ComfortMyPeople

Given the choice, I prefer our little brother than the Indonesian child. I see from your comments you’ve had really bad experiences as JW, mainly with elders. I confess you one personal secret: I’ve also had some bad experiences, mainly with other elders and C.O. I’m not a psychologist, but a computer developer, but I dare to say that these painful experiences, added to a very strong personality and a deep sense of justice have made you explode. I apologize if something I’ve said is offensive. Believe this wasn’t my intention. I OFFER YOU A DEAL You and me serving in the same congregation of Jehovah worshipers… but a little time ago, approximately 1500 before Christ. As you and I share some critical view about the “Organization” it’s easy our conversation resting any given day: CMP. Have you noticed, JTR, our comrades are always making our live impossible. One day they mutter, the other they worship idols. What kind of people did Jehovah choose? Some Egyptians were much more cultivated and god-fearing! JTR. Don’t forget the poor food we must to swallow, after 40 years! CMP. And what’s your opinion about priesthood? They are a clan, a caste. JTR. And why had Jehovah that forgive the High Priest? He was the direct responsible of a sin causing the dead of thousands of our brother! What lack of judgment! And now his sons are the new priesthood! Really, after so many errors I can’t understand God continues using this regrettable family. CMP. Hey! Here he comes a messenger with news from the results from Balaam affair. Perhaps Jehovah is expressing via this foreign prophet a message revealing his opinion about this people. …and do you want to know, JTR, the opinion of Jehovah about that persons causing so much problems, erring so much, after almost 40 years? · (Nu 24:5, 6, 9) “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, Your tabernacles, O Israel! Like the valleys they have extended a long way, Like gardens by the river, Like aloes that Jehovah has planted, Like cedars by the waters …. Those blessing you are blessed, And those cursing you are cursed Dear JTR, I try to share the same opinion that Jehovah about His people. Yes, full of imperfections, sometimes needing correction and discipline. But, after all, God loves His people. I want to belong this people. In spite the errors I’m the first to point out, I love this people, they are my brothers. Quoting Jehovah’s words, as for me, in spite a lot of errors I can see in these persons, I will never curse this people, my people!

Well expresed, as always Anna. Nice illustrations but, perhaps I was a little bit sleepy in that assembly, because my wife often nudges me

Your quote is impressive. Mainly as one sees the source and what happened to these persons. And I would wish than my people soon no longer resembles similar to this organizations. The problem, JTR Jw, is that there is Biblical basis to disfellowshipping, but (is my opinion) not the way we’re applying it. And our procedures could be seen as tyranny, as you’ve said. Do you know how was also a tyrant? David, when abused of his power to steal the wife of one of his soldiers and later to kill him. But there we were, you and me, obeying the orders of this tyrant because he was the “Governing Body” of those days. Later Jehovah punished him. May be some day Jehovah will punish us for our collective sins? Who knows Also, wasn’t also David a tyrant when forced to his generals to take a census, against the opinion of them and, obviously, against the point of view of Jehovah? But there we were, you and me, listing people. Later Jehovah punished him. May be some day Jehovah will punish us for our collective sins? Who knows And Peter, wasn’t a tyrant when, abusing of his power in the congregation obliged to humble and happy brothers to stop their friendship for an issue of race? But there we were, you and me, preaching to neighbors and trying they came to the same meetings where this (tyrant) Peter gave talks. Later, Jehovah (through Paul) punished him. May be some day Jehovah will punish us for our collective sins? Who knows I could add some more examples you already know. But the point is… just a moment, I’ve just remembered another blatant example of tyranny. Only one more, please. · (3Jo 9, 10) “I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect. That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us. Not being content with this, he refuses to welcome the brothers with respect; and those who want to welcome them, he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation”. What was the position of Diotrephes in the congregation? The “coordinator” we would say today. A person with the capacity to expel other from the congregation. And what a tyranny! If others don’t share his opinion about John, out from the congregation! The point is, how to react to tyranny inside the congregation? What was the apostle advice? Fight against this injustice? Trying to gain adepts to his (legitimate) cause? Divide the congregation against this proud man? Well, we can read IMPLICITYLY “do nothing. Wait, perhaps one day could I come. In the meantime do your best, preach, strengthen others”. And you and I know what happened. John probably never went to this congregation, by his advanced age. When would Jehovah correct this tyranny? In the New World. So, dear James Thomas Rook Jr. I feel you’re a little bit as myself. We both feel like boiling blood. And we both sincerely believed to be right on this. I only encourage you to wait in Jehovah. Be sure, at his proper time he will correct the injustice… even the injustice inside His people. He always has done so.

I think your thoughts are very valid. I share your opinion. The main strong of 1Co 5:11 is to avoid persons with double life. But at some point, the “double” life disappears. Let’s considerer the following (common) situation. A young baptized girl lies to her parents and the congregation (and Jehovah) and have sex with other young people. She has the view of “enjoy life”, and she’s expelled. Now, she’s thirty years old, has her own children and become very conservative and protective with her own family. But, as you’ve mention, she doesn’t want to be JW again. Why, when she was a recent disfellowshipped person, should we avoid having deals with her? Because she completely enters in the meaning of “anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral” and then, the Bible command me “stop keeping company”. So far so good. But sometime after (we’re not ruling about the numbers), she becomes simply a neighbor in my vicinity. Is she a bad company? Perhaps. As you’ve pointed out, it is up to me to decide who are good or bad companies. What would be the outcome if my wife have some coffee with her in our home, or in a snack bar? Perhaps my wife says to her “I still remember your fine answers in the meetings…” you know, this kind of comments. Perhaps the ex-sister would react to this love as the prodigal son, remembering the warm in his parent’s house. Changing a little bit the situation. My wife has a coffee with this ex-sister. Now this woman starts to openly defend ideas about “free love”, to the extent to say “and when I would see your daughters I’ll try to persuade them about my view”. At this moment, this woman has become not a normal neighbor. Perhaps we’ll give to our daughters the counsel: “(2Jo 10) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” And what is the reason the GB allows this situation for so long time? Perhaps some answers are in my other post about the (lack of ) humility. But, also, there is another reason, in my opinion: Pharisaic attitude. But this is, perhaps, theme for other post. Your final quote from our Awake magazine should make us think

