ComfortMyPeople

I see, in my opinion, that the parables of the slave/ steward could have three senses:

1
According to the Bible, in a sense I am a steward, or supervisor of my family. I have to take care of it, feed it and take care of it.

2
(1 Timothy 5:17) "Let the elders who preside in a fine way ..." shows that in each congregation there must be some who supervises and cares for the rest of the congregation: a steward group of elders.

3
In the final age it would be neccesary a global stewardship

The analysis of the next passage alone yields much information on this matter, the administration or stewardship of the "house of God":

(Revelation 7:9, 10) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

1) A large number of people would be saved from the final Great Tribulation
    Each one in her house, living only according to her criteria or conscience? Let's see

2) They ALL dress the SAME way, in white in the eyes of God
    So there should be a unified behavior and conduct, not based ONLY on individual consciousness

3) They speak in unison, they have a common message
    They "shouted" the same message. There is nothing worse than a detuned choir.

4) The basic doctrinal body would be the same
    They worship one God and see the value of the Lamb.

5) Something that would make this unit difficult is that they come from very different backgrounds
    "of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages,"

How could Mt 24:14 be accomplished with the outcome of Rev 7:9-10 without direction, organization, supervision or stewardship?

Over there I am listening to one, there in the background, who says that Christ from heaven takes charge, with the holy spirit, that there is no need for greater supervision. Am I right?

if someone thinks like that, let's consider:

In another apocalyptic prophecy we read that
    (Daniel 11:33). . those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many. . .
    (Daniel 12:10). . . And the wicked will act wickedly and no wicked will understand. Only those having insight will understand.

It seems that the prophecy indicates that there would be TWO groups of worshipers: the PEOPLE, the MANY on one side, and THOSE HAVING INSIGHT on the other. And this second group would help to obtain knowledge to the first one.

Yes, it would be necessary to teach others not the basic truths of the Gospel but what the angel said:
    "(Daniel 12: 9)" these words must be kept secret and sealed until the end time "

"These words", which should be understood with the help of "those having insight", refer to such profound thoughts of Daniel's prophecy that even the prophet himself was unable to understand (Daniel 12:8  "I heard, but I did not understand"

Thus, this last world stewardship seems very necessary, since unifying an international crowd with similar behavior, with similar beliefs, that have a united message, would be impossible without such leadership. And Daniel adds a smaller group that oversees that teaching.
 

So stewardship applies, in my opinion, to any Christian who has to be a steward: on my family, on my congregation, and on the entire world brotherhood.

------------------------------

(Matthew 24:48) . . .“But if ever that evil slave says in his heart. . ." this is for another day
 

Regarding to the illustration of the "faithful slave" (Mt 24) or "faithful steward" (Lu 12) we find a quote that I think is pertinent in the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians VI: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html

CHAPTER VI. Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

These commentaries of certain Ignatius from the end of the 1st or early 2nd century show us an UNSPECIALIZED, but generic, use of the "slave class", that is, it does not represent a group or class with a specific mission, but that any member of the congregation -mainly the "episkopos" (bishop) of the same has the commission to supervise it.
 

I think this idea it was first mentioned for @JW Insider, and something similar is said in Furuli's book: there wasn't any specialized class attending the household in those days. 

Neither did Ignatius wait for the last days to arrive for the declaration on the "faithful slave" to be fulfilled. Already in those days it was necessary that any Christian with supervisory responsibilities be that, prudent and faithful.

By the way, Ignacio already believed he was living in the last days:

11:1 These are the last times. Henceforth let us have reverence;

I'm sick of this religion, why don't I give up?

(Revelation 3: 1-4)
1 ‘I know your deeds,
I am fully convinced that the Master knows what is happening within our religion, as he knew what was happening in Sardis.

"that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead"
I don't think at all that my religion is that bad

2 ... I have not found your works fully performed before my God.
Yes, I agree, there are things, many things, that I do not like about my religion, nor about the GB

4 ‘Nevertheless, you do have a few individuals in Sardis
And here is the main thing:

• Why doesn't Jesus tell those few to leave, to leave, to abandon and form or join another religion?
• Well I'm not leaving either

11 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

At the beginning of Furuli's book there is a paragraph referring to a certain letter sent to {the congregations? the elders?} The paragraph in question says:

However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion

I would like to mention that I cannot find this letter. I have looked again in the letters to the elders section of our branch in Spain, but I have not found it. I am not saying at all that Furuli is not truthful, only that I cannot find this letter. Maybe someone could help me out ...

 

The question I raise has more substance:

As far as I know, no brother who works as a nurse or doctor and who administers blood sporadically and following the instructions of a superior has to face any judicial committee.

