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Prove me wrong.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Presumably our discussions here are to seek TRUTH, and to be reasonable about it.

You wouldn't know it by many of the comments.

In most cases, people are merely reiterating the same remarks they made the day they came onboard.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Presumably our discussions here are to seek TRUTH, and to be reasonable about it.

You wouldn't know it by many of the comments.

 

Well, it's sorta like the Declaration of Independence says ... We are (paraphrased) entitled to " ... Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT of happiness ... "... no one can be assured of happiness, and no one can be assured of Truth . 

Sometimes... the best we can manage is to PERSUE either, or both.

We deserve what we are willing to FIGHT for... in Liberty AND Truth.

Reality is that many NEVER get what they actually deserve ... for good or for bad.

But many do.

It's a messy exasperating process ... but it is a process ... to wrestle from the Universe what Truths we can.... IF ... if we are willing to wrestle for them.

[JW Insider]

On 8/26/2017 at 11:02 PM, AllenSmith said:

I see you're playing musical chairs with questions and answers. That is certainly an advantage to you since you can reply without others being the wiser. Reminds me of intellectual dishonesty.

Clever wordplay. I see how you worked in the words "intellectual dishonesty" without having to give an example, or mention any evidence.

For a few hours, this thread had one of your comments at the top of it, and I thought it wasn't fair to you because you didn't request that such a topic be "started" by you. And it would also have given the impression that you had created the topic title. (Or maybe it was J.R.Ewing, although it was a silicon copy of your sentiments.) But once the first post is there at the top, I can't move that post back again, or anywhere else. (just the nature of the software) After trying several things that didn't work, I noticed that the solution was easier than I thought. Just find an earlier post on the topic and it sorts to the top. When the new older post pushes the original post down out of the top position then I can move it back to the original thread or move it to another topic altogether.

I say all that because I finally figured it out, and if you have a suggestion for another post to be at the top of this thread, I can make it happen. If you want one of your own at the top, that would be great, I could always put the one I quoted from in the new top position.

On 8/26/2017 at 11:02 PM, AllenSmith said:

But I see with your answer of asking yourself if what is written, is in harmony with scripture.

Thanks. I'm glad you see that was written is in harmony with scripture.

On 8/26/2017 at 11:02 PM, AllenSmith said:

I know, with the experience you've had at Bethel makes you believe, you have the "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by GOD?

You obviously don't know what my experience at Bethel makes me believe. Because it definitely does NOT make me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God. If you "knew" of course, your guess could not have been so wrong.

On the use of a straightforward style that obviously angers so many people, I can only say that it sometimes feels a bit hypocritical to appear less assured if I really am assured that the evidence is on the side of the argument that I agree with. And another thing is that, during the years when I hadn't looked into enough of the evidence, I would not have felt that it was right to try to present so much of it on a public forum. I don't think it does much good to present evidence about such a longstanding and widespread doctrine (as 1914) if I still had all the doubts I had about it a few years ago. I knew it would be best to wait until I had prayerfully considered it, compared all the scriptures I could find on the subject, and study the history of the doctrine throughout all the publications to see if I had missed something. It was only after I was convinced personally that the Bible evidence was consistent, that I decided to look into whether the secular evidence supported the Bible evidence. It would not have made a difference at that point, because the secular evidence is not as important as the Bible evidence. But it turned out that the Bible is supported quite well from the secular evidence. The two recent threads that I started on 1914 however, were never about the secular evidence. They were about the wording of the scriptures. Someone else asked about the 70 years and 539 and it became the big talking point. There is also a verse that may or may not apply about the confidence we should have in what we are proposing with respect to presenting evidence for a teaching from the Bible: 

• (1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The glory and the might are his forever and ever. . . .

There could be any number of ways to misinterpret this scripture, and I'm not saying it applies to me in any way more than it applies to you or anyone else here. And perhaps it applies to none of us. But there is still a principle buried in the verse about confidence through strength that God supplies.

• (Ephesians 3:11, 12) . . .Christ, Jesus our Lord, 12 by means of whom we have this freeness of speech and free access with confidence through our faith in him.