Hello TrueTom. I’ve see your points. This is exactly what I’ve being doing all my life, and I hope to continue doing. Just one thought about this idea you’ve mention: · This should be the way, correct, but what really happens has to do with you other idea: · Many people, JW also, love rules, they don’t know live without them. Specially rules from sources highly respected, as the GB. You should have seen many body of elders arguing, fighting about one particular sentence in one article, one concrete word in a letter from the branch. A pity. For example, there is another funny post about a wedding ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/30808-wedding-of-a-couple-of-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses/) You see the groom is wearing a beard. About the recent Watchtower article about beards, in my country, the only culture where to wear a beard is perceived negatively, do you know who are they? Yes, we, JW. No other people in the country feel this way. Well, I’m not talking about beards like Charles Darwin or Karl Marx, you understand me. And, after considering the article in the congregations, do you know what was the reaction in some congregations? To write to our branch, asking for a “clear rule” as if our country fits between the culture where beards are good or bad. Yes, no discernment, not sound judgment, simply, rules to save us the necessity to thinking about. And this is what really happen in so many congregations. Rules, rules and more rules. We’re specialist in turning advises into rules, suggestion into laws. Is it happening in your area, or only in mine? And, when this apply to this serious matter we’re considering, the disfellowshipping and posterior shunning this attitude had made an enormous damage. On the other hand, you also mention these other commentaries. · I agree. I can’t openly express that my views are different to the slave direction. In fact, I’m obliged to require its compliance, and I do this. But I can also add some comfort to these brothers and avoid they leave the truth. A real case: An aged brother resigned as elder years ago, when the congregation was aware he allowed his expelled son came sometimes to his home for meals. He wrote to the branch with this simple question: · “Why disfellowshipping don’t broke my matrimonial bones, but have to broke the bones with my son?” The answer (based in 1Co 5:9-11) didn’t convince him at all. Now, imagine I give him the advice: “obey the slave directions because these are right”. As this brother, in his heart he knows they aren’t, his possible next mental attitude is to start thinking “may be this is not God’s people”, and begins to listen our enemies… and you know how this could finish. When I’ve spoken with him about his painful situation, I simply emphasize the necessity to wait in Jehovah, until He considers the proper time to correct this problem. In this way, I try to transmit he comfort. Finally, TrueTom, I apologize because perhaps some ideas or feelings you’ve transmitted in your kind post I couldn’t grasp, because my difficulties with English. Anyway, your post has very valuable thoughts.

Dear brother. I share all you've mention about Islam. Years ago I was serving in congregation where an Arabic language group was attached. At these time I was the service overseer with no knowledge of this special field at all. What blessing when a very skilled matrimony was assigned from another country to our congregation! We learnt a lot from them. And your comments are in the line these brothers taught us, and what personally later we also learnt. Previously, in this congregation, brothers with Arabic roots convinced us about the necessity to learn a lot of Mulim Culture and we spend more time reading the Koran than the Bible! Although was useful to some extent, as soon as we learnt new approaches things were better. For example, one simple thing this brother thought us: reading (Ge1:26) “Let us make man. . .” he uses to ask Muslim people “Allah was talking with someone important, later in the Holly Books we’ll see who was” And, in this way paving the way to accept the biggest prophet. I tried to join this nice group, but imagine, I’m bad with my mother language, worst with English… let alone with Arabic! As a curiosity, in my city there are a lot of small shops managed for Muslim people. In the windows that face the street they always put liquors, in spite they supposedly don’t drink alcohol. But many of these persons believe that as our religion permits us to drink, we are all alcoholics. Yes, seriously, many of them, influenced for centuries of stories and teachings full of prejudices have a sincerely sense of moral superiority

THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT JWI, what a pity that I have to give you the reason! When we, the JW established the expelling arrangement we put an emphasis in Moses Law that scares, as you’ve quoted: · *** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. · We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. · Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof Yes, the spirt behind these lines was “what a pity, we can’t stone these persons”. Also, the irony in your last line “perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia”, sadly, I think that also fits. What results there were with this kind of spirit? In 1974, about 22 years later, the Watchtower gave us a clue: · *** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones *** · Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. · But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this has developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint” I know someone will cry: “the fault is in the brotherhood, not in the ‘slave class’ on charge of teaching”. As a contrast, in this very article THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT in the direction of mercy: · *** w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 *** As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping. Sadly, as some problems arose due this article, in the sense that in some congregations relatives attending meetings exchanged greetings with other Christian relatives, a new turn of the screw in the direction of firmness and stiffness came soon: THE IN/OUT RULE · *** w81 9/15 p. 27 par. 8,18-19 If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped *** We need to examine two distinct situations. The first is where a Christian lives in the same household with a disfellowshiped or disassociated family member. The second is where such a relative is not in the immediate family circle. · The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible’s inspired direction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11. Consequently, Christians related to such a disfellowshiped person living outside the home should strive to avoid needless association, even keeping business dealings to a minimum. And this has been our position since then. One final thought. I heard once, or read in one of our biographies, a very sound counsel one brother used to say: “if any doubt, better the side of love” or something similar. I hope our GB, someday, will consider again his position regarding this thorny matter. In the meantime, let us continue showing love and mercy to these families.

Thanks JWI to take the time for your extended answer, as always with quite interesting points. Above all, I wish to focus my concerns, my worries: · 1. I’m afraid that our present position about disfellowshipped relatives are based in a way of interpreting some passages that violates many important Bible principles. · 2. The idea that, my behavior when a disfellowshipped relative is living under my roof should change when the same relative is living by his means has no biblical basis, no one verse could be pointed out to support this division -without extending (forcing) its meaning-. · 3. I think that, to consider a person as disfellowshipped regardless of the length of the elapsed time, violates the sentence (1Co 5:11) “...with anyone called a brother”, because no one in the community could call as a brother whom leave the congregations years, decades ago. And if this is so, to force parents, children and other close relatives to cut off their relation for so long is, simply, cruel. All other principles you, JWI have mention are indeed very valid. But at this moment, the above three ideas consume me. If someone could help me to think I am wrong, he or she would make me very happy, because as elder I’m continuously living with this kind of contradictions. I mean, to teach and defend a position that personally don’t believe is the best one (is it correct in English: “falling between two stools”). But, as I’ve mention many other times, I obey to the “slave”. What I do is trying to charge more one side over the other. For example, this real situation in my previous congregation (I’ve mention about the sister before). A sister has a young son about 25years old. When this young man was on working trips, the mother used to phone him to care about his well-being (you know, mothers). Now, he’s disfellowshipped, leaves the home, and other elders in the congregation inform her about the necessity to cut off any contact. She gets depressed. My wife and me, when visiting her and she explains her sorrows, I simply said: · “Dear sister X, imagine (yes, it isn’t going to happen!) that your loved son perishes in this trip and you haven’t phone him, would not you feel terribly wrong? In this way, I try to accommodate the SPIRIT of God’s Word and the LETTER of the GB instructions *** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum” By the way, our sister wasn’t allowed to be pioneer. But she is very happy serving Jehovah and, at the same time showing “natural affection” to her son.

I was trying to comment under JTR Jr comments Hello JTR Jr Yes, “devil is in the details”. As always, your comments are full of vivid feelings reflecting your worry about injustice. I personally ignore if our position regarding disfellowshipping has to do with the hate Russian authorities have against us. Certainly, the world under the wicked one hates us, this is true, but you’re right in mentioning that, sometimes, we add to this hate. For example, when I was a child I learnt the truth without my parents. I grow up alone as JW. As soon I learnt about idols I took some family photos, scissors and I just left the heads, removing medals, crosses and other religious symbols. Well, obviously, I “won persecution” for myself. But this persecution wasn’t for defending the truth, but for my fanatical behavior. In the same way, perhaps some sufferings we’re experiencing could have its roots in some dogmatic position. I repeat, JTR Jr, I have no reason to think this is the case in Russia. Regarding we’re reflecting some pharisaic attitude… well, this deserves a complete new topic.

