Jump to content

JW Insider

Member
  • Content Count

    4,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    140

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. It seems that you believe that the Watchtower Society, or perhaps the Governing Body, representing Jehovah's Witnesses, have already followed the advice of Revelation 18:4 to 'Get out of Babylon the Great.' This happens sometime between the time when the angels say that Babylon has fallen, and before she is burned, and the rest of the world mourns for her from a distance. We currently teach that Babylon the Great took God's people captive beginning in about the year 100 CE, and that Babylon fell in 1919 CE. But that she will be completely destroyed during the time of the Great Tribulation/Armageddon. You must think that the Society and/or GB have made this move out of New York City without being fully conscious of Jehovah's leading in this matter. I say this partly because, while they themselves got out of of Babylon the Great, they did not ask all other Witnesses to get out of Babylon the Great (BtG) before it burns and sinks. Of course, you might say that there is no need for other Witnesses to leave NYC, because when it's time for BtG to burn and sink, Jehovah can and will protect his people. Of course, this implies that Jehovah can protect individuals, but not an organization, or not the individuals in the GB. Then again, you might be implying that it was the temptation to share with her in her sins that made it more important for the WTS/GB to get out of the Great City (NYC), so that they would not be tempted to get involved with the UN in that same city, for example. Perhaps the temptations on the WTS were somehow greater than the same temptations of the Great City on congregations or individual Witnesses. I see this potential contradiction as a hole in your theory. Looking forward to your explanation.
  2. You should speak with some of the Watchtower attorneys. I don't think you will ever again claim that they would like to give the victim compensation.
  3. About right. He calls it "temporary pioneering" and we called in "vacation pioneering" up until 1972 and then "auxiliary pioneering" starting in 1976. Also he mentions the partial ban in Zambia against house to house work, which matches the 1972 km: *** km 1/72 p. 1 Branch Letter *** Learn, too, how Jehovah has richly blessed your brothers in Zambia, even though house-to-house work has been prohibited and thousands of their children have been expelled from the public schools. I think that situation lasted until 1974, but his other numbers show that he is either in '72 or '73. The 25 percent of brothers and sisters in Japan being in pioneer work was true in both years: *** km 12/72 p. 4 Can You Share More Fully in Kingdom-preaching? *** One of the reasons for the large number of pioneers in Japan—one out of every four publishers— It was 24 percent in 1973, but then the new number of publishers baptized in 1974 would have made the percentage slip further: *** km 6/74 p. 4 Theocratic News *** More than one quarter of the 22,500 publishers in Japan began field service in the past year. I could look up several of those numbers in the Yearbooks, to check for sure, but the mention of 50,000 Bible studies and just over 50,000 publishers in Zambia for example, would likely put this in late 1972, after the new Yearbook came out, or early to mid 1973.
  4. Not really. When they dropped the District Overseer positions, he started teaching pioneer schools. He might be at the age where they start "retiring." (mid-70's at least)
  5. I agree that this seems to be the goal of the updated policy. I'm happy for that. This is hopefully just an artifact of obsolete procedures.
  6. That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language). It was interesting that the same site you quote also included: It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse. It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know. When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.
  7. It was my opinion, too, that Matthew6699 (or something like that) did not try to add any value to any conversation. I thought he was here just to be as disagreeable as he wanted to be. The dozens of incarnations of Allen, on the other hand, have very often been useful and thoughtful and almost always provocative. There are times when I'd rather see a long response from those "Allen" accounts than, let's say, a Dilbert cartoon. And I really, really like Dilbert cartoons. 😎 (See, I can be provocative too!)
  8. I used the word dishonest only because this has been repeated to you so many times, by me and others, too. So it seems that you just don't want to know the truth, when it would be so easy just to ask the admins. I can't imagine that someone who is always insulting others for their poor research skills would not look into a matter himself before making false claims.
  9. Your observation was, and I quote: If you can't see how you just insulted everyone here, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you. And, by the way, I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. If you already know this, then you are being dishonest. If you don't already know this, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you of this either.
