JW Insider

On 4/1/2016 at 9:15 PM, The Librarian said:

Example Pictures of Armageddon from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:

Not the first one. That could never be a Watchtower picture. I worked in the Art Department during my first few years at Bethel. There are several things wrong with this first picture. It would have been "blasphemy" to present a picture like that into any of the publications. 

Since the 1940's we have always kept the same "motif." If destruction is shown close-up, then there are NEVER any Witnesses near the destruction. (No "close calls" can be imagined.) It if is not a close-up of destruction, then the destruction must be in the far background, usually to the left, and if Witnesses are shown it is always a congregation-sized group of them, never just one or a few, and they should be streaming towards the right of the picture. The stream of Witnesses should be heading to higher ground ("the mountain of Jehovah") with no one looking back towards the destruction ("remember the wife of Lot"). If an artist made a picture with excess praise to the heavens it would be rejected. If an artist made a picture with a distracting bit of excess emotion or pathos it would be rejected. The eyes should be on something in front of them, with no eyes looking toward Jehovah or heaven. Upward-facing eyes should never be looking at anything higher than a mountaintop of a near horizon, usually out of the picture.

The picture here is probably intended to show the issue of "some chosen and some not." The wife and little girl are drawn ambiguously at the edge of a cliff, either having just climbed up or about to fall into it. Either way they are not being helped (yet) by the more obvious "saved" Christian. The "ambiguous" condition of people who might otherwise appear to be good Christians is a common theme in "left behind" imagery.  The inclusion of a small, innocent-looking child (with a doll) left behind is probably a signal that the artist is trying to present predestination.

 

:

4 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

So I'm assuming you do believe the Jerusalem Council was a Governing Body and not a one time meeting to address a specific issue.

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body.

So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services.  

I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24

• (2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons.

In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service.

The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said:

• (Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time.

In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea:

• (1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation.

Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.)

Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.

1 minute ago, Nana Fofana said:

confronted by  2 witlesses

Good thing Rutherford didn't have a sense of humor.

14 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Anyway, in Romans 14 he still kept the "burden" imposed by the council in Jerusalem.

• (Acts 15:19, 20) 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

Note that it doesn't say abstain from idolatry, murder, and theft, but focuses first on "things polluted by idols." Thayer's Greek Lexicon says that the word  ἀλίσγημα here, refers to "pollution from the use of meats left from the heathen sacrifices." Obviously this meat could have been strangled, or otherwise improperly bled, and therefore contained blood. So 3 out of 4 counts from the "burden" could have been broken just by eating ἀλίσγημα.

In fact the NWT footnote on the word strangled shows that this isn't really the only idea here. It says "Or, 'what is killed without draining its blood.'" When the "burden" is repeated in verse 29, the intention is obviously the same:

• (Acts 15:29) 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. . . .

But this time the word "pollution" (implying the ritual uncleanness of the meat) is made even clearer by using the word εἰδωλόθυτος, which is translated as "meats sacrificed to idols" in some translations (KJV) or just "things sacrificed to idols." All the meat-related items are now listed next to each other and sexual immorality is pushed to the end. Notice that the NWT cross-references both "things polluted by idols" and "things sacrificed to idols" with the verse at 1 Corinthians 10:14 which says "flee from idolatry." But the verse isn't about idolatry, it's about abstaining from improperly bled meat which could be bought at a Gentile meat market. Would Gentile Christians now have to go to a Jewish meat market to get their meat? Would they have to inquire as to whether something had been strangled or otherwise bled improperly?

Just look down from 1 Cor 10:14 to verse 25-27

• (1 Corinthians 10:25-27) Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, . . .  27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.

In fact it was only if someone else with a weaker conscience was there and pointed out:

• (1 Corinthians 10:28, 29) 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 29 I do not mean your own conscience, but that of the other person. . . .

And you can probably guess, now, what the Greek word was for "something offered in sacrifice." It was the exact same word that the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem put in the "burden:" εἰδωλόθυτος. So what do you think Paul was saying about the 3 meat-related items in the list?

And we don't have any evidence that Paul only said this before the Jerusalem council met, but would have complied afterwards. It was more likely already about 6 years after. For one thing the Insight book times Acts 15 to about 49 CE. And it times 1 Corinthians to about 55 CE.