This beats me! So, If I understood, is the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll more recent than we taught? For some time I believed the Masoretic text was older than LXX (you know, Hebrew older than Greek) but I read some interesting books about Septuagint that provided evidence that some books of the LXX belongs to a different stream than the sources served as base for Masoretic. Well, very interesting your input. By the way, JWI, I’ve found an old post of you -- https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268 – and I wish to contribute some ideas. May I follow this old post or do I need to start a new one? Also, I’m sure many would appreciate some contribution in the post DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS Unless your present concerns are limited to paleographic issues!!

It’s my fault. My English level is less than acceptable. What I was trying to say has to do with the fine experiences in some Watchtower articles, indicating that some expulsed persons, in seeing their families had cut off all their relationship, this had contributed to move them to come back to the congregation. Without any doubt this has been true in many cases, what I personally have seen is, rather, bitterness and resentment for this measure. Eoin, I fully agree with your statement: · “There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved.” And, we are both fully in line with the biblical arrangement of expulsion. The reasons for this and the resulting benefits. But, as in many other things, “the devil is in the details”. Regarding our issue about disfellowshipped relatives, I’ve seen the situation mentioned in the next quote: · *** w81 9/15 p. 30 par. 19 *** “In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally). I feel a deep concern that those who have been disfellowshiped need to see that their course is hated by Jehovah and by his people and that they should feel a real need to become genuinely repentant. What will help these disfellowshiped ones to change when they are continually greeted by all in their large families who know of their practices?” Obviously, this is not fair. But (this is my personal experience, perhaps in other areas is different) I’ve seen a lot more in the opposite direction: elders eagerly watching any approach between parents and sons and daughters when some of them are disfellowshipped. And then, warning the brothers with removal of privileges, adding in this way more pain to the already painful situation. DISCHARGIN 1 Cor 5 In my previous post, I didn’t mention what I think is the real “load” or meaning in this part of the known verse: · (1 Co 5:11) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother…” I think the more basic meaning about the “anyone called a brother” sentence is simple. This man was a false brother, his behavior showed this. In spite of any affirmation in the sense that he was a brother, he wasn’t. So, the emphasis, the load, the charge, perhaps should be the BEHAVIOR of anyone in the congregation. I think that in our literature, when we address the theme about disfellowshipping, we emphasized the “anyone” word, in the sense that It doesn’t matter if the person expulsed is my relative, I should treat it as such, as expulsed. The emphasis is, then, the WHO. Finally, there is another possibility. To place the emphasis in the “called a brother” sentence. As I’ll try to prove, the “charge” would pass to the TIME factor. Let’s see. YOU ARE DISFELLOWSHIPPED NOW AND FOR EVER These are real situations. Persons are expulsed from us, perhaps when they were young ones. Over time, they get married, have children, and they behave more or less as any another person in the community. Now, time goes by. One year, five… decades. It doesn’t matter, they are disfellowshipped people. You can’t consider them as any not Christian neighbor you say hello in the elevator. Yes, perhaps you’re not going to fraternize with non-Christian neighbors, but you can salute them. Not to these persons. And, what make this worst, in my opinion, is the fact I’ve personally seen, and the question on this post. The way this affects to the parents and fleshly brothers of this person. They are bound to maintain the deals at the minimum expression for decades. And here it comes 1 Cor 5:11 to our rescue! The “called a brother” sentence and its TIME factor. If I’m expulsed ten, twenty, thirty (I have a case in my former congregation of more than 40 years)… am I still being considered or seen by others as “brother” or ex-brother? Why, then treat me as such?

Eoin. You’ve pointed out some very valid points. For example, our spiritual relationships are more important than fleshly ones (according several verses you quoted). The scenarios I’ve described are all reals. I’ve seen a lot more in decades. Sadly, I can’t remember no one in the line the Watchtower described, expulsed persons reacting favorably to the cessation of deals. Of course there have been many, but the fact I’ve seen so many negatives make me think that this later surpass the positives. When you mention “no rules can me made”. The fact is that we have rules: · *** km 8/02 p. 4 par. 9 *** “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. (1 Cor. 5:11) Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum” Well, my whole point was, where in the Bible is said I can’t associate with my son, or my father, because he’s expulsed? How can the “quit mixing with anyone” command annul dozens of commands of equal weight when they say I MUST have deals with my father, son, and such ones? Would not it be unnecessary the mention of “quit mixing in company with anyone… except your family” because Jehovah considered these other passages would lead us to the correct and balanced view about how to deal with our disfellowshipped family? Now, I’m going to elaborate this imaginary situation: I have a close friend in the congregation which is expulsed for smoking. If I use to walk with him on the street, perhaps while he’s smoking, it isn’t true that observers perhaps will think I approve his behavior, or that I don’t care? But now, the expulsed is my son, for the same reason. If I walk with him, perhaps also with my grandchildren, who will think that I’m approving the smoking? Everyone must think I’m, simply, walking with my son, because he is my son. As elder, when these difficult situations arise, I usually emphasize the Bible commands ruling family life, more than the supposed necessity of cutting off any contact. Nevertheless, as you aptly mention, if the congregation is disturbed this brother will lose his privileges.

DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS Grant me some moments with this regression: our former point of view about visiting, traveling or living in another planet. To show that the Bible disapproves this idea, we found good few of declarations quoting Ps. 115 in this way: CHARGING Ps 115 · *** g73 5/22 p. 13 Is There Life Beyond the Earth? *** Of our planet alone the Holy Bible declares that God “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isa. 45:18) And long ago God’s Word declared that the heavens belong to the Creator, “but the earth he has given to the sons of men.” (Ps. 115:15, 16) So the Bible shows that the earth is unique among planets. This was an example of a verse “charged, loaded” with a greater meaning than the writer intended. The Psalm only says that Jehovah has given the earth to mankind. There is nothing discouraging space travels. DISCHARGING Ps 115 I was very excited in the 1986 district convention when the book “Worldwide Security” was released. I browsed the book still sitting in the stadium and found this paragraph: · *** ws chap. 22 p. 184 par. 10 *** To all eternity our earth will bear a distinction that no other planet throughout endless space will enjoy, though the earth may not be the only planet that will ever be inhabited. In this way, the Psalm was discharged of an added meaning. In other thread was showed proof as we’ve done the same with other passages: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/29940-our-problem-with-the-humility/?page=3 CHARGING Ge 9 Regarding the inappropriate of transplants of organs: · *** w67 11/15 p. 702 *** […] Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you[…] Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. DISCHARGING Ge 9 · *** w80 3/15 p. 31 *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals […] While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. CHARGING Ro 1:24-32 Considering the appropriate intimacy inside the matrimony: *** tp chap. 13 p. 150 par. 20 *** The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) DISCHARGING Ro 1 *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 [Footnotes] *** Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. The previous three examples are provided to show that we (the GB) many times, inadvertently, have loaded some verses to defend a particular, favorite, entrenched stand. Could this also be happened with our position regarding disfellowshipped relatives? COMING BACK TO EXPULSION First things first. Disfellowshipping has scriptural base. Some examples · (Mat 18:17) “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector”. · (1 Co 5:11-13) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is […] not even eating with such a man. “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves”. · (Titus 3:10) “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition” · (1 Ti 1:20) “Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught · (2 Jo 10, 11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.  For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. t by discipline not to blaspheme”. So, without enter into the details about our dealings with these persons, the Bible clearly states we should cut off our relationship with expulsed people. OUR POSITION WITH EXPULSED RELATIVES Our present view is reflected in the next quotes: *** w88 4/15 p. 28 par. 13,14*** Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped […] does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue. […] The situation is different if […] is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother […] not even eating with such a man. Some exceptions and considerations that could arise: · *** w81 9/15 pp. 28-29 pars. 14-17 *** But what if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) Perhaps it seems necessary to bring the parent into the home […] Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. And there are similar statements on other literature. So, there are two kind of possible deals with expulsed relatives: · Indoors. Normal dealings, without spiritual contact · Outdoors. As little as possible First consideration. This difference, indoor/outdoor is arbitrary. I mean, there is no scriptural base to make this difference. When the GB stablishes that we can at home to have a normal life with our son or husband, but when they leave home this contact should completely stop (with some exceptions), the GB could well have chosen a more drastic approach. Or the opposite, less hard. Sure? CHARGING “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother” (1Co 5) Apparently, this verse stablishes beyond doubt, that as my son (for example) enter into the expression “anyone called a brother”, I must stop relating to him, at least as soon as he leaves home. But let me put one example. Have you ever preached to any person that firmly believes God is going to burn the earth? Perhaps this person quotes (2 Pe 3:7) “But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire”. What do you usually answer? Perhaps something like: “well, you’ve taken out of context… we should consider the rest of the Bible… and so”. Accordingly, What other verses would prove that our present understanding of 1Co 5, when is applied to relatives, even those who live outside the home, is excessively charged? · (Ex 10:2) “...and in order that you may declare to your sons and your grandsons how severely I have dealt with Egypt”. o How could I show interest in my grandson if I never visit my son? Or I never allow him to visit me? Does my grandson cease to be my grandson because my son is expulsed? So, this verse should qualify our position about 1Co 5. · (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother” is the first command with a promise”. o How can accomplish with this basic command if I never visit or phone to my expulsed parents? Does this verse only apply when my disfellowshipped parents are sick? If so, what’s the scriptural base? · (1 Ti 5:4) “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them, for this is acceptable in God’s sight”. o According this words, I have a debt with my parents and grandparents. Also, taking care of my children and grandchildren is godly devotion. All of this is qualified as acceptable in God’s sight. Does 1 Co 5 override, cancel this fundamental truth regarding the familiar relationship? · (Proverbs 23:22) “Listen to your father who caused your birth, and do not despise your mother just because she has grown old.” o Now my mother and father are expulsed. They leave in their own home. Should I, according our present view of 1 Co 5 stop to ask them for counsel? Stop visiting them? Is it not a form of despise? Are 1co 5 and Pro 23:22 at odds, in contradiction? · (2 Timothy 3:3) “having no natural affection”. o If I stop to visit or phone my relatives, how can I show natural affection? Does it invalidate our view of 1 Co 5 a feeling the Bible says it is natural? What I’ve tried to proof with the previous passages is that, for correctly understand 1 Cor 5, we should take into consideration the entire Bible. And God’s Word is very clear indicating that my deals with my close family doesn’t perish if they, sadly, are disfellowshipped. And the difference concerning if these relatives live with me or not, does not appear anywhere. THE “BENEFITS” OF OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING Here and there, we can find or listen experiences indicating that former expulsed persons received encouragement to come back to the congregation because the family firmly avoid any deal with them. Obviously, this is true. But, my own experience is that when the Christian family cuts the relationship, it generates feelings of resentment and bitterness. What I’ve seen is that these persons develop hate against the JW, because the congregation imposes this drastic behavior. Recently I’ve tried to approach to one ex-brother, expulsed. His parents are JW in my congregation. His fleshly sisters never visited or talked him in the last 20 years. He, bitterly, refused any contact with me. Next are real situations I’ve personally seen in several congregations. · Three fleshly brothers and their mother are JW. One of the brothers was expulsed and the family cut off all the contact. Over time, the mother developed a severe disease and now, the Christians brothers phoned the disfellowshipped to get his help taking care of the mother. Fortunately, he agreed. But who could reproach him if, in turn, he would have said to the other brothers: “it is your business.” · One young witness is expulsed and leave his parent’s home. Over time, get married and has children. The father is JW but the mother is not. Fifteen years later, when visiting the parents, the father (the JW) stays in the kitchen while the rest of the family have the mail together. The wife (no JW) is a wonderful woman but doesn’t accept a religion with this extreme position. · A young sister is expulsed. During 40 years! her parents have no contact with her. Only she sporadically phone home, but the father refuses to answer, only the mother. Who could reproach her if now, when the parents are getting older she in turn refuses to take care of them? · A brother is an elder in the congregation. His son has been recently expulsed. For economic reasons the father has allowed his son and grandson to live with them. When our brother walk with his grandchildren sometimes his son (expulsed) walk with them and is seen by the congregation. The body of elders removed him because he has relationship with expulsed relatives. What should he do? When walk with his grandchildren and the father of them approaches, should he escape with the grandchildren? · An expulsed son get married and has children. His mother is JW. When her son was a JW she used to phone him when he was on a work trip. As she continues showing this concern the elders refused to approve her as auxiliary pioneer. Sometimes our sister visit her son to see her grandchildren. The elders have informed her about the convenience to stay in the street when visiting the grandchildren. The wife of our ex-brother believes we all are fanatics. And a lot more! I repeat. I’m sure the experiences about expulsed people getting motivation to come back for our lack of contact are true. What It happens is that I’ve not seen any of these kind of situations, but the opposite. Summarizing. Why 1 Co 5 don’t say “stop keeping company with anyone called a brother, except when they are relatives”? Because it wasn’t necessary. Because there are plenty of verses teaching us the appropriate behavior with our families. And the opposite is true. Why don’t mention, for example (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother, except if they are disfellowshipped”? Because God wait from us the use of “soundness of mind.” (Ti 2:12) The verses, mainly 1Co 5, talking about our treatment with expulsed persons, should be understood at the light of many other verses, in this way indicating we should show natural affection to our relatives. Well. I think so, but if any of you have any advice to focus this matter better, please, it’ll be welcome!