Along the same lines, no one who sells products with blood - or tobacco - from time to time in a supermarket that is not of his property, necessarily loses the status of "good reputation" or of being a "good example".

The nuances that can emerge from the two examples I just cited are innumerable. But Furuli mentions a certain letter where there is no nuance: according to the letter, the witnesses should no longer behave according to their conscience in these matters, it is black or white.

So, the advice that I (and all the elders that I know) are giving, and the way to approach these situations that I raise, do not follow the instructions of that "unknown" letter.

I have the impression, from the phraseology of the letter that Furuli cites ("the Governing Body has decided") that he has collected the information from a site that seeks to discredit us. In fact, Furuli adds in a footnote on page 11:

4. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.

In other words, that apart from the elders, another instruction has been read to the entire congregation: well, no idea about this. I ask: do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

At the beginning of Furuli's book there is a paragraph referring to a certain letter sent to {the congregations? the elders?} The paragraph in question says:

The letter of 15 June 2018 changed this situation:
We would like to inform you of an updated policy with regard to
whether a Christian may administer a blood transfusion if he is directed
to do so by a superior. The previous policy was that it would be a matter
for a personal, conscientious decision whether to obey such an order.
However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion is so closely linked
with an unscriptural practice that one unquestionably becomes an
accomplice in a wrong practice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate
for a Christian to administer a blood transfusion under any
circumstance.—Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28, 29.4

I would like to mention that I cannot find this letter. I have looked again in the letters to the elders section of our branch in Spain, but I have not found it. I am not saying at all that Furuli is not truthful, only that I cannot find this letter. Maybe someone could help me out ...

8 minutes ago, Arauna said:

 

My best wishes. Get well soon!

We use zoom. About 40 little screens. The sound helper opens / closes mic. to each participant. Yestarday we got a letter from th Spanish branch with instructions.

The whole congregation is excited

The  situation in my city is not serious, but in Madrid is horrible because the gobern gave permission for a feminist demostration in March 8th . with tousands of participants

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

POINT #1

Conversation this morning with a brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)

• B: The Governing Body is guided by the spirit of God. All it teaches us is what Jehovah makes them see or understand.
• A: So, how do we change from saying one thing about the 1914 generation, to a totally different one, and soon in yet another. Does Jehovah transmit errors?

POINT #2

Conversation that I’ve had with a brother with decades serving in Bethel, (A = me, B = brother):

• A: The Governing Body makes extended applications of Scripture without notifying what it is doing, to the extent that we forget the original meaning.
• B: Also, Paul and others, when quoting from the OT introduced new approaches that were not in the original intention of the writer.
• A: True, but the big difference is that they were inspired, but the GB is not.

POINT #3

This week's conversation with a veteran brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)

• B: The "disgusting thing in the holy place" was that religions embraced the League of Nations in 1919
• A: You did not remember, but in 1999 this approach was modified, and it was explained that this event is still future, and we do not know exactly how it will be.

POINT #4

"Don't talk about my mother", says one spouse to the other during an argument. Touching the mother is a very serious matter. For many, the Organization is like a mother. Any criticism or negative observation is considered the result of lack of faith, little spirituality or influence of apostates.

CONCLUSION

About POINT # 1. As we consider the GB not inspired or infallible, but guided by the holy spirit, we are reluctant to admit doctrinal errors on your part. We call them adjustments, progress in understanding or with other euphemisms. Why have we this view? Do we remember having read in one of our publications the term: rectification, error, we were wrong, we apologize for ...?

About POINT # 2. We give the GB an authority similar to the apostles. If these apparently "twisted" the OT to achieve a good end (to prove that Jesus was the Messiah for example), why the GB cannot take some licenses with the Scriptures so that we can preach more, so that we respect the established order, so that we promote the unity, or so that we continue to have a sense of urgency.

On the way in which Christian writers used the OT very flexibly, until they seemed to distort the original meaning, the book “Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation”, by Gregory K. Beale is very enlightening.

In relation to POINT #3 it often happens that many doctrines that we have learned for decades and then have proven to be inadequate, we have studied many times in the obsolete format, to the extent that this comes to mind before the new one. In addition, with so many changes, it is sometimes difficult for us to remember the "right thing" (yeast, generation ...)