• *** it-1 p. 257 Barnabas ***
• In about 49 C.E., Barnabas and Paul took the burning question of circumcision of non-Jews up to the governing body in Jerusalem, and with that settled, they were soon back in Antioch preparing for their next missionary tour. (Ac 15:2-36)
• *** nwt p. 1663 Table of the Books of the Bible ***
• 1 Corinthians      Paul     Ephesus     c. 55[C.E.]

Paul, therefore, appears to have knocked out two or three items from the very list that came from the "Governing Body." And I don't think Paul was ever disfellowshipped for this.

15 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

So quick question and a little off topic but, my opinion is that the other sheep were the gentiles. Is that another doctrine you disagree with or is it on you accept?

I don't know, I haven't heard the talk yet.

Just kidding. I can see this going either way. It makes more sense to me that Jesus meant the other sheep were the literal gentiles. But then again not everything that appeared to apply to literal Israel appears to be strictly about literal Israel, and the Bible gives us some good reasons to see Israel as a kind of "type" of the heavenly Jerusalem, and of course Christ's Bride which is associated with the 144,000. Since that Bride includes people of the nations, an argument can be made for a "spiritual" rather than a "literal" application.

I'm usually for the most simple and straightforward explanation however, and I suspect that if this topic were opened up to entire congregations with only 15 minutes for each of these two perspectives -- I'd say that the simpler perspective would win the day.

Meaning of course that the difference in "little flock" and "other sheep" is this:

• (Galatians 2:8) . . .for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . .

I think Jesus pretty much gave away the answer when he said:

• (Matthew 15:24) He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
• (John 10:16) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in. . .

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you don't mind, I want to go home after two hours. I don't want each meeting to be like a discussion of the WorldNewsMedia forum.

Notice that I only gave 30 minutes for the "little flock/other sheep" public talk though. I think with works well with the new shorter talk guidelines, but, alas and alack, I couldn't find that topic in any of the new talk outlines.

36 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Ive already posted this letter but I'll post it one more time

That letter was from 1980 when Bethel held what Bethelites themselves (of good reputation and in good standing) were calling "Inquisitions" and "witch hunts." Brother Schroeder was out for the head of Ray Franz and used his bully pulpit at a couple of Bethel elders meetings to whip up a frenzy of whatever would be the Bethel equivalent of McCarthyism, Loyalism, Jingoism, etc. He worked fast and most of it was secret. He was protecting himself at the same time and he knew it. When it was all over he was not well liked, even though a lot of other people had been maneuvered into doing his dirty work.

But I don't think that the feeling (or lack of it) in this particular letter you posted, was common even 5 years later. (The only exception I would be sure of by that point was Fred Franz, who was all for handling apostasy cases anywhere they might show up, but he was becoming much less active.) Schroeder himself softened after Ray Franz was finally out completely. (Although I'm sure he was disappointed that he could only get him on a couple counts of speaking with a disfellowshipped person.) Schroeder had hoped for a couple things to come out of those moves against Ray Franz, and things actually went the other way for him. I say these things because Brother Schroeder was a very good friend of mine. He was also my overseer at Bethel for research assignments, even for a couple years after I had left Bethel and lived in New York. For several people, this particular bit of information makes me no longer anonymous, and I understand that this creates a very small danger of repercussions. But it is very, very slight compared to what it would have been in the early 1980's. At that time, however, I would not have said anything about doctrinal issues or anything about Schroeder's apparent motives. 

12 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

This is called getting a bad reputation and doesn't require a mandate from 3 elders who've held a secret meeting and decided how everyone else is to feel about and act towards an individual.

I used the word "marked" because there is no term for "disfellowshipping" in the Scriptures. So I assume that a level similar to our "disfellowshipping" existed for extreme cases, but it must have still fallen under the category of "marking" which obviously was just a reputational warning to protect the congregation. A person can be met with in private, but if there needs to be a public marking or judgment of that person, then the reasons should be as clear as necessary to the congregation. I'm all for transparency.

3 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Hum I highly doubt that. Their opinions are often inventions based on a perceived need. 

Yes, sometimes. But this part was only meant to be partially hypothetical.

In spite of mistakes, I have never seen a directive where there is not an attempt -- usually successful, imo, to make it Bible-based. I think that the problems when this has failed has been a lack of input. Not that plenty of good input wasn't available. Before 1978, Bethel elders and "table heads" were full of ideas that they were sharing with other Bethelites. The Writing Department was full of a lot of intellectual honesty. I think the Aid Book project probably contributed to a new appreciation for the fact that so many of these commentaries from Christendom had remained very valuable resources for 100, 200 and even up to nearly 300 years. And yet if someone were to go looking carefully through our own Revelation and Ezekiel commentary from only 60 years earlier, we suspected him of being an apostate -- just for reading our own publications.