Summarizing this topic. What are the reasons, in my opinion, provoking this situation, that make the GB appear as not humble? TO CONVEY CONFIDANCE Anna quote is, in my opinion, unsurpassable: · “I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence”. TO PROVE THIS ORGANIZATION IS GUIDED BY GOD’S SPIRIT I’ve mention in this post that God’s people, and therefore the GB, are guided by God’s spirit. But in this epoch not miraculously. The lack of miraculous wisdom or knowledge (1Co 13:8) would make necessary display of characteristics such as “power of reason” (Ro 12:1)); “accurate knowledge and full discernment” (Ph 1:9); “sound in mind” (1 Pe 4:7); “insight” (Da 11:32) and so on. And these qualities don’t would come through “flashes” of God’s spirit, but by means of study, pray, effort, mistakes and rectifications (Da 11:35). But, our GB, I think, is afraid at some degree of showing themselves error prone because this could show we aren’t under Jehovah’s hand in the eyes of others. I remember when I was serving as special pioneer in 1981 I was assigned to a small congregation with only one elder and me as his helper. All the brothers were newly baptized. I had to direct one Watchtower study regarding some change regarding the meaning of “sacred service”. The elder gave me the advice: “don’t focus excessively in the idea that a change was necessary, this could disturb the congregation.” The idea these new brothers shared, to a greater or lesser extent, is that we’re the organization God is directing by His spirit, and consequently the necessity of changes only should be seen as improvements, not corrections. In spite of this, many brothers opine the “slave class” is humble because they recognize their errors. But in this forum has been shown evidence, for example, that the “error” of 1975 was distributed, spread between all brotherhood. Even worse, the decrease in the number of publishers was attributed to the influence of “some apostates” rather than the disillusion caused for the excessive emphasis on dates (w86 12/15 p. 20 pars. 20-21). Even Allen Smith (thanks for this) quoted this: · *** yb12 pp. 142-143 Norway *** There was a steady increase in publishers from the mid-1960’s till the mid-1970’s. But expectations regarding the year 1975 proved to be a test of faith for some brothers. When the great tribulation did not come in 1975, a few left the organization; and between 1976 and 1980, there was a slight decrease in publishers. Others who felt disappointed slowed down in their Christian activity for a while. What statement about the main reason of decrease is more accurate? “apostate influence”, “self-generated expectations” or some statements in our literature. · (1 Sa 15:20,21) “However, Saul said to Samuel: […] But the people took sheep and cattle from the spoil, the best of what was devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God at Gilgal” Saul, in other words, said “the mistake wasn’t mine, but people’s”. In modern times, “we have not guilty to promote false expectations, some individuals here and there have misunderstood us.” Was Saul humble? Also, recently we have read in the W that in 1918 the ZWT followed the petition for “pray for peace”. but the original sources show, instead, that ZWT asked the congregations to pray for United States victory (w67 2/15 pp. 111-112 pars. 27-28), “for the promised glorious outcome of the war.” In this way presenting a more favorable view of the error. TO PROTECT THE BROTHERHOOD · (2 Co 11:2) “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” · (2 Co 11:18) “Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I too will boast.” · (2 Co 12:11) “I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you” As Paul with the Corinthians, the GB ‘is jealous over us’ because they want that the entire brotherhood be acceptable at God’s eyes. I think this is one of the reasons they are acting in a way with apparently lack of humility. Paul himself had to boast, be unreasonable, with lack of humility to reaffirm his authority. He made a display of credentials hoping the Corinthians would respect more and, consequently will follow his advice more confidently, for their own protection and spiritual well-being. GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGH EVEN WITH CROOKED LINES I’ve been personal witness of this situation: A body of elders had an obvious lack of judgment decision about a brother. This, humbly, didn’t protest. But his wife couldn’t endure the situation and talked with the elders. They recognized the error but replied to her: “in this way he’s receiving training from God” and the mistake was not corrected. The attitude of the elders was: “well, God can act so that our errors turn out not to be such mistakes”. Every one of us have read such things as “the brothers [some apparent mistake] but finally Jehovah [solved the situation].” And I believe this has been the case a lot of times, but this idea has led to us to think that the Organization, the GB, is in someway infallible. “What mistakes, if finally Jehovah turn out them in successes.” ADULATION I’ve attended three pioneer schools. The first one perhaps in 1979. In the first two of them the text book was given to the students at Sunday, the day before the beginning of the course. In such schools the normal situation for a lot of us is to remain awaken until well late at night to prepare all the information. During the classes many were sleepy, some of them anxious. This situation prevented us to fully enjoy. Nevertheless, in my last school the book was provided a couple of months before! We all could prepare with sufficient time, only reviewing the lessons the day before each class. What a difference! The intriguing is, how could happen that something so easy to perceive was not corrected until decades later? Did the instructors inform about what was evident? Did the branches inform to GB about the instructors complaints, if any? This real conversation perhaps gives some light. A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed. And what was the reason for this kind of favorable report? Adulation. And I have more evidences. In my branch and in our headquarters. Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative. Only escalate favorable reactions. Yes, I’m sure not always is the situation. But I have evidence of too many. Certainly all of us have seen good changes in the brothers leading the worldwide congregation. Let God bless the GB that this brothers with such enormous responsibility each day. Keep it that way! You're right. To avoid this post woud be marked as R-Rated, perhaps we should move to another more "spiritual" matter!

Anna, I have pending some commentaries regarding other quotes, but let’s start for this one. The tp book declaration about the proper sexual conduct in matrimony is, simply, dogmatic. Reflects the point of view of the writer: “I dislike eating snails so the Bible verses talking about uncleanness, natural or not natural, etc. apply to my view. And this view the brotherhood will do well to follow”. As I’ve mention, the verses (Rom 1:24-27) were CHARGED with an inexistent meaning. Later, the w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 quoted above, discharged the verses regarding this meaning. But this was in a footnote. Who read footnotes? The damage was already done. Even Melinda quoted the tp book, not the posterior Watchtower correction. This, Anna, is the concern in this topic. Lack of humility. You know the media treatment about JW: “some JW dead for blood issue” TITULAR in bold type. Weeks later “JW died for another reason.” Page xx with small type. The damage I’ve seen with my own eyes has to do with couples that would be very happy enjoying their intimacy, because BOTH of them agree in sex conduct. But due to our (GB) teaching, as you have mention, arise doubts that disturb them. Steve Jobs style: “one more thing.” · (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly”. I prefer our older translation, more literal. · (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly”. Note the words “intoxicate” or “ecstasy”. Do these words reflect… how can I say, “a quiet behavior”? (here I’m quite lost with my English. In Spanish I could pick up some exact but prudent words that convey the meaning I wish to transmit, so I apologize if I say outrages). What if the couple wants a more “expressive” behavior? The meaning of these words is well expressed in this quote in Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/5-19.htm · And be thou ravished always with her love; i.e. let it intoxicate thee. The teacher, by a bold figure, describes the entire fascination which the husband is to allow the wife to exercise over him. The verb shagah is "to reel under the influence of wine," and is so used in the succeeding vers. 20 and 23, and Proverbs 20:1 and Isaiah 28:7. The primary meaning, "to err from the way," scarcely applies here, and does not express the idea of the teacher, which is to describe "an intensity of love connected with the feeling of superabundant happiness" (Delitzsch). So, according the Bible, it is perfectly correct, clean, normal, appropriate: to get intoxicate, to get “drunk”, to lose the mind… in the bedroom. The counsel given to this couple was: · The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree. · No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience. · If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7) · Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges) They thanked us the help, and obviously, I’ve not ask them about any decision. But I see them happy.