  10. @Kosonen, @Arauna If you don't mind, I'd like to move this part of the discussion about identifying "Babylon the Great" to a new topic. I will end up moving a couple of your comments from here to that topic, and it might make a better place for some participation by others. (Because the topic title will be "Revelation, Babylon the Great, etc." instead of 1914.) If it doesn't work out, I can move your comments back here. Note that I only moved comments that directly discussed the meaning of Babylon the Great. One of Kosonen's posts also mentioned Paul on the road to Damascus in answer to one of the side-topics here, but it was only over there now because it had already been merged into a post that was mostly about "Babylon the Great." I can't edit that out, so a piece of what originally belonged here under "1914" is now over there in the new topic. Also, when posts are moved, I can't control who the new topic is credited to. Since Arauna was the first to bring up Babylon the Great, her post in the new place is the oldest, and it appears that she "created" the topic. This can be confusing. It just means that hers is the first post in that newly created topic.
  11. You might have no idea, but I do. All you have to do is ask. There should be no reason to merely throw around insults but then not be willing to answer questions. That's just an old "Allen Smith" tactic. If you had asked why I believed the Bible verses that @4Jah2me referenced, it was because you asked a simple question requoted here. I think last person to see Jesus in spirit form might well have been Paul, but Paul implies that at least a portion of this encounter with Jesus in spirit form may have been in a vision, or he may have been temporarily blinded, or perhaps even in a subsequent vision, whether in the body or out of the body he wasn't sure. There were others with Paul on the road to Damascus for which it is also unclear just what was seen. So I think it's reasonable to assume that persons who saw Jesus while he was in spirit form would have seen Jesus while he had materialized a body of flesh and bone. This included most of the apostles and several of the disciples and, according to Paul, upwards of 500 or more. (Assumed to be after his resurrection but prior to his ascension.) So I up-voted the 1 Cor 15:6 reference. I up-voted it because it's the same scripture I would have responded with.
  12. It didn't go over very well, but some time ago I tried to get some comments on whether it was more likely that "Rome" in Revelation was a symbol of "the world." In other words, this system of things. That would include the economic sectors, the political/nationalistic sectors, even the religious sectors, including the world's immorality, greed, commercialism, fashions, entertainment, etc. -- all sectors that can be tainted with worldly motivations represented as under the power of Satan. In other words "the spirit of this world" and "the desire of this world." This seemed to fit James, Peter and 1 John. (James 1:27) . . .The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world. (James 4:4, 5) . . .Adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that for no reason the scripture says: “The spirit that has taken up residence within us keeps enviously longing (1 Peter 2:11, 12) . . .Beloved, I urge you as foreigners and temporary residents to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which wage war against you. 12 Maintain your conduct fine among the nations,. . . (1 Peter 5:8, 9) . . .Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. 9 But take your stand against him, firm in the faith, knowing that the same kind of sufferings are being experienced by the entire association of your brothers in the world. (2 Peter 1:4) . . .having escaped from the world’s corruption produced by wrong desire. (2 Peter 2:20) . . .Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world . . . (1 John 2:15-17) . . .Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire,. . . (1 John 4:3-5) . . .Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You originate with God, little children, and you have conquered them, because the one who is in union with you is greater than the one who is in union with the world. 5 They originate with the world; that is why they speak what originates with the world and the world listens to them. If Rome represents "the world," the same world that Christians have conquered, then Babylon the Great appears to be riding on this "world" "the one who is in union with the world," apparently related to the antichrist, which was already in the world (many of them, in fact) and therefore these "antichrists" suffer a great loss with the demise of their "lover" -- the world. I don't see why this would not at least include the religious sectors of the world, who are anti-Christ, by so quickly turning against his teachings whenever the world's desires get wrapped up in the desires of the religious sectors. I see a couple of more specific solutions that would have made sense to the first audiences of Revelation and continue to make sense to us today by making use of the same symbols. But I'm not pushing for a specific solution here.
  13. @Srecko Sostar, I think that was Brother Lett doing his own version of Saturday Night Live's Church Lady: "Could it be SAAAAAAAAATAAN?!?!?!?!?"