23 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

And yet so many have lost their families for doing that very thing.

Yes, it's happened, although I hope it's a lot less than you imply. It's difficult to imagine a single congregation or even a single circuit that has had many such ones, at least recently.

I have an uncle who is a Circuit Overseer, and he says that in early 1990's all Circuit Overseers (through the District Overseers) were given instructions to see that congregations did not seek out apostates to discipline them, because of "morale" issues. Even if apostates left the congregation and were seen actively picketing the conventions, they were not to make an issue of it. The apostate was already making it clear they were not a JW, so it could safely be ignored. I never verified this. Actually, I tried to verify it and it was denied by someone who should have known. If anyone knows long-time circuit overseers, or anyone who was in that position around 90-92 I'd like to know more about this. Brother Jackson seemed to imply that this was possible based on his testimony.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

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

I don't know.

My hope would be that the Governing Body would send out recommendations and counsel based on the fact that the Governing Body would have been soliciting and welcoming input from everyone on the subject. The counsel they would be giving back out to the congregations would be Bible-based and would offer that same reminder that we are not trying to punish the person with silence; it's not "tough love"; we are only trying to avoid the danger. We are not trying to show our moral superiority, self-righteousness, and we continue to show love wherever we can, even while "shunning" the wrong.

Being cordial, polite and even friendly in a public setting or a congregation meeting would be fine for most "marked" persons. Let's say that an extortioner got some brothers involved in a financial scheme and does not appear sorry and has not tried to pay back what was taken from them. We may rightly feel disgusted at the sin. But the "shunning" is not a total withdrawal of speech and association or even shunning from Bible discussions. In this case, it is primarily a recognition that we shun to the extent that would be appropriate so that this brother never can involve us in a financial scheme. The level and method of avoidance for other persons would be appropriate for protection from the type of sin that person is "marked" for. 

This should have almost no effect on family relationships, except to the extent necessary for protection from involvement in the sin.

And, of course, shunning and punishment should never be used for persons who have questioned a doctrine for Biblical reasons. Doctrinal questioning should be encouraged, even from the platform. It would be wonderful if questions during a meeting were more like:

• "And can anyone see why this teaching might be difficult to explain to someone at the door?"
• "Would someone like to offer a Biblical reason why this proposed doctrine might not be correct?"
• "The talk this Sunday will be 30 minutes based on the new outlines: Brother Smithsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to spiritual Israel and spiritual Gentiles. Then Brother Johnsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to literal Israel and  literal Gentiles. So we'll want to put on our thinking caps for that one."

58 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

and if your personal cut off is different from someone else's does that justify shunning that person?

In life, we all "shun" people we find offensive or who we think might endanger us. In the congregation, and in life in general, there will be people with certain "poisonous" attitudes or certain motivations that we find offensive and dangerous, too. We will, in effect, "mark" such persons and try not to associate with them any more than necessary. There are also persons who have an attitude that will endanger not just ourselves but the entire congregation (pedophiles, unrepentant immoral people who try to work their way into households for immoral purposes, people who try to seduce others into drawing off followers for themselves, people who cause divisions through lying, persons who are greedy and are scheming for ways to steal or extort). To keep the congregation clean and safe it seems appropriate to "mark" the unrepentant ones for the entire congregation. Disfellowshipping is just "marking" to avoid unnecessary association. It would seem to be the loving thing to do as a way of protecting others from harm. It's for the same reason that it would be the loving thing to notify the secular authorities if a Witness has been accused of criminal behavior.

But, of course, this did not mean shunning the person as a type of psychological punishment, which is how most religions that shun tend to use the practice. In fact, Paul added: 

(1 Corinthians 5:10, 11) . . .Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

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.

We also know that there was at least one teaching that was considered so poisonous and dangerous as to require "marking" that person to the extent that we don't associate with them at all, not even saying a greeting to them. This was the great danger to Christianity through people who wanted to draw off Christians to a version of Christianity that denied that Jesus had really existed in the flesh.

I'll grant you that we go beyond these Biblical guidelines mostly because we are human and want our egos to be stroked through feelings of superiority and self-righteousness. But the basic idea is still valid, just misused.