About POINT #4. I like this moral of the story "the new clothes of the emperor"

·        It is often used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something because everyone else seems to think it is good or important. It is the title of a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who pays a lot of money for some new magical clothes that only wise people can see. The clothes don't really exist, but the emperor doesn't admit that he can't see her, because he doesn't want to look stupid. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/emperor-s-new-clothes

APOCALYPTIC GENDER’S INTERPRETATION SCHOOLS

Daniel, especially in the OT, and logically Revelation, are known as apocalyptic because they share a style characterized, among others, by these common elements:

• Symbology before literal language.
• Visions
• Encrypted language
• Clear temporary allusion to the "end times"

Well, to address the correct exegesis or study of these books, there are the so-called schools or interpretation approaches, mainly from the book of Revelation:

• PRETERIST: the writer describes what was happening at that time or even in the past. He preferred a cryptic language to avoid the persecution of Rome. There is no prophecy but a description of the past.
• HISTORICIST: It is believed that the revelation is about the history of the Church from the first to the last coming of Christ.
• IDEALIST: Revelation, instead of talking about the future, contains teachings about the situation of the Church in the world.
• FUTURIST: the content of the book will be fulfilled at the end of time.
• And there are other variants.

With all of the above, I would like to reach this conclusion: it is difficult to arrive at a correct understanding of that part of Scripture. If the GB claims to have the "key", it is interesting what the mysterious book itself says:

• (Revelation 5: 2-4). . And I saw a strong angel proclaim loudly: "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?" 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it. 4. I gave way to a great deal of weeping because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
   

 But, finally, if Jehovah inspired that content, it would be more than simply filling the pages of His Book. So, at least something, a part, of the meaning of the book should be useful to us, but due to the POINTS # 1 to # 4 mentioned above, we, the JW, have a special difficulty in understanding apocalyptic literature.

(to be continued…)

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Naturally, people can talk about anything they want, but for myself I had hoped to limit this to a general discussion of the Biblical counsel about chronology, and what Matthew 24 might mean, if not the generation from WWI.  Or even whether Revelation chapter 6 or chapter 12 can make any sense if it doesn't mean something related to 1914 or the final generation that would see the end.

When I say that I am tired of talking so much about dates, I do not mean that I do not find everything related to our background that has led to the birth, development and death of our numerical doctrines very interesting. It is part of the history of my religion, that is, it is part of the history of my life. And I am especially grateful to the explanations that  @JW Insider  has been happy to share with us. I have learned a lot from his knowledge, both from these spheres and from other plots in which he has exploded. Now that I think, I think he knows a lot of everything. I envy him.

Before anyone thinks that I am a kind of idolater or flatterer of JWI, I want to say that I often learn from the comments of children and anyone. Everyone can enrich our life and spirituality. With how much more reason who has had so many experiences and contacts within our organization.

Now, what I wanted to say with my comment that I would like to give this subject another approach (1914) is that I would like to share in the forum related portions of the Bible that address certain eschatological issues.

This doctrine (1914) I think that sooner or later it will fall like ripe fruit. In the meantime, I find myself like those Students of the Bible of the 20s who might have been very disillusioned with the Pyramid theory and its influence on our religion. At the moment these teachings were part of the official teaching. Less and less was mentioned, but it was still part of the doctrine. I suppose that these Christians would not make the Pyramid their great teaching focus, their great concern. They would not waste time showing interest in something they saw was nonsense. When Rutherford said that instead of being an instrument of Jehovah to teach, it was simply a funerary monument with demonic influence, they would not be disappointed, but relieved.

Well, it's the same with 1914

So, in the following posts, I would like to bring up approaches on Daniel 7 and 11, Revelation 6, 11 and 12 among others and may be enlightening about what we are discussing. I hope

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

@ComfortMyPeople seems to follow a lot of what I've posted on this topic, but rarely says much about it. I'm hoping for a bit more sometime soon.

Yes, I want to address this issue, but from another perspective. I get desperate and tired of talking about a date, how contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the warnings of Jesus!
While I prepare what I would like to say (remember that it is very difficult for me to express myself in English), I attach this link that although somewhat old, I think it is relevant.

Quote

I used to think the same way, but just because it says update, doesn't mean the actual content is changed (like different wording of a scripture for example) but it is more to do with technical updates to make things compatible with constant changes and updates in the way  various operating systems work, similar to windows system, Firefox etc.  It is normal for any websites to do that. If there are any doctrinal or organizational changes, then we are usually made aware of them in a WT study.

Yes, @Anna, it's possible but the compatibility issues  usually affect the platform, the software, not the data, in this case the publications. If a matter of compatibility affects, let's say, the Watchtowers of the Library, ALL of them should be updated, not just a specific Watchtower.
Well, it is not a matter of life or death. I guess they are often minor problems

Quote

The problem is why are they doing it. Is it because they need an incentive,  or is it because they like the title?