  14. No. I didn't call. I'll do it, but figured you might want the "credit" since you found it, lol. Of course, you can easily get through with any of the general numbers. They will forward you to the right person. I would start with Patterson, though. The receptionist there might know the exact person to forward it to instead of just the main department. The general public numbers are as follows: Wallkill +1 845-744-6000 Warwick +1 845-524-3000 Patterson +1 845-306-1000
  15. The question was basically about whether a person should do their own research but then just keep quiet about it if they proved to themselves something different than they had accepted at baptism. I thought your answer was excellent. Those of us who remain in the organization after researching the teachings on 1914 are remaining because this doctrine, even if completely wrong, does not negate the good work the organization is doing for the world in focusing on both the current and future benefits of God's kingdom, taking a stand on God's side, and offering the opportunity to join in with others who also want to share that message with the whole world. Were Peter, James and John still being used in the congregations around Jerusalem and Judea, even though they still had long-standing prejudices and misunderstandings about God's purpose for the Gentiles? (Acts 15 & 21; Gal 1 & 2) Of course they were! Did teachings coming from those same men stumble others? (Galatians, Barnabas, etc.) According to Paul, people were definitely stumbled by the influence these brothers, but Paul continued to work with them and cooperate with them. Our decision to continue working with the Witnesses should also still make sense if we believe there is no other group that teaches what we believe about various Bible teachings that are important to us (neutrality, conscientious objection two war, teachings about morality/Trinity/hell/soul, etc.). Also, there are those who might think that it is hypocritical to find something wrong in our personal research and then merely keep quiet about it. I'd say that we would be wrong to bring it up in the context of our congregations. This might cause divisions, and might influence people to choose a side based on "human factors" (who debates the best, who "sounds" more loyal, who "sounds" more intelligent, who has more human authority, the number of people who agree or disagree, etc., etc.) But, if we recall Matthew 18, the most important thing is to go to the source of the issue. It's not the people in our congregation, or even the elders in our congregation. They are not the source of this teaching. In this case we should go to the brothers who are the publishers and promoters of this teaching, to see what they say in defense of the teaching. As you say, we may not be satisfied, or find that they don't answer, or won't answer, or can't answer. Then we can make up our mind how we might still try to absolve our own conscience on the matter, or make a defense of our own faith on the matter. But we still need NOT go to our local congregation about it, or try to find persons there who will side with us. This will still create unnecessary contentions. It will make it appear that it is a matter of personal ego to be right or prove others wrong. If it were a matter of life and death, this might be different. If this is the same argument that John Butler often made, then the point is that the context is only about the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Christian Greek Scriptures, much of which had not been written yet. This is already mentioned however in our own publications: *** ws17 December p. 16 Parents—Help Your Children Become “Wise for Salvation” *** “YOU HAVE KNOWN THE HOLY WRITINGS” 3 The apostle Paul first visited Lystra in the year 47. This is probably when Timothy, who may have been a teenager, learned about Jesus’ teachings. He applied what he learned, and two years later he began traveling with Paul. About 16 years after that, Paul wrote to Timothy: “Continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them and that from infancy you have known the holy writings [the Hebrew Scriptures], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:14, 15) Notice that Paul said that Timothy (1) knew the holy writings, (2) was persuaded to believe the things he learned, and (3) became wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. . . . Timothy knew the Hebrew Scriptures “from infancy,” that is, from the time he was very young The addition of the term "[the Hebrew Scriptures]" is in the original quotation, even though it was put in brackets. However, the Watchtower's emphasis has always been on the fact that since most of these additional book by apostles and other mature men had already been written that the reference is to all the books both OT and NT. *** w63 11/1 pp. 652-653 pars. 14-15 The Book of “Everlasting Good News” is Beneficial *** Consequently, when Paul wrote his final letter to Timothy and said: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial,” there were doubtless twenty-one inspired books, all addressed to Christians, in addition to the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures. (2 Tim. 3:16) Today Paul’s expression “All Scripture is inspired of God” includes the writings of Jude and John, for these also were written under inspiration of God’s holy spirit and were added to the collection of inspired Christian writings, to complete the inspired Holy Bible. 15 Today, therefore, “all Scripture” includes the sixty-six books of the Bible, as it is now divided up in order.
