HollyW

Why do you believe the WTS is, as you've said, "the only means of surviving these last days"?  Surely your answer wouldn't be because it has just as much lying, adultery, murder, stealing, sexual immorality as Israel did. The answer of "Why not?" sounds to me like you're saying the WTS is as good a choice as any other Christian organization.  
Yes, I do remember Jesus' words at Matthew 7:21-22  "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.  Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "
Do remember what he said must happen for us to see and enter the kingdom of heaven?

But he did say he would believe it:
"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "
This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

This is why an organization is not needed. This is why Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day. Groups who lord over the masses instill rules that were never supposed to be there. It is our job to help those who are unaware of God's grace and freedom. God does not reside in a building nor in a organization, but rather in the hearts of those who receive Him.

The medical services weren't inadequate here. They were prevented from using the best treatment available for giving the boy optimal chance of survival. They did all they could under the circumstances.
It's a sad story for all concerned. 

Finally, I've had time to read through this thread. Some observations:
I see that no scriptural support has yet been given for the idea that there will be a resurrection during the 1000 years. Where does the idea come from, then? 
It appears to be based on assumptions, i.e.,
1. that 'Judgment Day' isn't a specific point in time but a long period lasting 1000 years;
2. that there are two groups of Christian believers;
3. that the 'deeds' people will be judged on are those done during the 1000 years and not those done before they died ...
... which comes from the interpretation of Rom. 6:7 that once a person dies, they have been 'acquitted' from their sin ...
... in which case, the resurrected start with a clean slate but are still raised in imperfect bodies that can sin again, and it's really during the 1000 years that they are able to avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice (paradoxically by working toward perfection) ...
... which means that Christ's sacrifice doesn't atone for their sins committed before death in this present age, as their own deaths paid for their sins ...
... which goes against the gospel message (Rom. 3:21-26).
If Jesus' death does atone for sins committed before a believer's death, then why isn't that individual 'declared righteous for life' like the 'anointed' are? 
And yet, even with regard to the 'anointed' who are regarded as being 'declared righteous for life,' there is judgment based on what they did 'while in the body':
2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad.
This judgment for the 'anointed' doesn't last for 1000 years, does it? And they are judged according to what they did before they died and were raised as spirit beings, right?
Why the different standards between two groups?
This raises another conundrum because, if Adam died, he was acquitted of his sin too. So why do JWs insist that in his case, his 'Adamic death' doesn't acquit him of his sin? Where is the scriptural support for the idea that he has fast-tracked, without passing 'Go' and collecting $200, straight to the 'second death'?
Melinda mentioned 'willful sin.' Isn't much of our 'sin' 'willful' in some way or another? What about David? Was his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband involuntary, accidental? Manasseh's offenses against God with his child sacrifices and false worship - were those lesser sins than Adam accepting his wife's offer of forbidden fruit to eat? 
Eoin talked about there being a difference between 'immortality' and 'everlasting life,' and that humans cannot be immortal due to their nature. But then, wasn't it argued that angels are not immortal either (one of Melinda's posts)? So what does a being's human nature have to do with it?
And does 'immortality' mean 'cannot die' or simply 'does not die' because the person has been granted a spirit-generated body - whatever the nature? If an immortal person 'cannot die,' doesn't this limit God's power or make the immortal person as indestructible as the Creator? On the other hand, if immortality means one doesn't die, and that life continues indefinitely, forever, or everlastingly, no matter what body the rewarded believer is given, it will always be dependent on God's life-giving spirit, would it not?

Then "Adamic death" is actually the second death, the one in the lake of fire.  Aren't you saying that's the only death God could have been referring to in regard to Adam and Eve?
 
 

Excuse me, Eoin, you will have to offer some sort of evidence that I have in any way misrepresented JW beliefs in my statement that you are referring to:  Not so with the rest of JWs. Their faith in Jesus evidently doesn't give Jehovah the confidence to grant them immortality and he isn't so sure that they won't ever sin again.
In fact, what you went on to post actually substantiates that what I said is true about the beliefs of JWs, they don't expect to ever have everlasting life (other than their anointed class), they are told they will just have continuing life, for as long as they merit it on their own righteousness.
Having the perfection of Adam and Eve is not being saved. Having the holiness and righteousness of Jesus is what saves us; our belief in him gives us that and all of our sins are forgiven in God's sight because of that. Even the WTS recognizes this as a Bible teaching, it's just that they say it's only for a small segment of believers, numbering only 144,000, and not for any other believer. 
That's why Shiwii's question has still not been answered. There is no scripture that says there's a resurrection that takes place during the 1,000 years.  The resurrection that takes place at the end of the 1,000 years has been moved by the WTS to take place during the 1,000 years; and it has been changed from being a resurrection to being a self-help sort of educational program to teach people how to be as perfect as Adam was before he sinned, so that they can eventually meet all of God's standards mentally, morally, physically, and spiritually, and can then stand before God on their own merit rather than on the merit of Jesus Christ
Holly

Thanks for your reply, Melinda.
But you don't believe "Adamic death" is what Adam suffered, do you? 
The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
When God said to Adam, "you will surely die", was that a reference to what you call "Adamic death"?
Also, "progress to perfection"......where is that in the Bible in reference to the millennium?
 