Hi JTRJr (by the way, I've decreased your font size, your comments fill all my screen!) Direct answer 1: 0 Direct answer 2: 0 Perhaps, If we had been more humble... according the post's theme. I preffer expressions like "we arent' sure... several explanations are possible.. we need wait and see." These sound more humble. God bless the GB so they have the courage to move heaven and earth about our "time of the end" teachings.

Witness. I find that your views reflect an intense desire that God’s will were done. It is easily perceived from your comments you don’t find the GB is in good standing in the eyes of God. I can understand your fear, because Jesus himself pointed out this very possibility when he mentions the evil slave, the foolish virgins, the wicked slave and others. So, the possibility exits, other way, why this waste of time talking about something hypothetical with no meaning. In spite of this, if this would happen, this is not my job to punish these brothers, to reveal against them. It would be a matter between the Master and them. I’ve identified God’s people. I belong to this people. This people has, logically, persons with authority, local (elders) and worldwide (GB). And there is scriptural base to obey these persons with Christian authority: · (Hebrews 13:17) “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.” Please, witness, take note of these ideas: · Some persons would lead the congregations · We should be obedient to them · Do always the leaders would be right? No, because they “will render an account”. This expression implies the possibility of success and error, otherwise the verse only would say “they will receive a reward” · The result if we aren’t obedient: damage! I have it clear. Our “core doctrines” as I like to say are wonderful. I’ve learnt the proper condition of dead persons and the hope of the resurrection. My neighbors believe in soul immortality and hell fire. I’ve learnt the correct relationship between Jesus and his father. Mi neighbors believe in Trinity. I believe in the future paradise. My neighbors believe God will destroy the Earth. In my country had military conscription, but the teachings of the GB (based in the Bible) helped me to be neutral. I’ve faced some surgical interventions, and based in what I’ve learnt from GB I could keep respect to God’s law regarding blood. Well, I have no time to write down a lot more of spiritual gems these brothers have helped me to discover, appreciate and live them. Now, you mention some other teachings about the time of the end, 1914, the signal and so. Well, I don’t consider these doctrines are “core” or fundamentals. Paul himself made a difference about basic or “milk” doctrines and other more “advanced.” See Witness, all teachings about the time of the end, I grant you the possibility that we, the JW, or the GB are completely wrong. But this would not change the basic and principal doctrine: to keep alert! The former Bible Students keep alert in spite of very different beliefs that we have nowadays. If, in the future, all the “time of the end” understanding is changed, perfect! I hope so! I want so! But, believe me Witness, it would not change my life in the slightest. I would continue serving God with this people, under the GB trying to keep me alert.

Melinda, as always, your commentaries are very welcome. Too, your words reflect good reasoning, scriptural and wise. The only issue is, in my opinion, is when we apply uncleanness to certain practices or we refer to a particular conduct as “normal.” When I’ve dealt about these matters with other people, and they ask me about reasons, or proof that some particular behavior fits into “disgraceful”, I can’t answer with my personal views, nor our literature. I need to use the Bible, only the Bible. The 1973 tp book paragraph you’ve quoted: · The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”? It is modified for this posterior explanation: · *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***[Footnotes] Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts. I see in the above quote three ideas. First. Paul’s word regarding “natural” were about having sex between one man and one woman. This was the “natural.” We should not extrapolate to some practices between a married couple. Second. A “simple” kiss between homosexuals is “unnatural” Third. When the footnote mention the possibility-likelihood that some practices were originally practiced only by homosexuals, the writer is emitting an opinion. You see, no scripture sustains this affirmation. Homosexuals also kiss and hug each other, and not for this reason should avoid the matrimonies kissing and hugging in our relationship. I’m afraid regarding this matter of “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony is happening something similar when we refused the transplants as a form of cannibalism. We “charged” excessively the meaning of some verse, in this case, Gen 9:2-4. I reproduce next paragraphs: · *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers *** When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6. As we see, the writer of the article quotes Genesis with a basic idea: God allowed humans eating animal flesh. Now, the verse is “charged”: so, as no mention about eating human flesh in the verses, this is abhorrent and forbidden. But this idea, in spite all sane people agree with, is not scriptural. Thus, years later was a “discharge” of the meaning of Genesis. · *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals [this was our former view, the “charged verse”] […] Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. […] It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. […] While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant. I love this kind of reasoning from the GB! I find it so humble! The Bible doesn’t directly mention this matter. The basic principle in Gen. is to eat animal flesh. Any derivation from the basic principle is up to each individual. By the way, do you find horrible eating human flesh? Me too. But if someone allows be transplanted with an organ (eating this organ as we used to say) I respect his position. In the same way, perhaps you and I share the same view regarding the proper sexual behavior in our matrimonies, and we find disgusting some practices, right. But if other married couple opine in a different way I don’t see myself with the authority to “charge” some verses to make these persons view the matters as I see. Melinda, I voted you favorably. We don’t share completely the same view, but your points are very valid and respectable!

Regarding this thorny issue I feel frankly better after the last changes regarding our policies. What has hinder a better and quicker approach to the problem is, in my opinion, as usual, pride. · We’ve seen the secular authorities as antagonist. Judges as enemies, police as intruders, psychologists as obtrusive, social services as snoopers. · We’ve seen ourselves as completely and fully trained to deal with these horrors by our means. · We’ve treated this sin in the congregation, this frightening sin, as any other sin to deal with. · We’ve given more importance to our reputation (God’s name) than the cry of the afflicted I wish we would have been more humble to recognize that: · Secular authorities are in a much better position to discover this kind of evil. They can register a home, confiscate a computer or cellular, interrogate neighbors and coworkers. We could not. · The vast majority of us aren’t trained to deal with children victims of abuse. Adults accustomed to cheating cheekily, ruthlessly. So, in spite of dozens of letters and schools the elders have attended. · This is not a normal sin. This is not as smoking. The child is terrified and ashamed. The wife is afraid to admit it. The two-witness rule cannot apply. We should not face the victim in front of the perpetrator and three other men (the judicial committee). · Soon or later everything arises. God’s name would have been cleaner reporting these facts to the authorities, not only allowing the victims to do this, but encouraging them to do this to better protect them. Well, as I’ve mention, our recent policies finally allow: · Don’t face victim and accused. · Allowing a third person (parents or a friend of the victim) stay with the victim to make her feel more comfortable. · At least, not discouraging to go to authorities or search for professional help. · The circuit overseer chooses a better qualified elder from outside the congregation to preside the committee. As Anna mention, hope these policies will improve with the blessing of Jehovah. I’m trying, here in my congregation, to contact with an inactive sister. His father, still a witness in another region, never was disfellowshipped. The elders only had the testimony of one unique witness, the victim. Now many years later this sister is very resentful with the congregation because they “could not help her.” Do you know what will be my first words when I could reach her? “I ask you for forgiveness”. Are not others also responsible?

