I do the same.. You will notice that I do have my own opinions on some things.... which comes from meditation...... . I will of course not go and teach this to others. I teach the basic core teachings to my studies and help them to appreciate that they must do self study for maturity... I also prepare them for their time as a witness when they will see that everyone is not perfect....... they may even bump their toe on a rock below the surface of the love-feasts..
Most new witnesses face a test with fellow witnesses after baptism - or a new congregations - it is inevitable..... just depends on how big the test is. I also help them to get life-skills as a witness. Some did not learn this while at home or had too many bumps in life. The qualities to survive and the attitudes that assist in cooperating with others and being kind and fitting in.
The realit y is: we are social animals and want to fit in , be successful in the group and it is hard on some people- especially if one has some weird personality quirks..... Navigating life - no matter where you go - is hard. For us the workplace can be a specially hard because people expect us to be "better" than others...... when we are just ordinary people like everyone else..... The only difference is that we try to be faithful to god........ to the best of our very imperfect ability. Sometimes we must face ridicule for that...so as ordinary people we have to build up courage and work on our social skills to navigate out of difficult situations.
I have a very friendly personality and stand out easily..... as a woman this is not always a good thing. So I have learnt to be smart and gauge the right time to say what I think. Last year I went to see two Arabic brothers and spoke to them about their attitudes towards women..... because Arabs have an inbred attitude which the truth does not completely correct.... years and years of training in a certain way is not just going to disappear. I waited for the right time and managed to do it successfully.... did they take my concerns to heart? I do not know.... but I seemed to do OK afterward. As I grew older I learnt to not keep quiet about my concerns....... but wait for a long time until the time is right and then talk. Every time I was successful, I grew in maturity. Now I help the young sisters to also grow strong and become pillars in the congregation.
@Arauna I agree with you here, but the problem arises when, on thinking of spiritual things and reading the scriptures privately, we then find ourselves in disagreement with the teachings of the the GB / JW Org.
I have always been encouraged to pray for guidance of holy spirit and read the scriptures. But I do find that on reasoning on the scriptures, I have been troubled by the way the GB / JW Org have dealt with and are dealing with things.
Thank you for your good research. I admit - since I last looked at these things I have been looking at other subjects.... You are welcome to correct me where I err.
My friend, this is only a wish these days - justice is becoming a thing for the rich only who can afford good lawyers and get off. An arabic word describes it perfectly THULM....... it means injustice but the consonants also stand for darkness. As moral darkness descends on this world I am afraid that suffering is going to escalate because injustice will prevail.
I met an African woman in field service here who was trafficked to different countries because she did not keep quiet about the children taken by the United nations. She was working at a school when the UN came and said they will look after the children...... and took the teachers with them. A few days later she found the teachers in jail and the children missing. She kicked up a fuss and to quiet her down they took her into custody. They sent her to an Islamic country and told them she was a criminal, hoping she would be killed..... but instead, they listened to her story.....
High-up organizations are involved even some of the American Charity foundations.
Once again, perhaps to some independent BS churches. The mistake that is continually being made is Russell controlled entire Bible Student association.
He controlled the “tabernacle”. If Henry Grew didn’t believe in the “trinity” then Russell wouldn’t have believed in the Trinity. The Q&A he gave, mentions, even though he didn’t believe in the trinity and was unscriptural, why baptize people in the name of the father the son and the Holy Spirit. He gave his reason. A reason in accordance of not believing in the Trinity.
Henry Grew (1781-1862)
He not only preached against slavery, but from the Bible alone, Henry Grew determined that the doctrines of the immortal soul, hell-fire, and trinity were not Scriptural. He wrote several books against the doctrines, one of which was picked up by George Storrs who was later convinced of Grew's views regarding the state of the dead.
LONDON, ENGLAND, April 5, 1882. Editor Zion's Watch Tower.
I have a brother, a D.D. in the Methodist Church, and have been always told I was called to preach the blessed glad tidings, but I never have felt satisfied with orthodoxy, although I have been a member for twenty-five years. I threw out the doctrine of natural immortality five years ago, the Trinity three years ago, and with the Em. Diaglott and Bible, with other helps, have been feeling after the truth. I left the Methodist Church three years ago, and though often asked to join that and others, never felt willing, the Saul's armor of the creeds did not fit, and it seemed to me I could not fight the good fight in them. I desire to fight the fight of Faith, and lay hold of everlasting life. I have held up the thoughts given in your works of "Tabernacle" and "Food" to some of Spurgeon's people, and they were unable to gainsay me.
Russell did not have the same idea as the POPE did. The papacy was still promoting the Pope to be equal to Christ or the reincarnation of Christ. There’s about 392 passages to consider.
Again the impression, Russell is claiming to be “the Christ” when actually he was simply stating the obvious.
