Jump to content
The World News Media

Noble Berean

Member
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Noble Berean

  1. Step 1 is not touching the oven door. Step 2 is realizing that the oven shouldn't be touched because it's burning hot While the organization doesn't assign end dates anymore, that doesn't solve the underlying issue...that the GB wants to eat it's cake and have it too.
  2. What is it then? The organization wants unquestioned loyalty, but when it goofs up that's on individual JWs? You can't have it both ways. It's a contradiction. This isn't the only time that the org plays two sides of the coin. It's dishonest for the organization to suggest that 1975 enthusiasm was generated by some rank & file JWs. That's the implication from that convention video. Any active JW knows the organization is tightly controlled, and those at the top are in control of the wheel. WT literature promoted 1975 as an end-date and endorsed JWs who sold off property and made life adjustments in expectation of it. JWs who believed in an impending end and made major life adjustments did exactly what the WT encourages JWs to do today: "Listen, Obey, and Be Blessed." So, what did we learn from the 1975 failure? How is our situation today any different than it was 42 years ago? JWs continue to hang onto the words of the GB like gospel, and that attitude is still promoted in our literature. The GB was wrong about 1975, but ultimately people moved on. But as our time is reduced in this system, our decisions have greater weight, so correct direction matters more.
  3. This video indicates that 252 JW congregations have closed in Germany since 2015. Is this a legit statistic? What is causing this decline?
  4. If our goal is to get people back, why would we treat them like they don't exist at our meetings? Outside of the meetings I can understand why our association should be limited, but our meetings seem like the one place where we should be supporting a spiritually weak individual. Sorry how do I go about that?
  5. I highly doubt would've approved of Noah if he was a drunk. I think it's a lot more likely that his drunken incident was isolated and not indicative of his regular behavior. Noah was only human, and I can't imagine the PTSD of being the sole family to survive a worldwide cataclysm. I would drink.
  6. Really good point. Do our extreme shunning policies give exJWs a justification for leaving the religion and staying away? I think of 1 Corinthians 10:31-33: "Therefore, whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, just as I am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, so that they may be saved." Our org always focuses on stumbling fellow JWs, but the scripture indicates we are not supposed to stumble anyone...Jew, Greek, or Christian. When I reflect on the disfellowshipping video at the convention, doesn't our extreme stance cause great stumbling? JW parents aren't even supposed to pick up the phone when their daughter calls? Imagine if that daughter was terminally ill or had suffered a personal tragedy. Or maybe she just needed some support at a dark time? That would make most bitter. It seems our love extends only to some. And when the prodigal son returned to his father, he didn't wait around for some committee to approve fellowship. He embraced him immediately.
  7. I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith. It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up? It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.
  8. In the Internet age, nothing can be buried. The whole convention was combating disillusionment. I think the org knows that, and they're worried about people viewing anti-JW websites and blogs. They come up on the first page of Google. By addressing controversial matters directly, they have full control over how the story is framed, and the story presented will satisfy most JWs. Then, they're less likely to consider other sources on the matter, or they may discredit other accounts as apostate exaggerations. I have family that lived through 1975, and the convention video bothered them a bit. Not faith-shaking, but an annoyance. They knew people who sold off property and made major life adjustments. They did so earnestly and in good faith that the organization was telling the the truth. They were essentially painted in a negative way in the video--as overly extreme. But that kind of faith in the organization persists till today. What's changed since then? Are people freer to question what they hear from the org? On the WOL? Are you referencing the exact quotes supporting 1975 preppers or the admission of guilt? The message of trusting the Bible over men is a good one, but why not go all in? Why not admit the source of the 1975 frenzy? It wasn't just some loony JWs...it was the organization that promoted the idea in their literature. It didn't come from nowhere. It cheapens the message to show only a half-truth.
  9. And they almost certainly read websites like JWSurvey, JWFacts, etc. I believe they even sued one. They have an awareness of what critics are saying.
  10. But isn't revision a good thing when it leads to clear understanding? We're constantly learning more about the Bible as we dig into it and research it.
  11. I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.
  12. I also watched the ARC, and I found Br. Jackson's comments to be conflicting with GB endorsed statements by the WT. Now, I do have confidence in my fellow JWs, and I don't think JWs have such blind faith in the GB that they would do something way off-base from the Bible's message. But to suggest that JWs would never do something out of harmony with the Bible? The history of our organization verifies that JWs obediently follow the GB--even when their direction is wrong. Had I been at the ARC, my follow up question to Br. Jackson would have been: What do you suppose JWs should do if they hear incorrect direction from the GB? In the July 15, 2006 WT, it says, "What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders." It's pretty clear that JWs are not to jump ahead of the GB and the org if we have doubts. This "wait on Jehovah" attitude is pretty much the standard view in the org. We can't take matters into our own hands; we have to wait for the org to change. Some are waiting for changes that may never happen. All the while, our conscience is conflict--do we follow our own Bible conscience or keep with the group? But our interpretation is in constant flux, isn't it? If a major thinking changes after baptism--do