Anna

Yes. All of Jehovah's and Jesus's instructions are perfect, without error. So in view of that, how much, or how far are we to "listen" to the GB/Slaves interpretation if we know the possibility is that it could be wrong. This is why, before we become one of Jehovah's Witnesses we have to answer over 100 questions, and be personally convinced that WE personally believe the answers we give, and that the answer to these questions we personally believe are correct, (or as correct as is humanly possible), otherwise we would not become JWs, obviously. I do not see anything in those questions, and the Biblical answers to them, that would warrant suspicion. Interestingly, I also do not see any references to 1914 or the interpretation of the Generation.....

As far as I know, no one is made to own or carry an ADD. I have never encountered an elder chasing someone down to fill in the form. It is assumed that the person holding an ADD does so because they value it as something which will help uphold THEIR decision in case of an emergency. Why else would they have one? It is an "official" document and therefor certain rules have to be followed in order for it to be a valid document. As for the "witness" being a JW, well I have not seen it stated anywhere that it has to be, but logically you might want someone who shares the same conviction as you to witness your signature. By the way, in some countries only an official notary is allowed to witness the signature to make it a valid document..... The hospital liaison committee is only there for those who want to avail themselves of the service. It is not automatic. Plus the HLC has been invaluable in educating doctors and hospitals regarding bloodless surgery options in treating JWs and also in helping to find doctors who will operate without blood if a congregation member asks for that, since the HLC has a database of all relevant doctors. The liaison committee is only there to liaise between patient and doctor, if that is what the patient wants. They are not there to make decisions for the patient, nor to police the patient's decision.

Unfortunately, rumors almost always have some element of truth......

I kind of understand this to mean that obviously a neck tie doesn't take precedent over necessary things (food, medicine, shelter etc.) but I feel it is more of a sentimental gesture, perhaps making a brother feel "dressed" for the meeting....more of a dignity thing perhaps, and given after, and not instead of all the other necessary things that were taken care of. first...just my opinion

To be honest, I didn't really research the issue of vaccines and organ transplants much since I guess I was fortunate enough not to have to deal with it. But what I do know is that when vaccines started coming out they did not have a good start at all. People in general were very suspicious of them, not surprisingly since at the experimental stage they were outright dangerous. Even now, informed mothers (non JW) will refuse some types of vaccinations for their babies/children. Of course our biggest concern (JW) was how some vaccines were produced (involving blood). I have not heard any stories of Witnesses dying or contracting a fatal disease because of refusing a vaccine, but I am sure there must have been some. Just like there were some non JWs who died because of not being vaccinated by choice. It appears our view changed quickly. WT 58/9/15 Question from readers says: ●Question: Are we to consider the injection of serums such as diphtheria toxin antitoxin and blood fractions such as gamma globulin into the blood stream, for the purpose of building up resistance to disease by means of antibodies, the same as the drinking of blood or the taking of blood or blood plasma by means of transfusion?—N. P., United States. No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category, although we have done so in times past. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden. Thus when mankind for the first time was permitted to eat the flesh of animals, at the time of the restatement of the procreation mandate to the Deluge survivors, blood was specifically forbidden. (Gen. 9:3, 4) In the law of Moses blood was forbidden as food, and therefore we repeatedly find it linked with fat as things not to be eaten. (Lev. 3:17; 7:22-27) And so also in the days of the apostles; it was in connection with eating meat sacrificed to idols that the eating of strangled animals and blood was forbidden.—Acts 15:20, 29. The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s expressed will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not". I am not familiar with what our magazines said regarding vaccines prior to the above article. I am sure someone else on here would be able to dig it out.... Regarding organ transplants, I have never heard that being an outright ban but rather it was left to conscience. I know there were insinuations to cannibalism etc. but then again we were not the only ones in the world with that view. Similarly to vaccines, organ transplants were viewed with suspicion, especially with regard to the trial and error experiments in the wake of organ transplant research. Organ rejection by the body is a gruesome death. Even now, it is no fun when immunosuppressant drugs fail to work or cause adverse side effects. Of course there have also been a lot of success stories and medical advances keep extending and improving lives of people who otherwise would have died. But it wasn't always like that. Opposers and ex- JWs like to paint a picture of everyone in the past being saved by transplants and JWs either dying or being disfellowshipped if they accepted one. I do not know the truth of this, because I have never heard of someone being disfellowshipped for accepting an organ transplant. I can understand though the difficulty when something we have believed, changes, and we lost something because of it. As for losing life, well in the end it is our eternal life that matters since all of us are dying in this system anyway. And most Witnesses sincerely believe that. If we are written in God's memory, and he remembers us in the resurrection, then we have done well. It is the bitterness that can come after losing a loved one and then also losing ones faith. But the worst is if we feel life was lost needlessly. I understand that. I really wish I knew of concrete situations of when this was the case with regard to refusing vaccinations or an organ transplant because of what the organization taught about it in the past. Or is it something that was blown up and exaggerated by ex-JWs? I don't know. But perhaps this needs to be put in a new topic... In the end though, we all have to make some kind of a stand and also accept the consequences that come with it. This is why it's important that we don't do anything whereby we could blame someone else for our choice. It needs to be our choice only because as you say, ultimately it is between Jehovah and us, and no one else. The GB have never contradicted that fact.

