Noble Berean

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes. Of course. There's nothing wrong with that. You think it's a piece of cake looking into the future?

Meanwhile I will keep my feet firmly planted in the two boats of the overlapping generations, fidgeting with slight concern as they drift, while I see Endofthesystem clouds fast approaching.

I don't get what you mean. The GB is unable to see into the future. Jesus plainly stated that no man can know the day or the hour of his presence. The GB should have never promoted end dates to begin with. Then, we wouldn't need these perpetual "refinements" which only create confusion and disillusionment. It was presumptuous on their part to think they could know God's timetable. The WT keeps spinning new stories to maintain credibility and give people a sense of urgency. They can't openly acknowledge that the credibility for 1914 is waning as the years progress, so they pacify JWs with a theory that holds onto 1914 but allows for more time.

Don't you think it's troubling that for a century the WT believed that one group would survive till Armageddon? There's was no denying that. To suggest otherwise was apostasy! Now, there's two overlapping groups. There's essentially no Biblical evidence for this new theory, but it buys the GB more time while also maintaining a sense of urgency. And the change is met with applause and everyone accepts it (because they have to). When that second groups dies off, another "refinement" will occur and everyone will applause and accept it. And we repeat this cycle indefinitely. So, I believe the GB is more focused on preserving its credibility than Biblical truth.

On 8/17/2017 at 2:36 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but you CANNOT MAKE SOMEONE DO SOMETHING AGAINST HIS ETHICS through hypnosis

I am sorry but you are incorrect on this, James. Please look up involuntary hypnosis online. You will find plenty of examples. People have gone to jail over it. It's a very scary thing. 

29 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I moderate an ex JW support group, it's the rule not the exeption. 

I wouldn't 

27 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

You are, the witnesses telling my wife and I that we're going to die and calling us horrible names because we aren't going to meetings aren't. 

That's horrible. I can assure you that many JWs would not do something that insensitive. 

Just another attempt to demonize any form of Christianity by the media.

On 8/28/2017 at 1:25 AM, Albert Michelson said:

 

I get it. You don't agree with child baptism. I don't either. However, whatever criticisms I have of the org...I will never regret my dedication to Jehovah God.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And, of course, shunning and punishment should never be used for persons who have questioned a doctrine for Biblical reasons.

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday.

A Governing Body taking the lead is not a bad thing. It keeps our organization...organized. But the Governing Body has no external auditor to scrutinize its ideas. The Bible should be that external auditor, but the Bible and the GB are intertwined. The Bible can't stand apart from the GB. Only the GB's interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Therefore, they can always discern the Bible in a way that supports the status quo.

I believe that's the case with the "two overlapping generations" theory. For decades, the organization said the generation was one group that saw Jesus' presence in 1914--it was apostasy to suggest otherwise. It's clear now that that idea was wrong. I guess a combination of ego and a fear of losing credibility means the GB won't let go of 1914 and the generation. So, they force the square peg in a round hole. They use weak Biblical evidence to make the old idea "work" while maintaining a sense of urgency (the second group is older now so we must be close!!). It's not about a Bible interpretation that makes the most sense anymore. It's about maintaining the facade that the org knows what it's doing and that we are still on the threshold of the new system. No doubt in a few decades (if this system persists) another "refinement" will come along that will have the same purpose (wash, rinse, repeat). If you type random numbers in a keypad it may eventually unlock, and eventually this system will end. So, if the org exists at that time of the end maybe they can say they were right to keep us on the edge--even if the evidence was incorrect. (I believe they use this justification currently in God's Kingdom Rules! paraphrasing from memory: "We were wrong on this but it kept everyone zealous at that time.")

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These were persons who were a real danger to others, so that a way should be found to "mark" them for the entire congregation. They weren't shunned as a way to make others feel superior to them, or to use emotional blackmail to draw them back in, but just as a protection.

Nice idea, but how do you have one without the other? If you shun, it's always going to be emotional blackmail.

Knowing the role of the Governing Body should help us to understand how to treat them. This was brought up in another thread, but it seems relevant here. In the first century, the order of authority was apostles then prophets (1 Cor 12:28). 

It seems to me that the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one group became too powerful in the first century. They both had different but equally important roles to fulfill: the apostles took the lead over the congregation and the prophets were spiritual guides. 

The prophets were necessary to "fill in the gaps" of an incomplete Bible, but today we have a complete Bible. So, prophets are unnecessary. However, the GB asserts that Bible discernment is unsuccessful without their interpretations of it. In other words, the Bible alone is insufficient--we need the GB to "fill in the gaps." So, the GB acts likes the apostles by taking the lead and prophets by being exclusive interpreters of the Bible.

This premise seems flawed to me. The Bible should stand alone as a separate entity. It shouldn't be intertwined with the GB, because the Bible should act as an external auditor for the GB's actions. At present, by being "guardians of doctrine" the GB can make the Bible fit their method of operation. The Bible is not a rigid thing and this can be taken advantage of.

So while I respect the Governing Body for taking the lead, I feel that they have too much unchecked authority, and this could set a bad precedent for the future. The GB should be actively checked by the Bible and any student of the Bible.  
 
 

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets.

It's interesting that apostles (leaders) and prophets (spiritual guides) were separate roles in the first century. It seemed odd to me that God didn't give the apostles both leadership and prophecy roles, but the more I reflect the more it makes sense. In the United States government, the three branches check one another so that no one gets too powerful. Perhaps, the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one became too dominating. There's a similar relationship between Kings and prophets in ancient Israel. While the prophets had to respect the authority of those taking the lead, God selected prophets to guide the spiritual path of his people. So, there's an apparent logic to separating leadership from spiritual direction.

Today, the Bible fulfills the role of the prophets in the first century, and I believe it should act as the check for anyone taking the lead today. While humans prophets of the past could be conversed with to clarify spiritual direction, the Bible is a one-way conversation. We do our best to interpret what we have, but the Bible is not a black-and-white rule book and can be discerned differently from person-to-person (as made evident by the multitude of Christian denominations). In the WT organization, the Bible is not a distinct entity from the GB, because they claim to be the only ones that can properly interpret the Bible. You can't get the "truth" from the Bible without the GB. So, there is little room for personal conscience on scriptural interpretation. In a nutshell, the GB claims both leadership and doctrinal interpretation roles, so there's a lot of unchecked authority there. Bible history indicates that Jehovah God separated roles, because he understood human nature and had a concern of authority abuse. I believe one GB member remarked that JWs won't blindly follow direction that violates the Bible, but did he seriously reflect on that? Of course the Bible does act as a limit in some ways--I'm not suggesting JWs would blow a building up if a GB member said to do that. However, JWs have followed incorrect direction in the past that later was later "refined".

And while the Council of Jerusalem comparison overall seems appropriate for the GB today, I question whether they exerted the same control we see in the WT organization. We only have one recorded event in the Bible where the first century Christian governing body intervened and made a decree. It was an emergency situation when there was discord in the Christian community. And the goal of the decree was to put less burdens on Christians rather than more.

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All the letters from 1rst century apostles and older men to the congregations and all reactions from them toward those who challenged their authority.

There were apostles and prophets in the first century (Ephesians 2:20). We know there are no prophets today, so are there still apostles? Can you have one and not the other?

21 hours ago, Arauna said:

The kings were appointed by Jehovah. It went well with them and the nation if they inquired from Jehovah and followed the directions of the prophets.  Disaster struck when they did not follow the instructions from the prophets. Jehovah kept sending prophets and they kept rejecting them.

We don't have prophets today, so what Biblical reference point do we use to understand how to view the GB?

12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since you do not equate the GB with the corrupt, wicked kings, then the model of rebels in the congregation, be that Korah or Hymanaus, is the more appropriate. Further, since it is not corruption or wickedness you object to, then it becomes little more than a matter of style.

Call me a skeptic, but how can Jehovah God honestly expect JWs to put GB and Moses on the same level?

• Moses was a prophet, the GB is not.
• God spoke to Moses and his face glowed like the sun. God has never spoken to the GB.
• God used Moses to perform miracles. He parted the Red Sea with God's holy spirit. He healed the sick with the bronze serpent.
• There was a cloud pillar representing God that followed the Jews in the wilderness.
• Their souls never wore out.

God left no doubt in the mind of the Jews that Moses was divinely appointed and had authority. Dissent was ridiculous. What do we have? The GB has a history of missteps in direction, yet they continue to expect unquestioned loyalty.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since you're not suggesting the GB is on par with those corrupt leaders, the premise of your point collapses and the point along with it.

How so? It may be an extreme example, but the point remains that these Kings were appointed by God, yet God punished those who followed the King into false worship. So, this idea that we should follow no matter what seems to conflict with the example of ancient Israel. Apparently God does expect us to exercise our own independent conscience at times and not just be unified, unified, unified.

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This tired bit of nonsense has been dealt with already. There was an entire thread about it.

Sorry I am a newbie here.

28 minutes ago, bruceq said:

If any make mistakes then Jesus will correct them as the head. Just as the Israelites were corrected.

"Corrected"? Is that how it went @bruceq? Or did Jehovah God not punish the Israelites (death and enslavement) for following along with the corruption of their leaders?

28 minutes ago, bruceq said:

But the Christian Congregation has a head that we must follow without question, otherwise we are no different than Christendom's Churches in doing our own thing.

What you're describing is how the false empire of Christendom arose. Christendom may be miles from pure worship now, but it started off as pure Christian worship. It took many years for something pure to become rife with paganism and corruption. Men put themselves into positions of authority (clergy) and could not be questioned under threat of excommunication. This vacuum of free discussion led to false ideas like the Trinity and Hellfire becoming entrenched. The Church became tyrannical and many had to flee Europe for their religious views. "Truth" arose in America because people had more freedom to speak out and question the false narrative of the Church.  Now there is another vacuum of free discussion in the JW religion, and I have no doubts that in time the religion will become like another Church.

24 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Loyalty to the Head of the Congregation is a given. Should not even be questioned as Jesus IS our Lord and Master. Therefore he is in control of all teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses IF you believe Jehovah's Witnesses is the true faith. To do things on your own like Korah and other presumptuous ones tried is disloyalty. And shows great disrespect for our Head as he is in control of the Chariot. To do your own thing as you state is no different than Christendom and is like using a taxi instead of letting Jesus drive the Chariot. In a taxi you pay someone to go where YOU want. Just like Christendom pays its clergy to go where the people want.

Hi again. You really didn't address my comments about the Israelite Kings who disobeyed God. Doesn't that indicate that just b/c someone is taking the lead over God's people that does not mean they are doing the correct things? Jehovah God did punish his chosen nation...he didn't spare the followers b/c of the corruption of the leaders. So, why today should we follow without question? Will God care on his judgment day that we just followed along or will he care that we did right according to our own conscience? (And I'm not suggesting the GB is on par with those wicked kings, but I'm just trying to make a point.)

You brought a good point...what Biblical reference point do we use to know how to treat the GB? You suggest Moses is the right comparison, but what about the first century Christian Governing Body as a comparison? Wasn't the apostle Peter (one of the men taking the lead) openly chastised for avoiding the uncircumcised gentiles? Can't imagine any open criticism of the GB today. There's very little info about this first-century group...in fact there's 1 recorded event of the GB intervening on the matter of circumcision.

And let me be clear what I'm not saying. I am not suggesting anyone split off or take on the GB's role. I feel that it's appropriate for a GB to exist in God's organization. But is it appropriate that all JWs be in 100% agreement with the GB's direction under threat of shunning? Is their scriptural basis for that kind of authority on scriptural interpretation? What's most important: unity or personal scriptural truth? If your Bible based conscience does not harmonize with the group does that make you an "apostate"?

On 8/24/2017 at 9:31 AM, bruceq said:

    I am so sorry insider that you have been sour and bitter because of the experience of imperfect men. But this is still Jehovah's Organization and Jesus is the head of the Congregation and that is why we must believe EVERYTHING Jesus as head teaches us including the teachings on 1914 and EVERYTHING else. You must have faith that Jesus is head and not you or any man or woman. If Jehovah's Witnesses is the True Religion then Jesus is head and whatever teaching he allows is truth until HE tells us otherwise. People in Christendom pick and choose what to believe from their human clergy. We cannot just pick and choose weather to believe certain doctrines from our head Christ. He requires exclusive loyalty and devotion not a picky person who thinks they know more than our head Jesus. John 6:68

Hi @bruceq with the greatest respect...is the attitude of always accepting everything the organization says in harmony with the Bible? Didn't the leaders of God's chosen nation of Israel do bad things? Were the Israelites given a free pass when their leaders gave incorrect direction? Or were they punished along with the leaders? Isn't there evidence that God expects individuals to discern what's right/wrong on their own and not just follow along with the group?

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Really? And what was that spot-on prediction that Russell made? Please provide a reference if you have it.

I'm going to venture he's referring to 1914 being the start of The Great War (WWI)?

Well, Jehovah's Witnesses are not young earth creationists. JWs believe that animals could have lived on the earth for millions of years before humans ever came onto the scene. It is entirely possible that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted and weren't meant to coexist by the Creator. Dinosaurs performed a necessary function in keeping the ecosystem stable when the earth was tropical and covered in plants. We benefit now from that era of tropical plant cover with oil deposits in the earth.

I think humans did find fossils but they misinterpreted them as dragons or other beasts.

19 hours ago, The Librarian said:

The JW's in the auditorium wouldn't have applauded if they knew the entire world was watching. This is video taken inside a JW only world.

Of course the rest of humanity cannot be expected to understand.

The perception is that we are a cold, cruel and heartless people. Perception is a tricky thing.

Your comment reminded me of how Br. Geoffrey Jackson told a prosecutor at the ARC that it would be presumptuous for the GB to claim it is God's sole channel. They back down under public scrutiny, because they realize how messed up and cultish it sounds.

I completely understand why a Christian would refuse a blood transfusion, but I can also understand why a Christian would take one in an emergency life-or-death scenario. We are only human and weak, and it seems very unloving to disfellowship someone if they take a transfusion out of fear for their life. At the end of the day, isn't this choice between a Christian and Jehovah God? Is it really necessary for the organization to meddle in this private medical choice? I can understand why the organization wouldn't endorse transfusions, but I have always felt it should be a conscience matter.

Furthermore, isn't there some scriptural precedent for one law trumping another? I have always felt like Jehovah God was balanced about the law, but the organization's stance on transfusions is very extreme. The Bible accounts that come to mind are when David ate the loaves in the temple or when Jesus Christ healed a man on the Sabbath. Shouldn't love for our brothers trump rule following?

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If they did not recognize this they would not speak of tacking, or of 'the light getting brighter.' How can the light get brighter on a book that has been in their possession from Day 1 if it did not have gray areas?

What does "light getting brighter' even mean? Would Jehovah God send inaccurate or incomplete information to his slave ? Or is it just an attempt to shift away accountability for mistakes? 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You have only to look at the political arena to see how well leadership by apology works. Does anyone EVER accept an apology? Or do they not just seize upon one as grounds for dismissal? They all have their own agendas there and most want to torpedo their opponent, not reform him. Most people accept that it is no piece of cake to look into the future and don't demand apologies. It is enough for the GB to carry on humbly and to express regret from time to time, as they did regarding 1975.

The Governing Body is not just some politician. It holds itself on a moral pedestal as God's channel. So when they make major mistakes they should apologize. It's the very least they could do.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 "It is not claimed that explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say "do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety."

How would you improve upon that?

But how can you have it both ways? How can you clearly state a message is fallible but demand unquestioned obedience to that same message?

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What would you suggest?

Well, I believe the organization could move toward a more balanced and less dogmatic direction. I feel like there's a lot more gray area in the Bible than the organization wants to let on. I don't think it would hurt for the GB to apologize for some of its missteps. I can't give a clear answer on how to make the organization better. I can only point out the things that aren't working right now.

13 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The authority that is given, by God himself to commission those that can take the lead to shepherd spiritually, the flock,

 

 

Was God “wrong” to appoint Jesus? Was Jesus wrong to appoint the apostles? Was Jesus wrong to recruit extra help?

 

 

Luke 10:1-23New International Version (NIV)

 

 

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

 

 

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two^[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. ² He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. ³ Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. ⁴ Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

 

 

Aside from Jesus among these men, who do you believe was perfect, as your statement reflects “they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred” that isn’t fallible, IMPERFECT, and can't err?

 

 

Mark 8:31-34New International Version (NIV)

 

 

Jesus Predicts His Death

 

 

³¹ He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. ³² He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

 

 

³³ But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

 

 

 

 

 

Did “Peter” not ERR in rebuking Jesus? Was Peter made “perfect” by his appointment? So, your assumption is baseless and insulting. As it has been stipulated, by whose authority do you perceive to judge God’s commissioned ones, by questioning their spiritual authority given “directly” from God?

 

 

Correct, Jehovah God has used imperfect men to take the lead, and I am not suggesting a Governing Body shouldn't exist or that we shouldn't strive to follow along with them. My concern is the lack of personal Christian freedom when it comes to Bible interpretation under threat of shunning.

What is more important to Jehovah God: organizational unity or personal Bible-based conscience?  It's a sticky situation to contemplate. Obviously, the organization puts much greater emphasis on unity, but does that always work out well?

For instance, let's say hypothetically after much Bible research I came to a differing view on a Watchtower doctrine. If my differing views were exposed, I would probably get disfellowshipped. However, what if that doctrine was later revised by the Governing Body and now agreed with my personal views? This has happened before. So, who is in the wrong in this situation? Should we just follow along with a direction even if it violates our own Bible-based conscience? What scriptural basis does the Governing Body have to be the special ones that are definitive interpreters of scripture?

And furthermore, why does the GB get a free pass when they get things wrong? Because there is a history of that. Since the standards are pretty strict on rank-and-file JWs, it would seem like a double-standard if they didn't have consequences for teaching incorrect ideas to millions of others. Wouldn't they as suppliers of spiritual food be held to a much higher standard than anyone else?