Frankly, I have not seen too much the problem of pride in the pionering. The vast majority of pioners do it (we have done it) as a show of devotion and a sort of help to give one hundred percent. So far so good.

BUT ... remember that although we have incorporated the example of the Nazarites as a "type" of the pioners , in the Christian era we did not find any example that there was anything similar: commit to preach x monthly hours.

And, the real problem that I have seen is something surreptitious, unconscious and unwavering that has happened to many pioners: that we do not balance our own spirituality, our family, the congregation, rest and other important matters for an obligation, NOT BEFORE JEHOVAH , but before a commitment to the organization. The only commitment to Jehovah has always been and will be to serve him to the fullest.

Then, when one begins to realize that something is not going well, or to increase his stress, it turns out that many feelings of guilt arise from abandoning that service, or the wiser decission is postponed . Anyway, it's what I see

Quote

If I am not mistaken, there is no specific regulation which says you can't do those things you have described.

oh dear Anna, YES there is regulation:
Of course, there are many countries where this will be different. I have only preached in the Dominican R., New York (Spanish territory) and in Spain. But in all these places the congregation has (logically) assigned a territory. As you know, this is divided the parts that give us in the meetings. And we are encouraged to COVER ALL BUILDINGS in that territory. If territories remain uncovered when you visit CO, we already have a problem.

Quote

I think that this is already going on to a certain point isn't it?

Regarding Bethel externalization. Yes, slower than I would like

Quote

I think something like that exists in the USA. https://jjha.community/about/

Yes, but there is no world policy, based on the Scriptures, that impels us to extend this service everywhere. Here in Spain I know lifelong servants who at the time of old age  the non-believing family have take the control, preventing them from going to any meetings, or the Memorial. Others have their own means and defend themselves, but we would have to worry as an Organization and not leave the matter in the hands of the local congregation.

Anna, I very much appreciate your weighted opinions

As we're approaching to our Annual meeting, here it goes my list of wishes! Perhaps there is a chance some of them could be announced:

KNOW THE REASON FOR UPDATES IN PUBLICATIONS
When a new update is available in JW Library, I download it without knowing the reasons for it: we do not know if it is a small editing error, a significant improvement in translation, a more serious adjustment ... Anyway, I would love be informed of the reasons, especially when sometimes the Bible itself is updated. Perhaps I have used outdated information inadvertently and it would be nice to know that there has been an improvement!

WATCHTOWER WITH APPENDIX
Our study articles are nice, no doubt. However, in order not to make them excessively extensive for their study in the congregation, they lacked extension in some ideas. Perhaps in the form of an appendix that can be read by anyone who wishes delve into some subject

LITERATURE WITH REFERENCES
Years ago it was common to find in our publications references to McClintock, Vine, Barclay and others. Now this has almost completely disappeared. Why? So we don't waste time reading them? Not to be confused by reading different approaches? If it has been useful for decades, I don't see why we don't have those references again.

DISCONTINUE THE PIONERING(AUXILIARY-REGULAR)
I know, it sounds blasphemy. But given the advantages that someone could exhibit, I have seen in others and in myself these "collateral damage", nothing insignificant:

• Preach not for love of God or neighbor, but for hours
• Feeling bad conscience about having to leave the pioner service to attend family, health or the congregation
• Feelings of superiority 
• And then, who would attend pioner meetings with C.O.? everybody who wishes!

DO NOT REPORT THE PREDICATION
I mean in the current format "so many hours, books, etc." Was it reported that way in the first century? Don't we intend to imitate the primitive congregation to the fullest?
Reporting involves the following:

• The elders falsely believe we know the "flock" for knowing the card
• The actual effort of the low quatitu of hours  is not included in the card, but you have to sacrifice a lot to do it
• There are brothers who feel ashamed for informing / preaching little and have to report it
• There are elders who only call publishers to ask for the monthly report
• The C.O. gets an idea of the state of a congregation by looking at some forms, that can be equivocal

REFORM THE PREACHING FROM HOME TO HOME
In many countries (especially Europeans) the challenge of entering residential buildings to preach is enormous. People (myself) do not want strangers to enter buildings, not for religious indifference, but for safety and comfort. When someone manages to "sneak in", whether they sell gas, electricity, insurance ... or religion, the reaction is very negative about the product they intend to sell, for not respecting the privacy and security of the building. Solution? Nothing easy, but go through, in my opinion:

• Abandon the idea of preaching entering buildings in many locations
• That must be determined locally: in the same city or congregation there are buildings where that would not be a problem, but in others yes
• Stop counting how many times a territory is made as a way to find out the intensity of the preaching of the congregation
• Stop preaching with a tie and suit (TJ uniform) but sit in the parks, or visit the malls, or a thousand different ways, and then take advantage to make conversations arise

REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF THE SPEAKERS
Many are invited on the basis of their friendship with whom they invite, or because they appear on the list of speakers. If each congregation had a simple way to survey the speaker:  did you like Sunday's talk YES / NO? the people in charge of inviting would see that some better not to come much, and vice versa

INFORM ABOUT C.O.'s
Many of these brothers are a gift. Others are simply a test for everyone. I have personally met destructive travelers. It is very difficult to help, change or remove them from that job. Many years ago, in the annual report that each congregation sent to the headquartes, one question was, more or less, "Were the c.o.' visits upbuilding?" Of course, if a congregation says that it is very bad but 19 very good, it is known that they are prejudiced in that congregation. But if in 19 congregations the report is unfavorable and only one speaks well ... something should be done.

MECHANISM OF COMPLAINTS
Do I have a way to express my complaint about something that works badly, as the widows in first century? Yes, I will be told: you tell the elders, then the traveler. Of course, but if they tell me that I have to wait, that nothing else can be done, could I not write to the headquartes, even to NY? Well, I've already done it, and the answers that have come to me have been stereotyped.

It is very difficult for negative situations to escalate. There is a protection mechanism. If I express myself openly, it is interpreted as a lack of appreciation, of faith, of collaborative spirit. I know that is so. However, when you want to know the opinion - POSITIVE - of something mechanisms are established, for example:

On the occasion of the recent presentation of the Bible in Spanish, the c.o. sent us a request for reactions from the brothers to the presentation, yes, all positive: that we say what the brothers thought of the new translation, how they received it at the assembly , and so on.

Well, I would like you to ask me things like:

• Do you think it is good that the branch of Spain spends a lot of money in reforming some huge buildings for the real use that will be given to them?
• Have you felt encouraged by this or that article? Why yes, why not?
• Etc

THE QUALITY OF THE ANSWERS AT THE MEETINGS
In my area it is frowned upon to make a public declaration of faith, to express personal feelings. It breaks the scheme of the meeting, in fact, there is no time. The brothers are used to underline and respond. When the watchtower's question is personal: "What do you think about ...?" nobody raises their hand, or we respond by reading

WATCHTOWER WITH PREAMBLE AND CONCLUSION
99% of the Watchtower overseers I have seen in my life waste their time in introductory paragraphs during meetings. Then you have to go fast in the key paragraphs. Why not place an introduction that is not read, and a conclusion that is not read? 

SOME ROTATING POSITIONS
I understand that if there are 10 elders in a congregation, not everyone is qualified to be a coordinator, for example. But maybe 3 or 4 yes. I would like those 3 or 4 to rotate the position annually, to avoid "love of the chair"

REFORMULATE THE ANNUAL ASSEMBLIES
Many of us remember the assemblies of years ago. They were long, very long. Extensive speeches Many times in full sun, and we were expected to take notes as not to be distracted. Now however there has been an impressive improvement. However, I sincerely believe that many would benefit more if a national assembly was broadcasted by streaming to the entire country, and that most brothers saw it in the Kingdom and assembly halls. What would be achieved?

• Savings for siblings who go through hardships to get to the city of assembly and pay for accommodation
• Central Savings
• Avoid the sacrifice of early wake ups, fix the children, travel from the hotel to the place of assembly
• Improvement in concentration. With a few hours of sleep you can't concentrate

And the joy of crowded crowds? That is why there would be a few assemblies nationwide, in rotating cities, upon invitation.

EXTERNALIZE BETEL
That they print commercial companies, that the size of Bethel be reduced to the minimum expression. Let the bulk of the work be done by commuters, whenever possible

RESIDENCES OF ELDERLY
Many brothers who have spent their entire lives for the work, as adults, find themselves dependent on the goodwill of friends or a congregation that wants to support them. Bethel is not the place for elderly people. Places could be set up to care for these brothers with dignity and without having to beg for help

SUPERVISION OF THE WORK BY "NORMAL" PEOPLE
Well, I explain myself. What effect does it have on someone who lives, eats, sleeps, works in a secluded place? That he doesn't need to work secularly, or fight to support the family, who are never denied permission to go to meetings, or go to the assembly ... and surrounded by people with the same situation.
What I have seen is that there is a perverse effect. These excellent brothers year after year, decade after decade of living a different life to the rest of humanity and brotherhood have a distorted view of things and brothers. Not always, of course, but many times yes.

