Noble Berean

That’s a very extremist interpretation of Pauls message. The only Christian religions that practice shunning on former members are regarded by most as thought controlling cults.

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is. It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

And yet, here you are. Face it, you’re a bad, bad boy! 🤣

Yes that was just one part of it. There's an entire drive of information. Here you go:

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Sure. Jump to page 82:

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

(At this stage, haven't words like GB, organization, and Jehovah become conflated?) What you're saying here is very true, but does the history of the organization reflect that? The GB has already admitted to giving incorrect direction to its members. Throughout all of these changes, JWs have remained staunchly loyal to the GB in the old thinking and the new. The GB can hand-wave away their errant direction. I am sure they would say it's direction has never truly conflicted with God. But there aren't variations of the truth -- there is only right and wrong. If a change is made, then t

That is a good point Srecko. The audience at the ARC wasn't JWs (and any indoctrinated JW would've probably avoided viewing the ARC recording). That is why Geoffrey Jackson is able to make disingenuous comments like the one Anna brought up. They weren't meant for JW ears. Another that comes to mind is his remark that the GB claiming sole spokesperson status would be "presumptuous." He wouldn't dare say something like that to active members, because it would confuse and disturb them. No, the comments were meant for outsiders that are less familiar with the organization and less likely to questi

Hi Anna! Sorry for the delay in response. I am a little bit confused what you mean about complete obedience being in the minds of only some Witnesses. The Governing Body spells it out in their literature. Here are some notable examples: Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same? (w09 2/15 pp. 24-28) "We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval." (w11 7/15 p.24 Simplified English Edition) "[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private id

The WT's statements about the GB are a logical fallacy. That is why you are having difficult harmonizing your beliefs. "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food." Watchtower 2017 Feb p.26 "Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithf

Disfellowshipped individuals are far from just ignored at the meetings. What do you mean family ties still remain? Disfellowshipped children are to be shunned in every sense of the word. They are treated like they are dead already. What difference does it make whether they are young or old or living at home vs. living somewhere else? You shouldn't shut off your love for your child just because they're not living the same life as you. "Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media." Wa

Are we talking about the JW shunning that I am familiar with? If so, a JW parent will completely cut an exJW child off. Nothing more than well-being checkups. You know the gravity of that--it's not a minor thing. Christians shouldn't return evil for evil, but they also shouldn't reward bad behavior. There has to be a balance. And shunning of children goes beyond what can be tolerated--it is an immoral practice. A grandparent has no rights to see their grandchildren; it's actually a privilege and a blessing to be a part of their lives. It makes absolutely no sense for a person to reward their s

It's only a matter of time now before the media begins to publicly scrutinize the org's child abuse policies.

Sounds fair to me, but JWs will usually shun the grandchildren too. Even though they're innocents in the situation. I knew this woman who seemed liked the sweetest older lady, but she flat out told me she will have nothing to do with her worldly grandkids.