So I can apologize that I likely sound too sure of myself. I can start changing that right now. Of course, looking at enough evidence to make oneself feel sure and confident does not make me right, anyway. But my conscience still tells me that I should share it, and not mince words about why I am sharing it, in spite of the insults and name-calling and whatever else. For me, it's a matter of following Christ wherever he goes. For me, it's a matter of paying more than the usual attention to what Jesus actually consistently said in Matthew 24, not changing a few definitions that make it seem like Jesus said something contradictory.

On 8/26/2017 at 11:02 PM, AllenSmith said:

I see my response to a question by "witness" in the other thread, that you moved here, fits very well here too. A part of scripture you failed to disclose on this thread.

Hebrews 13:16-18New International Version (NIV)

Thanks for adding it then. I thought that verse 17 had already been included here in this thread at least twice, even before you repeated it 3 more times under the "AllenSmith" moniker. But I also see that some have apparently interpreted it to mean that the Governing Body are the equivalent of God. That would be a form of idolatry, of course, so I'm surprised that some would claim that we should practice our religion as if idolatry were nothing to be ashamed of.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I say all that because I finally figured it out, and if you have a suggestion for another post to be at the top of this thread, I can make it happen. If you want one of your own at the top, that would be great, I could always put the one I quoted from in the new top position.

There's a new kid in town.

I, for one, question the authority of @The Librarian! (the old hen) Has she demonstrated that she can do these things? Does she alone have authority? Are not ALL here equally capable? Didn't she SCREW UP the deployment of simple thread technology? For lack of skilled direction, the people suffer!!!

What gives her the right to domineer over the sheep on this forum?!!

I am tired of her controlling attitude.  I think it is only right - YEA - IT IS AN OBLIGATION to question her authority until she gives PROOF that she is handling the word of this forum aright!

[A Nice Guy]

How

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I, for one, question the authority of @The Librarian!

How can you say that?!! She has worked tirelessly for the interests of all. (the kindly creature) This disloyal comment tells more of YOUR bitter attitude, TrueTom, than it does the Librarian!

(Your books suck. THAT is why she won't let you promote them)

[Vic Vomidog]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I, for one, question the authority of @The Librarian!

Make her walk the plank!

Hand in hand with her paramour TrueTom!

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Can you say I’m wrong when you say the GB is wrong?

You know I'll always respond to a direct question. So the answer is YES, I can absolutely say you were wrong. What you did is make note of the fact that I had pointed out something where the current evidence differs from what the GB is saying about a specific subject, and then you said that I must believe that I had (in your words) "the 'power' and 'authority' to question the dispensation of spiritual food by GOD?" So yes you are absolutely wrong about that.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

However, show me where the “apostles” considered Jesus wrong to want to change his Doctrine?

Why? The apostles didn't have the right to want to change his doctrine and neither do the GB have that right, and neither do you or I. Unless you are arguing that the GB do have that right, and I don't believe that's what you are arguing. Therefore, I believe you agree with me.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

(1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The glory and the might are his forever and ever. . . .

When someone becomes accustomed to ADD their own words to scripture such as you have done here in this example, then, you are dispensing your own thought, NOT Gods. Therefore, your version takes scripture out of context. Now, are you implying, the use of the NWT is not worthy of Gods approval? Even other “translations” come to the same sentiment. Why does your version defer? Is your version conveying the words of GOD in its proper context as God intended us to learn?

You should be ashamed of yourself Allen! The added words that you are complaining about were not added by me. They were added by the Governing Body. That scriptural quote is the pre-2013 NWT taken directly from the 2016 Watchtower Library! I think the fact that you didn't recognize this shows just how much one can be blinded by their own emotions. I'm not sure if that is what happened to you here, but I have seen examples before where it seemed like anger was the probable emotion involved. At any rate, you are inadvertently claiming that the Governing Body was "dispensing their own thought, NOT God's."

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

JWinsider: There could be any number of ways to misinterpret this scripture, and I'm not saying it applies to me in any way more than it applies to you or anyone else here. And perhaps it applies to none of us. But there is still a principle buried in the verse about confidence through strength that God supplies.

Remember, these are your very own words. I’m NOT misinterpreting anything you have written. I believe this is the very essence of wordplay, wouldn’t anyone agree? Now you’ve been doing this for how long? About five years on this site alone?