I would like that especially the brothers who have to supervise the spiritual activity of others, have secular work, like any other brother. And in the afternoon, instead of the pionering, they could take care of the spiritual needs of others.
By the way, didn't Paul do that, work secularly?

THE BEARD
Yes, wearing a beard. In our publications only men who are not witnesses wear beards. When they are baptized they have always shaved it. Who decides these photos, how do you think they give freedom of choice worldwide? In theory you can wear a beard, but in reality it is badly seen in many places especially for videos and photographs in our publications. Let photos of JW's with beards come out, now!

DOCTRINAL

1914, PARUSIA
@JW Insider has explained it masterfully on so many occasions. Our 1914 doctrine simply does not hold. The parusia of Christ is his return, it is comparable to his coming. It has not yet occurred

PROXIMITY OF THE END
Of course we are near the end! Not since 1914, but since 33 CE. Since Christ left and said he would come unexpectedly, like a thief. That exactly teaches the Bible

DISFELLOWSHIPPING
Others, and myself, have bitterly written that our position is the strictest and most pharisaic interpretation of all possible approaches to expulsion. Especially when it has to do with relatives.

PHARISEISM
With sadness I perceive that, at the organizational level, we're becoming Christian Pharisees. We have been told that we should avoid that attitude, but the importance given to the dress, the beard, the belief that we are better than others, the ambition of the top positions... How I would like these attitudes to be eradicated at the root

SEXUAL RELATIONS
Clearly state that what the marriage decides to do in their room is only for both of them

HUMILITY
How much I would like that instead of exposing new approaches as the last truth, it will be explained that it is the most plausible, but not infallible, explanation. And that with time and study, a different one may look better.

There are more, but I better leave it here

@James Thomas Rook Jr. 
You are so raw, stark, sincere ... my hand shakes when I'm going to give you a positive point. I think you're right in what you say, but the way you say it cows me.

Instead of being guided by an extensive manual of what to do and what not, I try to follow, in this order:

•  
• (Romans 6:14). . You are not under the law [RULES] but under an undeserved kindness. . . [PRINCIPLES]
• Common sense is the least common of the senses.

But, as @James Thomas Rook Jr. has said very well, many times I cannot behave openly because  (Romans 14:21)  "It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything over which your brother stumbles. . ."
 

What @Jack Ryan mentions I would summarize as follows:

1. The vast majority of JW's sincerely believe that we will be the only ones to be saved (those who were inside the ark lived, no one outside the ark survived). And stick to this and other similar models to believe that. Normally they are those who believe that we are better than others and, not infrequently, their way of being is in some measure pharisaic.
2. Others, however, think that a God of love, that the Judge of the whole Earth, cannot be so strict. A little with the doubts that Abraham presented to the angel walking towards Sodom.

I have to admit that I have belonged to the first group for a long time.

Of course, the statements in our publications are, almost exclusively, in support of the "hard" stance, the one quoted by Jack Ryan.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That does NOT include supporting or agreeing with the 85%, as BillytheKid46 does.

... and defending the indefensible.

 

 

@James Thomas Rook Jr.

Perhaps we would discuss the percentage:

Accuracy regarding the prophecies of our day: zero. But hey, I believe that Jesus did not appoint any steward to interpret prophecies,
rather, as stewards, everyone, and especially those who have more authority (the governing body) should feed and care for others. Although I prefer that there is a central doctrinal authority, better than each congregation to believe its own.

But, as others and I have commented previously, I feel very grateful for:

• Dismantle the demonic teaching in hell of fire (official doctrine even today of orthodox Judaism, nominal Christianity and Islam, another thing is that ordinary believers do not believe it).
• Having learned the biblical truth about death, the hereafter, the soul and related subjects.
• Instead of thinking that God will destroy the Earth, believe rather that Jehovah will create a wonderful paradise, and see how that fits in with the original Purpose.
• VERY especially, not only knowing the divine name, but having learned the importance of using it, as well as the characteristics of the person and personality of God (as it is not a Trinity, for example)
• Something that has helped us all, I am sure, is to understand the question of Universal Sovereignty (I have read works of scholars on Job who do not at all convey such precious teaching)

This core of teachings, among others, I would say are 90 percent wonderful. Maybe we have 10 percent of "nonsense" in between.

And then there is everything related to the "organization": Bethel houses, branches, the way of dressing of "mature" men and women, the way of exercising authority in the congregation and many similar things ... instead of putting a Percentage (because I am somewhat ashamed to write it) I will only say that I think it happens to us like the apostles when they were impressed by the temple stones. Jesus corrects them by explaining their relative value, in fact, predicting their early destruction.