Wherefore -- In order to show that the Law covenant was not to have any rule over the spiritual sons of God. R1728:5
Cast out -- The Law covenant was cast aside when Jesus became heir of the original promise. R4319:3
And her son -- Ishmael, type of the nation of Israel. R4319:2 Tyrannical, domineering, incorrigible; at this time 13 years of age. R3952:6
Shall not be heir -- The mother's nature, rights, privileges and liberties attach to the child. E105
The nation of Israel could not inherit the promised blessings because the Law brought nothing to perfection. R4319:2
With my son -- Isaac, who represented The Christ, Head and Body. R4319:2, R4320:1
Russell was placing himself as a REPRESENTATIVE, the role of a Pastor for the Christ, which the saints are also part of that body, with Christ as the head of the congregation. Within the BSA archives, there are 500 documents and almost 6200 passages
And, finally, the CHRISTIAN GLOBE (May 5, 1910) of London, states, "Since the days of Henry Ward Beecher and Dr. Talmage, no preacher has occupied so prominent a position in the United States as Pastor Russell of Brooklyn Tabernacle holds today." The full impact of Pastor Russell’s ministry can only be understood against the backdrop of church history.
Just because men may or may not apply scripture properly does not automatically mean all elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit. In any case, this is really a different matter altogether. No one can apply scripture perfectly, but they can do their best, however, in the case under discussion, the appointment of elders, men are limited through no fault of their own, because they can only act on what they see, they can't help that. They might be applying the scripture quite correctly, but it's contingent on the person they are considering appointing to actually qualify. But, and we are going round in circles, the elders can only see what is apparent. Therefore logically, if they really do not meet these qualifications, because they have deceptively hidden some pertinent details, or if it was assumed that past sins will no longer occur but they do, then holy spirit was not involved in the appointing, regardless whether men have appointed the person or not. So there are three scenarios, correct appointment, erroneous appointment, and appointment that is later withdrawn. In the second scenario, the erroneous appointment, it can happen that a prospective candidate, who is married, is very clever at hiding the fact that he has a lover on the side. Outwardly, he meets all the requirements, and he is appointed an elder. No holy spirit involved there, obviously. Then in the third case, there is the candidate who really meets all the requirements, he is appointed, and it can be said that holy spirit was involved. However, later, that same man acquires a lover on the side, and keeps it well hidden. It is then obvious that he no longer meets the requirements, and holy spirit is no longer involved.
The third scenario illustrates that holy spirit, once given, doesn't mean it can't be withdrawn. Think Judas Iscariot. Similarly, once someone is appointed by holy spirit, doesn't mean that appointment can't be made obsolete, removed. So how would we know? We may not know. But the scriptures say "that which is carefully hidden WILL be exposed".
I don't see how I've done that. What are they claiming that's false? Just because Greenlees was apparently not appointed by holy spirit, but by men, doesn't mean the same thing applies to all of them.
JWS believe that the head of the congregation is Jesus, and that he knows who is who and what is going on, even though men may not know. So we trust that whatever corrections are needed, they will happen.
You mean ex-JWs emailing Angus Stewart?
I am not talking about a theoretical exercise, I am talking about an actual case. I read the whole transcript (all several hundred pages of it).
I can’t comment on cases unless I am able to read all the court transcripts of the case. So you telling me about “sordid details” and “cover ups” is of no real help to me. Although I am not denying that cover ups have happened.
Are you talking about victims BCG, and BCB? Because if you are, then I do not recall any attempts at covering up abuse. But I do recall there being inappropriate handling of the issue, for example for the victim to have to face her abuser. The ARC identified areas such as that, and others, where the policies of JWS could be improved, and then made recommendations. These recommendations were taken on board and are now implemented, and are part of the JW policy on Child Protection. I am sure you have read it. Furthermore as you know, the ARC was set up in recognition of CSA problems in various institutions, not just JWS.
This sounds like a case of semantics to me. I could say that Julia Child did not direct me, but I allowed her instructions in the cook book to direct me. And if those instructions were detailed enough, then I probably turned out a good meal. However, if I started chopping the onion in quarters, instead of small pieces, as stated in the recipe, then Julia Child would not be there to personally correct me. So if my meal turned out less than perfect, then it was because I had not followed Julia’s instructions properly, regardless whether she was there in person or not. But really, this is what the Bible is. Christians try to follow it as best as they can. The idea of appointment by holy spirit is a scriptural idea and it is assumed that if one qualifies as per Timothy, then it can be said that one is working in harmony with God and his holy spirit in that appointment, therefore to put it another way: the appointment is by holy spirit. I guess you would prefer appointed in harmony with holy spirit, rather than appointed by it. But don’t think I don’t know the real reason why you are bringing all this up. Your point is that saying “appointed by”, somehow makes the rank and file imagine that this is something special, and under direct guidance of God. But we have already established that this cannot always be the case. (But also, that does not automatically mean that it is never the case). Regardless, Paul writes Christians should be obedient to those taking the lead. This does not mean we are going to obey indiscriminately. I guess because the apostle Paul assumed that he was talking to intelligent and reasonable people, he did not see the need to insert the proviso “unless they are asking you to do something bad” . Peter understood, when he said “we must obey God as ruler rather than man”. Which brings me to your next point:
No, first and foremost God must be obeyed. So if the GB were to ask someone to do something that is not supported in scripture, or that goes against scripture, no JW should obey.
As I said further above, you might have concluded that, but not me.
Not only me, but most JWS see evidence of God's spirit not only in their lives, but in the way the organization operates, in spite of imperfections. Sorry to disappoint you.