Holly

Lloyd, even the governing body back in the 1980's admitted they had promoted more than just an "interest" in the 1975 date, saying that considerable expectation had been aroused by them in WT publications which made 1975 more of a probability than a mere possibility.  
Also, they had commended those who had sold their homes and property and planned to finish out the rest of their days before 1975 in the pioneer service:
[km 5/74 p.3] Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.—1 John 2:17. But when 1975 turned out to be incorrect, these same ones were accused of having an unbalanced view and were chided for taking 1975 so seriously:
[w76 7/15 p.440]It may be that some who have been serving God have planned their lives according to a mistaken view of just what was to happen on a certain date or in a certain year. They may have, for this reason, put off or neglected things that they otherwise would have cared for. But they have missed the point of the Bible’s warnings concerning the end of this system of things, thinking that Bible chronology reveals the specific date.

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 
I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

at what point does a person stop allowing men to govern their lives as if these men are God Himself? Take a look at the 1000's of rules applied to the Jews by the pharisees about the Sabbath. What did Jesus say about this?  
Mark 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you? You were forced to believe the WT instead of what you knew to be correct. Wouldn't this be the same as those folks who died without a organ transplant? Since it has changed, is the blood on the hands of the WT over these people? You are required to adhere to every teaching they tell you, without question and without harboring your own personal thoughts on the matter, right? How does that make any sense? I mean that's what those people did who died without an organ transplant. 
 
a side note, the issue may be a small one but still addresses my point:
Are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah going to be resurrected? 
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
these are the answers given to the witnesses over the years. Is this progression? Is this light getting brighter? or is this a who knows we'll just fly by the seat of our pants because all of the witnesses HAVE to believe what we tell them? 

The WT holds fast to the term “food at the proper time”, which also would be considered “new light”.  As you have brought out Holly, James 1:17 says there is no variation or shifting shadows if we keep in God’s light.  Can we not all agree that adaptation is expected when changes are enforced by the organization?  If one looks over the entire span of its history and its changes, we also must consider how these changes affected thousands of lives who held fast to the teaching of the moment.  There is a WT entitled, “Rejoice in the knowledge of Jehovah”.  (2001)  Would those who embraced either an early generation teaching or the 1914/1925 date of Armageddon, the suggested 1975 date also of Armageddon, rejoice in the knowledge of “Jehovah” if their lives were turned upside down by such anticipation?  Would Jesus rejoice in such changes if he sees the heartbreak of those who put trust in a present teaching?

It is easy to narrow our focus down to ourselves and our ability to adjust to present teachings, shutting our eyes to those who stumbled through years of big change.  When thinking of Rutherford sending brothers and sisters away as outcasts because they questioned his leadership role; and then, in the 70’s a theocratic “governing body” was formed, does this not make one wonder what our Father thinks of such oppressive man rule in any form, yesterday or today?  And those that were cast out, what happened to them?  Does God view them as the unrighteous ones, or Rutherford, since his desire as sole ruler was later changed by the introduction of a governing body?  Jer 23:1

 Are such changes enforced at the loss of sheep really a “safeguard” provided by God? 

“Jehovah provides something else to safeguard us: spiritual food at the proper time”.  W 02/12/15 p 13-18

Requirement to believe past teachings appears to be only a requirement if it stays the same.  Once “new light” is introduced, this is considered truth!  Which leads one to believe that truth in the organization wears many faces.

“For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations…Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.” 

“Previously, we thought that the judging of people as sheep or goats would take place during the entire period of the last days from 1914 onward. We concluded that those who rejected the Kingdom message and who died before the start of the great tribulation would die as goats—without the hope of a resurrection.”

“In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. “

“After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.”  “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be"

“So we needed to change the way we understood some parts of the prophecy.”

All the above quotes are from WT 13/7/15 pp 3-8

David Splane, when introducing the new teaching of the generation alluded to liking the “idea”. Doesn't this sound like it is destined to change, simply because it is an idea?  Jer 23:26-32  
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”  2 Tim 4:3,4

If one is expected to assimilate and idea set forward by a group of men who admit that they “thought” their teachings were right in the past, by listening and embracing such new ideas, isn’t this slaving for men and not Christ? 1 Cor 7:23  Jesus promised that each one us that approaches him directly with our earnest desire will know the truth.  John 8:32,36; John 5:39-44; Prov 2:1-9

If we consider how often the WT uses terms such as “likely”, “evidently”, “seems so”, “must be”,  we must realize that assumptions and personal speculations made by such anointed ones are not in the likeness of Christ’s teachings, who spoke with authority.  John 16:13,14    Why are these speculations still being made, if not because of a snowball effect?  