(let the reader use discernment) Mt 24:15

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Your diversionary attack on me does not explain why you indicated above that you are ashamed of the quotes from the Watchtower. I put the quotes there because it's so clear how we can learn from these, how they can apply today, and why it's so important to be honest about our past assumptions and conjecture.

By merely indicating your shame and embarrassment about the Watchtower, you do nothing to show how we can learn from it. If we are merely ashamed, we will be more likely to hide the things we are embarrassed about, or try to claim that they should not be brought up. As you admitted earlier this is a kind of dishonesty when we fail to present key points.

Oh, look, here's some more vote spamming that I missed, just in this topic alone, just in the last few minutes, and just on MY posts here:

That doesn't even include a few other examples of vote spamming. Like this one from just a couple minutes ago, when I agreed with @Space Merchant here about how the JWs will soon hit the 9 million mark in peak and average publishers.

I don't think it's just your shame and embarrassment about things the Watchtower has said. Surely you are not fighting against increased numbers, too. I really can't tell what you have against my statement to @Space Merchant above. If you are not too busy with your ongoing vote spamming campaigns, perhaps you could take some time out of your busy life to explain.

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know what a "hen" is, in this context, but as far as I can tell @ComfortMyPeople is from Spain, while I am in New York. I have never seen him or any of his research.

You show the idea that many Adventists gave up on dates after their expectations failed. What would you expect.

There are not many other options, when you are at the end of the possibilities that your particular date system allows.

A die-hard Second Adventist might just try to make some new adjustments to the "system" to figure out why the expectations might have been off by just a few months, or a few years, or even a matter of decades. They keep looking for a way to get the system to work because they can't give up after they invested so much in the beliefs. After Miller's failures, he himself decided against setting more dates, but thousands of people were ready to listen to the next predictions for the 1850's, 1860's, 1870's, etc. This makes the continuing date-setters even MORE of a die-hard Adventist. And these are the types of persons who influenced Russell to continue date-setting. Russell continued date-setting, and adjusting his date predictions from 1879 to 1915.  

Of course, there is one other solution, and that is to say that your date really was right all along -- that Jesus really did come to be present in 1874, but that it has been an invisible presence. This was the very solution that fit Russell's ideas, and it kept Barbour's adjusted dating system unchanged, except for that one detail. Russell expected the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom to begin around 1914, and ultimately this was also changed to an invisible "manifestation," so that all those other dates 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, etc., could remain unchanged. Of course, over time, 1881 was dropped, then 1874, then finally 1878 had no more prophetic significance (around 1961) and it was completely dropped, too. So that we only have 1914 remaining. (And I think this date, too, will be dropped in about 15 years barring any earthshattering changes.) But we still believe in the imminent manifestation of Jesus advent based on our interpretation of various prophetic time periods that we have tied to the present time period. Therefore we are still under some of the influence of adventists, in that general sense.

 

Well, regarding the "hen" expression,  be sure, it's not spanish. And I have no idea about the use billythekid is trying

It is NOT a matter of conscience

... well, it depends on how far you want to work in the organization. Here in Spain the situation is as follows:

In many congregations one may serve as elder still wearing a beard, and therefore enjoy any other local privilege.

But that does not work for you in the neighboring congregation. It is usual for a speaker with a beard to inform when they invite him that he is wearing a beard, in case it bothers the conscience of the brothers of the congregation where he will speak.

At the circuit level, forget to have part from the platform (with beard). I know of a case that they interviewed a brother with a beard. The traveler (district) forced him to cut it if he wanted to go out in the next section. As he did not want to, they did not let him leave.

I think that in some circuit brothers with beards have served as ushers and other auxiliary works, but it has not been general. In the case of another circuit they asked the traveler about which males with beards could be ushers. Answer: "When you see one of Bethel with a beard, then. Meanwhile I do not want to be the first.

On a global level, have we seen a man with a beard in the broadcasting, or in the videos of the regional assemblies? Yes ... representing the role of non-believer, opposite husband or person in a bad spiritual state.

Result of all the previous thing: to take beard between us is a thorny subject, problematic, if you want to have to fully serve for others. If you settle for being "rank and file" maybe they do not mess with you.

If, when going to preach, people would say to me "can you wear a beard?" I will give you a short answer: yes, of course. The most extensive answer is the one I mentioned above.

A well-groomed beard in Spain is not at all a sign of rebelliousness or careless dress. The King of Spain has a beard. The previous prime minister too. When preaching, it does not attract attention.