Do you like to eat snails, or rabbits? Disgusting, repulsive! But you know that in some countries these are delicacies. And the same could be said regarding eating snakes or dogs! This comes up because these strong feelings reflect well the position of the GB about the kind of sexual behavior allowed or not between spouses. At least until recently. If we review the statements (too long to post them completely) could perceive some evolution. · *** w69 3/15 p. 177 par. 14 Living Up to Your Decisions *** “A Christian husband should not be harsh or demanding in this matter […] , perhaps, even expect them to indulge in sexual perversions? […] Keeping busy in the ministry, personal Bible study, meeting preparation and participation, along with other congregational responsibilities, will contribute to self-control.” So, some sexual behavior is seen as perverted. The solution: more Bible study! · *** w69 12/15 pp. 765-766 Questions From Readers *** We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters […] These questions have dealt with conjugal acts […] We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so. […] Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband’s organ fits into his wife’s birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction. […] Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. […] In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: “Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses.” […] ) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. […] However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go. Thus, there is an appropriate way to be good boy, even legal. If the wife agrees, it does not matter. And, as the general topic we’re considering here relates to humility, let’s ponder if the marked bold statements above reflect this quality: “to the extent that we feel authorized to do so…beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go.” I think it is obvious that the writer feels about himself as authorized to regulate completely the procedures, despite his affirmations. · *** w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From Readers *** That porneia can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. […] If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, […] Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing. There is unnatural sex between spouses. This was seen as deserving of biblical divorce and the elders should disfellowship them if both consent. · *** w76 2/15 p. 123 par. 15 You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy *** “Later, another issue needed attention. Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God’s people to become impure in his eyes.” More on the same line. · *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers *** Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters? […] A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. […] This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. [the elders] could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service Well, the things begin to change. There is no Scriptural instruction. No expulsion, but no privilege in the congregation. Now, what is important for our consideration about pride or humility, let’s note these statements: “a careful further weighing… refrain from taking a dogmatic stand.” In other words, “we, the writers, the GB, until now and concerning this matter, we have been dogmatic and we had not scriptural basis to sustain our view.” Would not we expect this from humble people? · *** w83 3/15 pp. 30-31 Honor Godly Marriage! *** […] As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion […] . A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. This is basically our (GB) present position. Some sexual activities between the matrimony are repulsive. No privileges for these persons. It could lead to expulsion it the brother advocates this kind of behavior. · *** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.” Could this be seen as “new light?” This recent article states (the truth) that the Bible does not provide specific rules nor limits. Now the damages About 50 years of statements have been presented. The evolution goes from direct expulsion to only be removed of privileges. And if there is a braze promotion of the practices the consequences could go beyond. I’m personal witness of the suffering of these standards in a number of couples. For example, in one congregation I was serving both partners agreed in the fact they both find this conduct acceptable. They have been practicing oral sex for some time but one of them, only for the standards in our literature did not want to continue. The other partner confesses me time later that had to resist the temptation to look outside for what was denied within. Another couple I started to study the Bible with them, have had in the past a sexual conduct far from the Bible principles. He was homosexual, she was a prostitute. When the “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony arose in the study, they BOTH mention about their necessities, completely different from the standards in our literature. They both told me that they didn’t find disgusting these practices. On time, they stopped studying for several reasons, but I always thought that, at some degree, they found our standards too restrictive. Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then. Now, the most important What does the Bible teach us regarding this matter? In the Hebrew Scriptures we found some precise regulations about the type of sexual behavior. The sex wasn’t allowed during menstruation. Matrimony between some relatives was forbidden, and so on. And what about the “sexual mechanism” between spouses? Nothing. This was so, despite the fact the Canaanites were a depraved people. They had orgies and male prostitutes, so we can suppose these persons practiced oral and anal sex in their lives. Why did not God specifically prohibit it? This was during an epoch where the conscience had a lesser role in the life of Jehovah’s worshippers and everything had to be more regulated. In the first century the morality of Greeks and Romans was everything less moral. What advice did the first Christians found in the Greek Scriptures to avoid the depravation? Quite a number, for example, the husband needs to be tender and loving. But what happened if both spouses agreed in some kind of particular sexual conduct between them? · (1 Cor 7:2-5) “but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent […] in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control.” Man and woman are debtors about the sexual necessities of each other. The main factor to determine the sexual conduct is “mutual consent.” What if we wish to be less “tender” and more… you know, the opposite? What if we both agree we both want, we both need, we both find it satisfying some sexual activities? According the above verses, the only answer I can find is to consider this as debt, a necessity to satisfy. And, is not this better that leave my partner “hungry”, exposed to temptation? When they ask you and you do not know · (Mat 17:24-27) “After they arrived in Capernaum, the men collecting the two drachmas tax approached Peter and said: “Does your teacher not pay the two drachmas tax?” He said: “Yes.” However, when he entered the house, Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or head tax? From their sons or from the strangers?” When he said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free.” What characteristic did Peter show with this quick answer? Humility? Have you ever face this situation? Someone ask you something, and you are afraid that if you simple say “I don’t know” the consideration of others would decrease? It has happened to me a lot of times! I think it is pride. And this is exactly what I’ve seen in the statements (of the GB) when has tried to regulate this aspect in our life that God himself has not considered necessary to regulate. I sincerely believe these brothers have imposed their preferences about what is correct or wrong in my bedroom. And I’ve seen the hurt of this regulations in the life of people. I hope the path of humility will impose and, perhaps, I will see some apologize…

You always add very interesting historical background. By the way, any acknowledgment of error about this behavior in our publications? Or was it, as always, the brotherhood in general the responsible for this attitude? Remember the post's theme: humility