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”  John 14:26

In order for any of us to rejoice in the knowledge of God, shouldn’t we question any teaching from an anointed one, not gulping it down and expecting God to forgive the misleading of thousands with thoughts and ideas?  Is this truly how the Helper brings to remembrance all things from Christ?  Matt 12:33  Would not past failed teachings in need of an overhaul, be considered “thorns” and stumbling blocks, to those who wholeheartedly had accepted them as truth?  Luke 6:43-45

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?  Num 23:19


But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.  Matt 5:37 (Eph 4:25)

“As we receive teachings from Jehovah, it should be our desire to gain “accurate knowledge.” Without it, how could we apply God’s Word properly in our own lives or explain it correctly to others? (Colossians 3:10; 2 Timothy 2:15) Gaining accurate knowledge requires that we read carefully, and if a portion is deep, we may need to read it more than once in order to grasp the sense of it.” Keep a firm grip on the word of God  Wt chapt 3 pp 23-31 

 http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/06/operation-of-error.html

 

Onthe contrary,  proof was given, you just choose to turn a blind eye. Reread the post and think about it.

Hi again, Lloyd,
Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.
Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.
The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.
If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used.
You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 
I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

This came up during a discussion of some of the recent changes in JW beliefs:  I've often wondered, do you think that if a teaching has changed since you were baptized, you should still be required to believe it? 
If there's any interest in this, there are some follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

The WTS leaves much to be desired in its handling of child abuse, but the story about vandalism of ancient temples by JWs is hardly believable.  Are you sure it's true?
However, before becoming a member of this church it would be wise to examine it's history, even as it says itself:  We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. 

A good soldier always follows his regimental flag. The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society is our flag. w 1917 p318

I guess it would be argued that the jworg icon isn't used as an object of worship like the cross has been. However ...
Re-posting from an older jw-archive thread:
... the frequency of seeing arts, crafts, jewelry, buttons, bags, flower beds and so on with the jwdotorg logo strikes me as obsessive.
Obsessive with ... a website. The focus of attention has become increasingly centered on branding, or on cartoon characters, or on the org's new audio-visual mega-machine.
*** w50 6/15 p. 186 par. 38 A Victory Dedicated to Jehovah’s Honor ***
"There is this to remember concerning organizations generally. When young and growing, fighting their way up, zeal is strong and evangelistic; but when they have won their place and become strong and wealthy and respected they often lose their virile strength and become lax, fat, sluggish, and point with pride to their size, and put their directives above God’s commands. That has happened to the organizations of the big and prosperous, orthodox churches of Christendom. The organization is served and worshiped instead of the one it claims to represent, namely Jehovah God. But this snare will never catch Jehovah’s cleansed people today ... "
"But this snare will never catch Jehovah’s cleansed people today" - 65 years on from those words, and observing the recent trends developing, it appears to me that with all the emphasis on the 'seen' (2 Cor. 4:18; 5:7), JWs are walking headlong into that very snare.

The WTS leaves much to be desired in its handling of child abuse, but the story about vandalism of ancient temples by JWs is hardly believable.  Are you sure it's true?
However, before becoming a member of this church it would be wise to examine it's history, even as it says itself:  We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. 

I have appreciated your thoughts, Holly.  Just as Hymenaeus and Philetus preached that the “resurrection has already occurred” the warning given in 2 Thess. 2:1-4tells us to equally be on be on guard…
 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,  not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.  Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.  He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Again, those who prophesy such words influence “brothers and sisters” in faith.  Yet these are ones who “have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge”  Rom 10:2
By subjecting oneself to the comfort and securitysuch a false belief may provide, Christ warns, “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.”  Rev 16:15
It seems apparent that by accepting official doctrine that goes beyond scripture is accepting man's philosophy over the inspired scripture, which is sufficient enough for our spiritual heath. 2 Tim 3:16  
"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.  See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, ("unique to Jehovah's Witness"), which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world  rather than on Christ."  Col 2:6-8
http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/05/mark-of-beast.html
 
 
 

Melinda, these things we research are from your organization, and not from outside sources. You are correct in this, however we bring these things up so that you and others can research them too. If there is another understanding, other than what we observe, by all means provide the information or link to clarify. You see, we are taking what the wt says and comparing it to scripture if it fits great but if not our question is why? 
I took the liberty to include Holly in my comment, and if I misrepresent her I expect her to correct me.

Hi Ann,
Good point and good question.  I always wondered why "come to life" was interpreted so differently by the WTS in this passage..  As you pointed  out, in one instance they say "come to life" means one thing, and in the very next sentence "come to life" means something else.  And actually in the second instance they have it not meaning "resurrected" at all, but more like "self-improvement" (i.e. improving oneself thru study of WT publications until able to meet God's standards mentally, morally, physically, and spiritually---and can thereafter stand before God and continue to live based on ones own merit......continuing to live for as long as they don't sin and get annihilated in the lake of fire.)