Someone will say: "Videos and broadcasting are prepared taking into account the society or brotherhood of North America" To which I will reply that it is said again and again that the Governing Body intends an "international flavor" in our publications and videos, collecting scenes from everywhere, even the clothes. So, why is not it seen in the videos, or in the pictures in our magazines an elder directing the Watchtower study with a beard? Why are all seen with beards unbelievers? Why, when you progress, you see them shaving?

I find that it is a minor matter whether I wear a beard or not. That's why I will not leave it, to avoid more complications than the many I have in my life. But what is not a minor issue is that we are imposed the conscience of others

(2 Corinthians 1:24) “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy”

In Spain, legislation is extremely protective and protects individual liberties and the rights of citizens. One of these rights is the "protection of personal data". That is, when a third party wants to obtain my information (name, address, for example) or much more importantly (my religion, medical issues, financial issues) I have to authorize him. Otherwise it is prohibited and is punishable.

That's why in Spain we do not use the forms of preaching records to record "not at home", return visits, etc. We did it on personal sheets, and lately we are recommended to do it on the mobile or tablet to be more discreet. Still, legally, if I write down "Ms. Maria, street x, interested," you should ask her for permission to have that information. In short, a real problem. None of us do that.

And that brings us to the fine. What the Hospital Liaison Committees have done is illegal. They have done it in good faith, but it is illegal. They have interviewed doctors and collected information from patients (Witnesses) and, without their consent, they have taken note of these data, they have collected them in an electronic file, and (of this I am not sure) they have transfer this data to third others.

All this is penalized. Here when you enter the door of a doctor the first time the first thing they do is to extend a form where you authorize the query to keep your data.

What saddens me in particular is the lack of orientation that the headquartes has given to the brothers who attend this work. Only a small form would have sufficed, asking the interested parties if they give their consent to the fact that the interview information could be collected and stored for later use. Let's see if they do it in the future, because this fine affects a small community in this country, but luckily the government agency has not investigated the rest of Spain.

Curiously, the spanish version says: "because this is how I collaborate with the work of Jehovah every month"

It may be the translator felt hesitant to pour out such a shocking phrase

35 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If Mr. Fireman, who happened to be Catholic,  come to some JW family burning house and loses his life by saving JW  brother elder's wife or children then what will we say? We can say how he haven't Christian love, explained by WT what Christian love is and how has to look, , but he was maybe paid to save your life? Was he paid to lose his life to save your? No. But some people have strong affection,  or strong  sense of responsibility, or strong  desire, wish to help someone who need help. 

Well, who have "love" or greater "love"? JW mother who not want pick up phone for her daughter or Catholic who put his life for person who is not Catholic?

@Srecko Sostar I agree. Period.

I'd also add this situation mention in an old Awake magazine:

• *** g81 10/22 p. 6 “I Survived the Sinking of the Titanic” ***
• “The last lifeboat was being loaded. A middle-aged gentleman was with his very young, pregnant wife. He helped her into the lifeboat, then looked back to the deck and saw others wanting to get aboard. He kissed his wife good-bye, and, returning to the deck, grabbed the first person in his path. Fortunately, I was there in the right place at the right time and he put me into the lifeboat. I screamed for my sister who had frozen from fright. With the help of others, she also was pushed into the lifeboat. Who was the gallant man who performed this kind act? We were told he was John Jacob Astor IV. At that time he was 45 years old and his wife, Madeleine, was 19. They were traveling to the United States because they wanted their child to be born there. Many newspaper stories were written that told how John Jacob Astor gave up his life for a young immigrant. 
   

I personally consider this gentleman a lot better than me,  I'm quite sure I'd find some reasons to stay at the boat. And yes, this fine man wasn't a JW.

Regarding the video about the mother refusing answer her daugther call, what can I say? It's a shame. I also suppose that faithful servants of all times weren't always happy with the behavior of co-worshipers, not even the prominent ones.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Even though he did say it to some, he most certainly did not need to. Many of the most successful men of the 19th century were experts at "mock humility." .

 

The same with the 1975 affair. It was mainly our -the brotherhood- fault; not the 'slave', or GB, or board of directors, or brother Franz fault.
I can still perceive this mock humility in too many levels in our people (me the first, obviously)

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think anyone can work on that kind of contextual commentary and continue to believe in the kinds of numerology and non-sense (in my opinion) required to uphold our specific eschatological beliefs. Therefore, anyone who is put on such an assignment is likely going to be fired as soon as they touch the book of Daniel or anything Jesus, Paul or Peter said about the Parousia.

Yes, I thought something similar. May God help us!!

JWI, you always sorprise me!  I appreciate your wishes to share useful information.

Could not we have something similar? How hard would it be?