we need rebaptized? I think the point is our heart condition. If we serve Jehovah out of a loving heart, we don't have to have all the right answers. Yep, that's a basic truth we can all agree on, Br. Jackson . But after that, who decides what's a "basic thing" that should not change? Many things have changed, so much so that the landscape of the religion is pretty different from the start. This just doesn't jive with our organization's teachings. The GB definitively claims it is the sole channel of communication from God. For Br. Jackson to vacillate and suggest that they aren't the sole composite spokesperson is IMO disingenuous. If you asked any JW, "Who are the spokespeople on earth for God?" the answer would not be the one Br. Jackson gave. With a statement like that, you might even get taken to the back of the KH! Consider what it says in the November 2016 WT, "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?'" I don't see how much clearer the GB could make it that they are the sole composite spokesperson for God, and they should not be questioned on their direction. Jumping back to the ARC, it seems apparent to me that Br. Jackson wanted to minimize the GB's controlling ways as much as possible. I've said already that they play two sides of the coin very well: a channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and a human group that errs. When it suits them, like this situation in Australia, they can appear weak to benefit the case. But it's not accurate to the way things are. And you can't have it both ways.
  13. This hasn't been the attitude in the org for a LONG time. They revised the Bible translation to make it crystal clear. Sexual immorality breaks the marriage bond.
  14. Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth. What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB. Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid. It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them. And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.
  15. There's many more anointed than GB members, but according to the GB salvation comes from strict obedience to them alone. Based on the increasing number of partakers...I wonder if a generation of younger anointed ones is rising up. This seems to be a worrisome trend to the org, because it throws a wrench in their current generation theory. Like I said, I believe the anointed will play a vital role in the future. But I digress... I meant the faceless legal entity that exists in name only. It behaves like a person would...seeking it's best interests. But I'm concerned about the people and not an organization. I get that he can do anything he wants, but I'm concerned about what he has done to verify what he's doing today. Do you think it's at all possible that Jesus could communicate with the anointed directly? And not rely on a centralized GB? If that were the case, would that be acceptable to those taking the lead? Is it an unreasonable fear? If unchecked authority was what caused the Clergy class to form, shouldn't we be concerned about the unchecked authority of the GB today? "Oh this time just trust us." I believe power is always corruptive. It's concerning because the organization promotes a mindset of not questioning anything. That flies in the face of 1 John 4:1. Jehovah wants us to test the inspired expressions. The bereans were called noble for that reason. If it is the truth, it should stand up to critical thought.
  16. I see the Mark of the Wild Beast as a symbolic mark that civilians will receive when they throw their support behind the Image of the Wild Beast. In the time of the end, the Satanic one-world government (likely the UN) will demand civilians give their full allegiance to it. This will put true followers of Christ in a trialsome situation, because they can only give their allegience to Jesus Christ.
  17. I like that you like your own posts @Queen Esther! Toot your own horn!
  18. Jehovah God gave ample evidence to first-century Christians to verify the apostle Paul's divine backing: In Acts 14:10 he heals a man so that he can walk. In Acts 19:11-12 his handkerchief causes diseases and demons to be expelled. In Acts 20:10-12 he resurrects a boy. I admit that I can't dogmatically say that Jesus Christ has no representatives on earth. I just was trying to point out that in the Bible Jesus Christ doesn't need a centralized body to achieve his will, so it throws a wrench into the GB's theory Jesus operates in a pyramid, trickle-down structure. I do believe that Jehovah God has and is still using anointed ones to direct the preaching work and to direct his people. I believe that the anointed will become increasingly important in coming years as guides for his people. I do believe that the worldwide reach of the preaching work by the JW organization indicates that God's temple of anointed is associated with this organization (a religion established by anointed ones and still supported by anointed ones). I see the temple of God as the anointed ones--a people rather than a faceless organization that exists legally (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). God's temple is IMO not contingent on a legally created organization, but is a brotherhood that will exist regardless of what happens to the JW org. I think the GB has made it pretty clear that we can only make it into the new system by closely obeying their singular direction. There's a very narrow pathway to get to the other side of this system of things, and it's tied to unquestioned obedience of the GB. The organization is very high control with no room for dissent. The GB has set it up that no one can question their direction under threat of expulsion. That alarms me, because when you have unchecked authority things usually don't go well. And I think it's also concerning that JWs don't seem to "...test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). And I am one of those "loonies" that believe the Man of Lawlessness will play some role in the future.
  19. Acts 3:22,23 is referring to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is often called the "Greater Moses". We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him? This isn't meant as an attack on the GB, but I just wanted some clarification on this matter. Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf. He didn't go through a centralized body to see that work done.
  20. Hi @The Librarian I still see posts in threads from users that I've ignored.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.