  16. I don't think that we need to worry about the difference in priorities of various aspects of Jehovah's purpose. His thoughts are higher than ours, and it's not up to us to try to prioritize specific things that were not already prioritized for us in the Bible. In fact, all the items listed below are tied together so that we cannot really separate, for example, his sanctification from the well-being of good angels and good people (and "all creation"). Jehovah's eternal purpose the outworking of His purpose by the Kingdom throughout mankind's history the vindication of His sovereignty the sanctification of Jehovah's name, reputation, righteousness, purpose the explanation for sin, suffering and death in this system the meaning and purpose of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ the question of motivation for our Christian activities (works); whether reward (hope) or faith and love the central theme of love for both God and neighbor Each of these is tied together. Sometimes, for example. we (JWs) have concerned ourselves over the priority of Jehovah's vindication or his sovereignty. But when we look at the things that the Bible is concerned with prioritizing, these are not included. Paul prioritized "love" over faith and hope. Jesus prioritized love of God and neighbor over all other commandments in the law. Jesus prioritized mercy over sacrifice. The entire book of Romans, especially, ties all these together, and just a few examples will remind us of how Paul touched on almost every subject in the list above (Romans 8:18-25) 18 For I consider that the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. 19 For the creation is waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23 Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom. 24 For we were saved in this hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for when a man sees a thing, does he hope for it? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we keep eagerly waiting for it with endurance. (Romans 5:1-15) . . .Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith, let us enjoy peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained access by faith into this undeserved kindness in which we now stand; and let us rejoice, based on hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but let us rejoice while in tribulations, since we know that tribulation produces endurance; 4 endurance, in turn, an approved condition; the approved condition, in turn, hope, 5 and the hope does not lead to disappointment; because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy spirit, which was given to us. 6 For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time. 7 For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. 8 But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . . 12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. 13 For sin was in the world before the Law, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many! Just a quick aside, but was this verse [Romans 5:13] ever used in support of the idea that the Watchtower had taught about persons destroyed at Sodom, for example, when we said that they would still have a chance for a resurrection?
  17. The phrase I was thinking of turned out to be "White Guys," not "Caucasians" -- sorry! 😎
  18. I was wondering if you were making a connection. I think I saw a T-shirt once that said: BEER - Helping Caucasian People Dance Since 1842! [or words to that effect] 😎 P.S.-- I hope people will forgive the joke because I actually think this kind of dancing shown in the video above is beautiful.
  19. That's true. A person can ask you for your lunch money, or if they're a big enough bully, they can just steal it.
  20. True. But a few things have been repeated from that Law for Christians to benefit from as principles and truths. I can't. But I think it might have even been a wider principle than just refraining from drinking human or animal blood directly. It might refer to abstaining from bloodguilt, which can be brought upon ourselves by reckless driving, reckless use of a firearm, parachute diving for pleasure, etc. Both. Not even God's law should override the value of a life, according to Jesus: (Matthew 12:3-7) 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones. I believe that Paul understood that even the "laws" that the Jerusalem Council came up with could be ignored if conscience allowed. He didn't think those idols that the meat had been sacrificed to meant anything, so he said a person could eat it if his conscience allowed. James and Peter had said NO!
  21. In a brotherhood, sometimes its better to open up to family, when you might not be quite as open to strangers. Depends on the circumstance. If we trust that elders are there to help, we would not hold back. If we trust that enemies are there to hurt, there are times when we can be cautious as serpents, but still innocent as doves.
  22. Jesus once made a network, even though it was being overloaded. (John 21:6) . . .“Cast the net on the right side of the boat and YOU will find [some].” Then they cast it, but they were no longer able to draw it in because of the multitude . . .
  23. It's already a serious matter, so you don't have to exaggerate with "millions" of people, if it probably is on the order of only a few hundred at most, worldwide. Jesus meant for us to think about the more important things. A law should never get in the way of showing love or saving a life. Even laws should be prioritized, so that we know that the law about showing Love of God and Love of Neighbor are even more important than Do Not Murder. Of course, the reason for this priority is that a person who truly loves God and Neighbor will never murder, and will not even be saying or thinking the kinds of things that lead to murder. Therefore those laws already cover nearly every other one of the commandments. The law on blood need not be difficult. I have, for a long time, been under the impression that Christians don't need to get into the details of science or chronology or archaeology to understand the Bible's requirements. Therefore, if the Bible says "Abstain from blood" ("New Testament" not OT), then we need not dive too deeply into any science to understand the meaning. We merely abstain from blood. We don't get all involved in counting the fractions to see if we have really met the requirements of the law, because by prioritizing the weightier matters of law, we can go beyond the requirements: (Matthew 23:23, 24) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel! That said, there is ample reason to look at the Scriptures carefully to make sure that another person's conscience has not been imposed on our own. Even the apostle Paul did not wish to impose his own conscience on others, and one of the topics he spoke about where he differed from the "Jerusalem Council" was on the matter of eating items that had been sacrificed to idols. Yet that item had been included along with abstain from blood as an item that had been considered settled by "the holy spirit and we ourselves." So which part was holy spirit and which part was "we ourselves"? I think this is where "conscience" can and should still do its work.
  24. You still seem to have the idea that persons who are truly anointed will be inspired by God's holy spirit and not let personal viewpoints get in the way. Look again at Acts 15: (Acts 15:2) . . .But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them,. . . (Acts 15:6, 7) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place,. . .
  25. I wanted to stay out of this because of the way the answer might sound worse than I hope it sounds. I think the real answer should acknowledge both of your ideas. Because I think the policy changed on account of a belief by some that the original policy showed "hardheartedness" in the face of "doubts" at the level of a primary policymaker. Not so much F.Rusk/Dr.Dixon, but mostly from the research by G.Smalley (Writing Dept) which had "earned" him a larger say in the policy. Too many people were dying, and because of doubts about the overall policy, these deaths seemed unnecessary. The more that the "hardhearted," older generation, wanted to speak of "martyrs," the more that the soft-hearted younger generation wanted to see the entire blood policy thrown out. I believe that allowing fractions was a compromise between the "old guard" and the new. Even some Witness doctors were called in to HQ to discuss it. And without committing to any changes in policy with them, the direction was clear that some compromises on blood fractions could be potentially justified when one looked at the details of blood fractions and how they were being used to save lives. I haven't talked to Brother Smalley about this, but was told by a Bethel elder who has known him well, that he was willing to change the entire blood policy (for scriptural reasons, not financial) but that this would be seen as a Catholic "Fish on Friday" "No Fish on Friday" -- the flip flop on fish. It would devastate the Witness families who had lost a child, parent, relative or close friend to the blood policy in the past, and for this reason he was happy to go along with the fractions compromise which could at least reduce the number of deaths greatly. I've heard JTR assume this was a move by lawyers to reduce financial exposure. But I know that even Brother Rusk was aware of both financial exposure and that there were several questions about the scripturalness of the policy as he had dealt with those arguments before. (But as soft and gentle and loving as this brother was to my wife and me, and all persons we knew, he was very much a "hard-liner" on the original blood policy and never gave an inch to those arguments. I don't know that he was ever really OK with the fractions compromise. I think I've mentioned before that he was best friends with my wife, and gave the key portion of our wedding talk.) BTW, my iPhone identifies a goodly portion (badly portion) of my calls as "Fraud Risk" and I always glance at it with the thought that I just got a call from "Fred Rusk" although he died a few years ago. Yes, there are probably "14 ways from Sunday" to look at the matter "legitimately", not just two. (The term "legitimate" seems out of place when we are comparing law with conscience.) Some of these ways are fully scriptural; some are based on science; some are a mix. I was in full agreement with JTR strictness in my own personal policy (based on conscience) until a couple of years ago, while participating on this forum. I would neither take blood nor fractions, and I would have been willing to die before knowingly accepting a transfusion of any kind. The only difference I had (conscientiously) with the Society's position, however, is that for the last 10 years at least, I would never impose my conscience about either whole blood or blood fractions on any of my own children before they were baptized or 18, whichever came first. I would try to work with doctors as best I could, but if I were convinced that their survival depended on a blood transfusion, I would not impose my conscience, and would accept any consequences. And of course I would give no recommendations for unbaptized youngsters or babies in the congregation either. I felt the issue was too serious to even accidentally impose my own conscience on another. Fortunately, it has never come up. But when I learned of Brother Smalley's policy-making issues, even though I didn't confirm them with him personally, the brother who told me about it gave me another contact who might confirm. This was another one of Smalley's friends who was close enough to him even recently to know if he had said anything of the sort to him. This contact was reluctant, because I had never contacted him before, but after I told him of my concern based on the information from the Bethel elder whom he knew, he understood how important an issue I thought it was. This new contact gave me some additional information I have already included above. To be fair, I should also mention that I very recently talked to another friend who had worked with Smalley in the Writing Department back in the 70s and 80s, and he sounded incredulous about all of this.

×
×
  • 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.