· I had precisely this exact fear. The same fear Elihu could have had when he replied to Job: (Job 33:12) “But you are not right in saying this.” The fear to be seen as an enemy, an opponent of the brothers leading the worldwide congregation, the GB (I’ve explain this before in this topic.) Anna said this: · Good point Anna. I trust in the GB (I think so). What I mean is that these are sincere brothers. Their errors aren’t deliberate, as if they were looking for some unspeakable selfish interests. By no means! My ONLY point in this post is: I believe that, for several reasons, these brothers have behaved in a way which, APPARENTLY shows lack of humility. First acknowledgment: Obviously, me, the person pointing this idea, I’m the perfect example of petulance and pride. Second. If I am right, this attitude not only has caused, but STILL IS CAUSING problems and wounds to God’s people. You and I are witness of this. Third. The situation presented as the above statement disturbs me, trouble me, disquiet me. Four. My attitude, my approach I’ve already mention before {in this other topic from Anna}. I partly reproduce bellow: · Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation. I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him! · Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey. Do I still think the GB is spirit directed? It depends of the meaning of the “GB is spirit directed.” Anna quote is completely real, sadly real: · . This is a fact. I’ve heard, probably you also: “the GB has more information, but not reveals it because is not the time.” In fact, I use to say there are three states of communication: normal (you and me). Inspired (Bible writers) and spirit-directed (some kind of intermediate). But, if that was the case, the brothers overseeing the teaching would not have taught about the pyramids, 1925, 1975, vaccines and many other things the way they have done. Then, how do I think the GB and God’s people are being directed by God’s spirit? In a way different from Bible times, because this special way would cease! (1 Cor.13:8) “But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with… if there is {miraculous} knowledge, it will be done away with.” So, in what way? · (Daniel 11:33) “And those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many” · (Daniel 12:9, 10) “Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. … but those having insight will understand” We can perceive: · There will be a people of persons who would be taught. · Some, between this people, would be in charge of teaching. · The mechanism! The way! Getting insight, acquiring knowledge. · Without error? No! it’ll be necessary to be refined, to be cleaned. And, where fits into the painting God’s spirit? Because God bless the study, to the degree that we let Him influence us. I explain this. Let’s supposed that one truth entrenched for God’s people is 1914. So entrenched that we try by all means to fit the rest of the scriptures to this idea. Will God force us to change our mind? Never, according the scriptures. Remember Daniel: “refined…insight”, not “flashes.” Thus, God’s spirit directs us if we abandon any predefined, entrenched, favorite, beloved believing. If we try “by hook or by crook” to accommodate the scriptures to our “doctrinal corpus”, how can God give us “insight” without miraculously forcing us to this change? God’s spirit guides His people to the extend His people allow this. And it is perfectly possible this people, inadvertently don’t allow Him to intervene. One more proof in this biography of brother Willi Diehl: · *** w91 11/1 p. 29 *** In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers. We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view. It was simply a result of the misapplication of organizational guidelines Did God’s spirit guide the brothers in Switzerland? Yes, at which extend? To the extent that they allowed His influence. What are some, in my opinion, harmful teachings we are holding? Before, because the previous statement I see is “too strong”. Did the I Century GB cause some damage? Let’s take the counsel given to Paul about going to the temple (Acts 21) · *** w00 6/15 p. 14 par. 10 Honor the Ones Given Authority Over You *** […] Paul could have reasoned: ‘Those brothers previously instructed me to leave Jerusalem when my life was threatened. Now they want me to demonstrate in public that I respect the Mosaic Law. I’ve already written a letter to the Galatians advising them to keep free from observing the Law. If I go to the temple, others may misunderstand my action, thinking that I am compromising with those of the circumcised class.’ However, Paul evidently did not reason that way. […] The immediate result was that Paul had to be rescued from a Jewish mob, and he subsequently spent two years in prison. In the long term, God’s will was done. Paul witnessed before high officials in Caesarea and then was taken at government expense to Rome to witness before Caesar himself. I think it’s evident that the immediate outcome was negative. Note the expression in the article: “in the long term.” Did Jesus direct the GB to take this decision, because in this way Paul would give so fine testimony? Or, rather, was it a mistake the GB made but, instead, Christ took advantage of this, in other words, modify the outcome? Let the Bible answer us: · (James 1:13) “When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God … nor does he himself try anyone” As it’s very hard for me to write in English, I am only going to enumerate these harmful (in my opinion) teachings. Grant me some time and reflection to explain later. Perhaps some of you wish to point out the order to start explaining. · Our dealings with disfellowshipped close relatives · Our view about sexual behavior between spouses · Our policy about child abuse. I’m close-up witness about the pain our “tradition” has caused. Will God’s spirit help us to modify, if necessary these views? Yes! To the extent that we allow Him to remove our trenched ideas. Final: before you consider I’m one of the camouflaged apostates over there. In spite of all my doubts, in spite of my disagreements, I OBEY.

Melinda. I always enyoy your illustrations!

Do you mean about this mess of 1874-1878-1914-1915...?

The easier situation Let’s assume in the next class with my bible student he raises the parable of the woman and the leaven. Then, I teach him that, according our present view it represents the unhidden and beneficial effect of our preaching, or something similar. But, let’s suppose I personally prefer the older explanation, that the illustration prefigures the corruption of the Christianism. I face in front of several “teaching options”, I will exaggerate a little bit the arguments. · Dear student: The Bible clearly and without any hesitation shows… {present explanation} · Dear student: Our literature teaches this parable in this way… {but I, as a very clever person have this other explanation… {older explanation} · Dear student: For years we thought this parable had this meaning… {old explanation} and these were the reasons… {about the old explanation}. But, after studying now we see… {new explanation} because of these proofs {about the new explanation}. Jehovah doesn’t teach the brothers preparing the information miraculously so, perhaps over time we should have to move our view. I think the third approach is the best one. As I always mention, this is not necessary with our “core”, main, basic teachings. These practically never change. An added benefit is that we show more humility, and, if the understanding varies it would be seen as normal in our learning process. I think so. Besides, no one of the explanations conveys any wrong idea. I mean, both applications transmit good points. My bible student is not going to worship idols because one or another explanation. In the 140 Gilead Graduation, the brother William Samuelson was interviewed for he had to leave his position as Gilead teacher for the age. The successor showed appreciation for the fact the brother Samuelson had knowledge about the progressive understanding in our beliefs, and you could go to ask him about these developments. So, it isn’t bad to present the evolution of our teachings, in this way showing our process to adopt or prefer one side or the other. (140 Gilead video, part II, min. 54:00 approx.) I prefer to present this more humble view of ourselves. No as if we were the receptors of almost divine revelations or flashes. A more difficult situation I’ve already mention it. Let’s keep going. Now, in our next Watchtower we found a study article with the title: “New light about the higher authorities.” And yes, the article explains a number of reasons to believe these authorities are Jehovah and Jesus Christ. The difficulty with this situation is that, in contrast with the example with the parable of the leaven and the woman, where I had some doubts or reluctances, in this case I’m completely sure the Watchtower is wrong and my view is correct. What now? Following this (I hope) hypothetical situation: First. Is it incorrect to think about God and Jesus as the ‘Supremes’ authorities? Any bad behavior from this ‘new light’ would arise? I only would see, as a damage, the lack of correct understanding about one verse. So, again, the possibilities if I were the person directing the Watchtower study this day: · As the “slave” has shown in this article, the Bible teaches us crystal clear this {new understanding} · The “slave” has said this {new understanding} but there are a lot of feebleness, and the {old understanding} was better. · Until now we believed this {old understanding} for these reasons. Now, after studying the matter, this {new understanding} is what we think for these other reasons. Perhaps in the future more study will improve our perception. I, without a doubt, would opt for the third option. I definitely would refuse the second one. The worst scenario A new hypothetical Watchtower article is published with the title: “Now it is appropriate to worship idols!” This supposed “new light” would convey any bad behavior? Naturally! It would not be just a matter of bad understanding of some verses. It would be contrary to God’s law! Well, we can obviate the options. Only one option should be the correct: · (Galatians 1:8) “However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed”