Noble Berean

6 hours ago, Anna said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:

"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 am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

Hi Anna. I too was concerned by this quote in a recent WT. It really jumped out at me. What authority does the GB have to claim definitive interpretation of scripture? Especially after they've established that they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred in the past. The GB can't have its cake and eat it too.

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

Brother Russell died in 1916

Hmm that's peculiar since I assumed he was the FDS. So are Rutherford or Knorr considered the FDS? I am aware that the Governing Body as we know it today was established in the 1970s so that leaves a pretty big gap. I don't know why the GB wasn't formed around the prophetic year of 1918 (if it were correct understanding).

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I see no problem with such a claim, although I would also add that Jesus appointed Peter, Paul, Apollos, and you, too, as slaves over his temple.

(Matthew 25:34-40) 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

(John 21:15-17) . . .Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He replied to him: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again he said to him a second time: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He replied: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Shepherd my little sheep.” 17 He said to him a third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter became grieved that he asked him the third time: “Do you have affection for me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you are aware of all things; you know that I have affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep.

Here's my issue with your reasoning about any Christian being the prophesied faithful slave. Jesus Christ was talking directly to the anointed, and like many JWs today I am not from that group. Additionally, Jesus Christ appointed a slave over the other slaves which implies that there is a person or composite person that is taking the lead over the group. After all, how could Christ's organization function smoothly if everyone claimed to be acting over God's temple?

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As I'm sure you know, the Watchtower has now demoted Brother Russell from the category currently defined as "faithful and discreet slave." He was once considered one of the most important members of that class. He is now considered NEVER to have ever been a part of it, according to the most recent Watch Tower publications on the subject.

Oh that's news to me about Russell. I thought according to JW doctrine Jesus Christ appointed his faithful slave in 1918?

@Queen Esther I adored "Listening to the Great Teacher" as a child. I loved the speaker's voice on those bright pink cassette tapes!

Hi @JW Insider I appreciate your thoughtful research. You make a lot of compelling points that Jesus Christ's presence will not be invisible but an undeniably visible event to all. This appears to conflict with the WT's doctrine of an "invisible presence" of Jesus Christ in 1914. 

My question is this: How does the idea of a future, visible coming of Christ harmonize with our religion's current understanding of the faithful and discreet slave? It says at Matthew 24:45-46, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so!" 

In the scriptures, it indicates that Jesus Christ appoints a slave before his coming. So, if Jesus Christ presence has possibly not yet begun (because there is no "lightning" sign), would it still be logical to conclude that Jesus Christ appointed Br. Russell and the men to follow as a slave over his temple? Because this appointment scripturally comes before his "coming" anyway.

15 hours ago, Anna said:

In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.

I have written letters to the Society in the past about my concerns, but I have never received any word back from them. I just assume at this point that they pitch any letters that questions their policies. I highly doubt that a letter campaign from JWs would work, because JWs either are ignorant to the problems or wouldn't dare question organizational policy.

There is no denying that the mishandling of sexual abuse by the JW organization has brought a great reproach upon Jehovah's good name. The response by the GB to these scandals brings even further reproach. I worry that many JWs are completely unaware of how these ongoing legal disputes are destroying public perception of our religion.

It was bad enough that many elders did not report claims of sexual abuse to the police, but when court cases exposed the abuse to the masses the GB should have immediately apologized to the victims for the mishandling and taken steps to make things right. Instead, they made excuses for the abuse and never took accountability. The inability to accept wrongdoing shows a major ego problem and a callousness. Furthermore, the GB has kept JWs in the dark by not addressing the sexual abuse cases. Shouldn't the GB feel a sense of duty to keep JWs informed about a major issue within the organization? 

I worry that saving face is more important to the GB than the safety of our brothers and sisters.

I love Enya! Her voice is so soothing.