19 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I would be curious to find out from you what you believe the cut off is.  What percentage of the doctrines of a religion have to be false before it is to be considered a false religion?, and if your personal cut off is different from someone else's does that justify shunning that person?

I don't actually believe in any "organization" as religion. Some organizations will try to do some good in a certain way that is different from others, but most of what we call religions today are just different groups that used a difference in teaching as an excuse for men to claim higher spiritual authority than other religions, especially the one they just broke off from. This was the same thing when Barbour broke with other Second Adventists (1859-1875), when Russell broke it off with Barbour (1878-9), when Rutherford broke it off with Russell (1917-1927). The organization is just a tool for efficiency so that like-minded people can speak in agreement and more efficiently accomplish the same ministry.

If I was born into a Hindu religion, or a Muslim religion, I would probably still be Hindu or Muslim. This doesn't mean that Jehovah would necessarily judge me any differently. He reads the heart -- "the motivation." This is why James could say, in effect, that "true religion means looking after orphans and widows, but without being tainted by worldly motivations." The "world" creates motivations of wanting to make a "showy display," class distinctions, prejudice, pride, etc. People in all religions of the world have the same opportunity to live according to good motivations or bad motivations. (Romans 1 & 2)

But if we become acquainted with true Christianity, we are now motivated to have the Law of Christ written on our hearts. This means seeing everything that Jesus said and taught, and seeing how it fits into the royal law of "love" and "doing unto others as we would want done for ourselves." We should be aware that Jehovah's spirit will help to create the desire to serve for any who want to show love for Jehovah. When we read about what happened when He sent his Son, and we are motivated to imitate his example, because it presented the best example possible of how we can show our love for God by ministering to others. If we desire to share in a teaching ministry similar to what Jesus did, then we would look to associate with other Christians who are setting the standard for how to effectively get the word out. We would look for other Christians who try their best to follow the beliefs that Jesus and his apostles and disciples promoted in the first century.

No association is perfect, and I don't think we are really counting the percentage of true and false doctrines. We will have all of the same problems we saw in the first century and many more. We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century.

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

JWs like to say that's it's hard to become a member but that's because it inflates their ego and makes them feel superior to other faiths. In reality most witnesses get baptized with a cursory understanding of the doctrines and most that I knew who had been in for upwards of 40 years still barley knew what the organization taught. It's not difficult at all. 

Depends on the kinds of teachings you are talking about. Most things are repeated so often that you can't miss them. Any child in the organization can rattle off a list of things we don't approve of, and they will be correct. The general idea of baptism is that the person realizes that he wants to associate with a people who have high moral standards and who are best known for getting out there and preaching the good news of the kingdom that will someday step in and solve man's problems and turn the earth into a paradise.

(By the way, I didn't include those items on a previous list of core doctrines, but I also agree that God's will through the Kingdom will be done both in heaven AND on earth, and therefore there are a "new heavens" AND a "new earth" that we are awaiting according to his promise. I also think that the basis for preaching about this good news is best done through a world-wide house-to-house ministry, wherever possible, so I should also have included this practice into the core teachings of Christianity, although I don't think that preaching and teaching is the only ministry of sacred service.)

A few months ago, our Circuit Overseer and a couple of elders were here at the house and I was thinking about something I had just written over here on the forum. It was following the funeral of an anointed sister,  and someone said something about what she might have said last week when she met "Saint Peter at the Golden Gates" in a joking manner, and I said "well now, of course, we say it's only an interesting possibility to say that Peter is already in heaven." I knew I shouldn't have said it, but the Circuit Overseer said that Peter has been in heaven since the spring of 1918. The other two elders quickly agreed, "That's right," "That's right." So I said, "Oh I thought I read somewhere that we didn't put an exact date on that any more," and I quickly changed the subject.

17 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

I suppose it is but the fact of the matter  is that jehovahs witnesses who cannot in good conscience teach what they personally believe to be false teachings are punished for acting in accord with their conscience.

A belief or teaching that we conscientiously hold does not have to be "thrust in the face" of someone who is not ready to accept that particular belief or teaching. This was a point that Paul made so that Gentile Christians need not offend Jewish Christians. This should be a big hint that doctrinal matters were not nearly as important as love and concern for one another. But it is important to note that on the issue of eating things sacrificed to idols, the Jerusalem "Governing Body" had included this specific item in the list of things they claimed that the "holy spirit and we ourselves" had approved. Yet apparently at some later point, Paul rejected that specific "burden" and said that this particular item did not matter to true Christians if their conscience allowed them to eat things sacrificed to idols.