Again, you have asked me a direct question, otherwise I would just let most of your snide comments and insults slide. So, "NO," this is not the very essence of wordplay. I am guessing that it was November 2013 when I joined jwarchive, and probably later in 2014 when I first posted anything doctrinal. In truth, since you asked, I have heard you mention this so-called problem of "wordplay" for years, but I have always noticed that it was you  engaging in the "wordplay" -- especially if by "wordplay" you meant some kind of twisting of words to make them mean something negative or sinister when I clearly meant something more positive. Take, even this supposed example where you just made the accusation that this is the very "essence" of wordplay. Of course, you might be referring back to the same point where you were trying to make this accusation about me, but were inadvertently attacking the Governing Body for the words they added to the New World Translation. (And the only reason this was taken from the pre-2013 NWT, was because I had just looked up a verse in that version so it was already open in front of me. I actually prefer the 2013 version in this case anyway, but only within the full context of course.)

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

(Ephesians 3:11, 12) . . .Christ, Jesus our Lord, 12 by means of whom we have this freeness of speech and free access with confidence through our faith in him.

Here, we can find a difference in interpretation. I believe the underline would suggest, that we all have freedom of speech, which we have. However, how does the mystery of the gospel allow for that freedom to undermine God’s intended words? Since Paul is referring to the freeness of speech one has to proclaim the “Good News” throughout the world without any obstacles, such as we see in Russia. That we can share this good news as Stewarts by the undeserved kindness given to us by GOD to give to others with the same hope we could share in glory for our heavenly Father.

You got it! That's exactly what I believe, and exactly why I used the verse. So what was that question about the freedom to undermine God's intended words all about? Are you still concerned with the way you thought the pre-2013 version of the NWT undermined God's words? Let it go.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Who, should "true witnesses" of GOD follow?

Jesus and Jehovah, and even elders and the GB, to the extent these elders are taking the lead in matters of faith and love and teaching and good works and other instructive conduct, we should follow their lead, too. Hebrews 13:16-18 itself is also about our local congregation elders, too. In fact, the following article shows that, even though Hebrews 13:17 is especially for the congregation elders, some of the principles here are not merely about elders, but can have application to the entire congregation.

• *** w10 10/15 p. 18 Do You Take the Lead in Honoring Fellow Believers? ***
• A Specific Assignment for All    Who should take the lead in showing honor? In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul describes Christian elders as “those who are taking the lead among you.” (Heb. 13:17) True, elders take the lead in numerous activities. Still, as shepherds of the flock, they surely need to take the lead in honoring fellow believers—including fellow elders. For instance, when elders meet to consider the spiritual needs of the congregation, they honor one another by carefully listening to the comments made by any of their fellow elders. Further, they show honor by taking into consideration the views and expressions of all the elders when making a decision. (Acts 15:6-15) We should remember, though, that Paul’s letter to the Romans was directed not only to the elders but to the entire congregation. (Rom. 1:7) Thus, by extension, the admonition to take the lead in showing honor applies to all of us today.

Obviously, it's true that there are ways in which each encourage one another to follow in faith and fine works. If you see a good example, and are encouraged by it, then by all means follow that example. Personally, I believe that the primary application is to elders, however. So I have no problem at all applying this to elders in the congregation and the elders on the Governing Body.

• (Hebrews 10:23-25) 23 Let us hold firmly the public declaration of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.
• (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

During the "Middle Ages" these types of discussions consumed people for HUNDREDS of years ... and the synopsis was the phrase "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

I try to keep my life simple, and since no one can prove that invisible things that SUPPOSEDLY happened a hundred or so years ago, using "evidence" that can be interpreted a hundred different ways ... and all with internal reasoning that makes sense to the proponents, and, I ...having ALSO been consumed with such things earlier in my life ... have come to the conclusion that it is ALL a complete and utter waste of my time,.

Soon enough ... too soon, perhaps ... we will ALL KNOW !!!

AND ... since there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to change reality ... whatever it is ... to quote Rhett Butler ...

 "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"

I have a long list of REAL concerns, I CAN do something about.

..based on HARD EVIDENCE.

Remember EVIDENCE?