@Albert Michelson @TrueTomHarley @Anna @James Thomas Rook Jr., @Nana Fofana @Ann O'Maly @Brother Rando

I have just created a new topic noted above to move this conversation away from "Brother Rando's" topic. If anyone has a better idea of what title I should have given it, it's still not too late to change that.

3 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

The pictures are from the elders book pages 65-66

Notice that "apostasy" is the actual defection, rebellion, and abandonment, not the lack of belief in specific doctrines. Biblically, of course, there is nothing wrong with spreading Bible doctrines even if we are sure that they might differ from some of the doctrines most other Jehovah's Witnesses hold. But it isn't necessary to push Bible doctrines upon those who do not wish to engage in such discussions, same as here on a forum. Even under the legalistic approach of the Flock book, if you can show that your goal is only to teach Biblically-supported teachings, then you do not fall under the category of "deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth."  Notice, too that causing division and promoting sects is always wrong but that it is not technically apostasy, per se. However, as the book correctly notes, "It may involve or lead to apostasy."

4 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Are you honestly going to sit here and try to claim that rejection of these teachings doesn't result in disfellowshiping. Especially when this very article is defending the disfellowshiping of those who reject it? 

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.

I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.

A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.

However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.

I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.

I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

33 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Don't you feel better, rather than being hypocritical for almost two years? Remember, back then before I was deleted so you could look good to others here. I asked you to be HONEST!! I "respect" honesty. What I don't respect is dancing around honesty. I'm glad you finally got it out of your chest. That's good. You've unburdened yourself. And others can finally deal with realism, to know if you think that "truth" is insulting, then you obviously despise the Watchtower.

Oh boy!! I think that first question was supposed to be rhetorical, right? Clearly you are mistaken in thinking that this is the first time I've pointed out that the answers to such ridiculous questions are sometimes so obvious. The reason I have said the exact same thing on several previous occasions in the last couple years is that it highlights the contradiction you create when you call doctrines from any particular "current" time "God's doctrines." I have to say that it seems so demeaning to an all-powerful God to sully his name by saying that certain false doctrines had to be considered "God's doctrines" just because at the current time, back then, they were being promoted by the Governing Body.

Paul actually cursed at the Galatians for putting up with this kind of thinking: that just because the persons who are promoting a teaching are well-respected persons such as Peter, James and John, that they should just go along with it:

• (Galatians 1:7-9) . . .; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 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. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.

Yet it was the same people Paul named here that we have called the "Governing Body" in Jerusalem: Peter, James and John, for example. So you can't argue that when Paul says, "beyond the good news that was declared to you" that he was referring to the Governing Body. He was referring to the doctrines of Christ Jesus and Jehovah God as now found in the Bible.

• (Galatians 3:1-3) 3 O senseless Ga·la?tians! Who has brought you under this evil influence, you who had Jesus Christ openly portrayed before you as nailed to the stake? 2 This one thing I want to ask you: Did you receive the spirit through works of law or because of faith in what you heard? 3 Are you so senseless? After starting on a spiritual course, are you finishing on a fleshly course?

So there's nothing new here in spite of you rhetoric. You have always known that there have been false teachings that were considered "God's teachings" at the time. But this very idea brings reproach on the truth. The entire meaning of the word truth is turned upside down if you are required to say that falsehood is also truth and that a person can even be disciplined for believing truth when he is still required to accept falsehood as "God's doctrines."

Instead, we can be appreciative of the progress that has always been made. We can cheer on the Governing Body for the wonderful tools they have provided, and the set of core doctrines that we appreciate. We can thank Jehovah that they have been so successful under His guidance, as someone here just said. But calling what is good, bad, and what is bad, good is not what Jehovah wants from us. 

• (Isaiah 5:20) 20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good, Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 

 

52 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Prove, the governing body has changed Jesus doctrine which is God's Doctrine.

Sure. From 1919 to 1927 the Governing Body promoted the doctrine that the Great Pyramid was as Russell called it: "Jehovah's witness" and "the Bible in stone." The books stating this doctrine were promoted until about 1933. After Rutherford changed the doctrine, he even called the Great Pyramid, "Satan's Bible." (1928)  So if you believe that what was taught from 1919 to 1927 was "God's doctrine" then the Governing Body under Rutherford changed it.

Of course, in 1925 Rutherford also used the term "Satan" to refer to the larger part of the Governing Body at that time and he finally got rid of the entire Editorial Committee, which he had previously referred to as "Satan," in 1931.

The Watchtower also claims that Rutherford changed Russell's "correct view" of Romans 13 to an incorrect view, and says that it stayed that way in the 1930's until the 1960's. If you believe the current doctrine is "God's doctrine" and that the Watchtower is correct when it says that this doctrine was "correct" under Russell, then you should accept the Watchtower's view that Rutherford changed what you now call "God's doctrine."

12 minutes ago, bruceq said:

So you DO believe in the authority of the Governing Body to interpret "Presence, Sign, Gentile Times..." Or in YOUR authority to interpret these things to us?

Thanks again for the direct question. I absolutely do believe in the authority of the Governing Body to interpret "Presence, Sign, Gentile Times, etc." And I also believe it is your responsibility, bruceq, to question it, the same way that the Galatians were expected to question the teachings about circumcision and law that were being promoted by James, Peter and John and others.

35 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Publicly revealing members' IP locations is uncool - even if the members are being a pain in the rump. Tsk, tsk.

True. But TTH already revealed it about himself, and I just assumed that it was common knowledge that his close circle of acquaintances lived nearby.

On 3/5/2017 at 10:46 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

before I noticed it wasn't him at all, but the Uber guy. Here in Rochester, we don't have Uber.

Just did a quick search and counted about six more times in addition to this one. In a couple he mentioned it was the same Rochester where Barbour and friends started out, and the same Rochester where flooding from Lake Ontario is not under control, and the same Rochester where his ancestors crawled out of the sewer. Oh wait, sorry about that last one. I just looked that up again, actually it was a grandfather who designed the water distribution and drainage for the city.

2 minutes ago, bruceq said:

So you feel , after your edit, that its ok to pick and choose what to believe from Jehovah's Organization.

Yes. Of course. It's our obligation and our responsibility. See the list of scriptures that are currently in the very first post under this topic/thread. And there are at least a dozen more such scriptures that I didn't include. We should always pick and choose right from wrong. It's the very reason for having and training our conscience.

Otherwise, you could be led astray by various doctrines. Imagine if no one had questioned it when Russell said that the Great Pyramid was, "Jehovah's witness" as he called it, or "the Bible in stone." How long would Rutherford have gone on bragging about how when he changed the correct belief about Romans 13 to the incorrect belief that this was direct proof that prophecy was being fulfilled through the Watchtower Society?

11 minutes ago, bruceq said:

You even went so far as to say on 8/27 : "You obviously don't know that that .my experience at Bethel makes me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God." Need I say more  

Yes, indeed. You need to say more. How about including the very next sentence in the context. AllenSmith had just said he "KNOWS" that this claim makes me believe this particular lie. So I answered:

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You obviously don't know that that my experience at Bethel makes me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God. If you "knew" of course, your guess could not have been so wrong.

I know that @Anna wanted me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you weren't actually scouring my words to find some way to dishonestly twist them. I wonder what she or other readers of your words think now? And I'm back to wondering if you really have no concern to represent Jehovah's Witnesses as honest and studious. You could end up giving the impression that . . . well, I'm sure you already know what impression this gives. But I would ask you to remember that Jesus said "By their fruits you will recognize them."

• (Matthew 7:20) 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

1 minute ago, The Librarian said:

I need a drink.

Uh Oh! Does that mean it will be weeks before we hear from you again?

29 minutes ago, The Virginian said:

I was just minding my own business in Sheol when someone summoned me up.

Sheol? I know that, although you call yourself a Virginian, you live near the Canadian border in Rochester, but Sheol is in Alberta, Canada not far from the Pope and the Devil, and a lake that I think is a shortened form of Lake Lucifer.

Are you sure you weren't in Hell, Michigan?

On an even more important note, I just noticed that Google says the Area Code for Hell is 734.

Don't know if that fact will ever come in handy, but I know it's going to be easy to remember because if you type in "734" on a calculator and turn it upside down, it spells"HEL" although "7734" is better:

Oh the things we will learn, the places we will go!  Might want to pass this bit of trivia on to Vic if you see him.

The Librarian will probably take away my new privileges for this, but what the .... what the ... hay.