True Tom, I would agree for the most part, but I also think it is human nature (imperfect human nature) to problem solve. Things that work well are usually left alone and are taken more or less as matter of fact and for granted (unfortunately) But if something doesn't work right....well we either ignore it or try and fix it. How many times has it happened when the positive gets overlooked but whoa, if there is something negative people get together, criticize, gossip...get their panties in a twist. We humans tend to gravitate towards "problems". I think, and this is just my opinion, most of us on here realize that we can't really do anything about what we are discussing. But it feels good to be able to air concerns and read other peoples stories and viewpoints. You have probably heard about a particular therapeutic method whereby a person is told to write their concerns down on paper, but never really give or send it to the other person. It really works. I have written about 3 letters to the GB in the past couple of years, and of course never sent them, but it helped me to organize my thoughts and filter out what is really important and what I will just wait with and see what happens. Yes, as you say, there are apostates who comment on here, and as you say they are pretty easy to spot. The good thing is it is our choice whether we get into a debate with them or not.

Thank you JWI for sharing another, albeit sad, story. I gather this happened around the time of trouble when quite a few were disfellowshipped including one of the GB members, resulting in paranoia and the "witch hunt" where even private thoughts were questioned and became a disfellowshippIng offense..... A knew a sister once, 25 years ago, who was difellowshipped (for immorality) and she told me that one of the elders in the judicial committee told her she should be glad that we are no longer under the mosaic law as she would have been stoned to death. He was right. But needless to say, to this day she is still out.

That would be a bit difficult and unrealistic since they don't usually walk around with a big "I'm an apostate" label on their forehead!

That's ok, not every brother uses the same illustration! Yours may have been different

LOL!

Yes, precisely. But we know it shouldn't be like this. There was a talk a few years ago at our assembly, you may have heard it too, which kind of addressed this problem. The talk was "Is your conscience truly guided by Bible principles" The brother used a few nice illustrations, one of them was about a coffee machine. You can program it to have coffee ready at a certain time in the morning and so when you come down you can smell the aroma and go "Oooh, that smell of coffee!" But will you think or say "what a good little coffee machine for making that coffee!" ? Probably not. However, if you come down and see your wife/husband lovingly made you a fresh cup themselves (which ever way they did it is irrelevant to the point) you will most likely appreciate the gesture. This is the difference between a programmed situation and one which was done voluntarily, out of love and the goodness of the heart. Similarly, because we are not programmed, the way we act reveals to Jehovah our true feelings. The other illustration was about a car and a bus. He said that to get to a certain destination, we can either be passengers on a bus or the drivers of a car. The bus is on fixed time and is driven by someone else. How the bus driver drives is up to him, he could be speeding, running over old ladies etc. However if you are the driver of a car, you control the situation. So he kind of compared Law/rules to the rider on a bus, and principles to the driver of a car. And this is the point I really liked: If we live by law, Jehovah knows you are obedient, and that is good. However, if we live by principles, Jehovah knows a lot more about our person, it reveals our heart; our love for him and the intensity of our desire to please him. Romans 12:2, We are no longer under many laws/rules and that is good. Laws are time specific and situation specific, however principles are good anywhere, anytime. We should not be looking for a rule or law on a matter, but seek Jehovah's view and standards. Jehovah treats us like adults, he lets us drive the car, he does not have us drive the bus like children. However, some evidently prefer to ride the bus! Hebrews 5:11-14

And then there are some detectives that just don't like playing a cat and mouse game.

A few of us "know" JTR quite well, (of course only as well as is possible on here ). You will learn that it is necessary to take most things he says with a large dose of salt and not let it upset you. After all he too is entitled to his opinion. Good thing with on here is you can chose which comments to ignore and which to address. JTR's comments are good training ground for discernment and patience and really learning to listen. At first his comments really raised my blood pressure, like they apparently raise yours. But now I am as calm as a Hindu cow . As for his motives, well, that's something only he truly knows....but if you ask him, he might divulge.....

I think you got it all wrong. Her hair that is tumbling down is creating the illusion of a cleavage. Anatomically it would be impossible for he cleavage to be so high. Her cleavage is actually where the lace part of the bodice starts, and it is covered up by the lace. Me, being a woman, I never noticed anything wrong with her attire. I noticed the brothers beard though!

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this. My issues are these: Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant? Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement) has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved. Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

What about the beard?

JWI pretty much nailed the meaning of "brazen" The glossary in the revised NWT also mentions: From the Greek a·selʹgei·a........ boldly contemptuous attitude; a spirit that betrays disrespect or even contempt for authority, laws, and standards. The expression does not refer to wrong conduct of a minor nature.

Precision itself is ambiguous, and relative. Something can be precisely translated but logically it also has to convey the correct meaning. Just this morning at the breakfast table we had a bit of fun with "bon appetit". Translating this phrase literally, or you could say precisely, could surely insult someone especially if they were rather corpulent. I realize that as an engineer, your definition of precision will be different to what it means to a translator for example. Also, precision depends on the circumstance, in other words it depends on the text you are translating. A technical text obviously has to be translated in a different way to a non technical text. In this case precision does play a role. I wouldn't want to fly in a plane constructed by someone according to instructions that were translated with "artistic license". I will take a look at brazen and "Truth in translation" sometime and will let you know what I think.

I wrote this late last night, and this morning I thought of a couple of additional factors contributing to the out of the ordinary results of JW translation. One is that our language, "the language of truth" is not complicated, it is pretty straight forward and hence also pretty easy to translate fast. Second, the translators, for the most part, are very familiar with "the language of truth" and so do not have to ponder the meanings the writer was trying to convey, this also contributes to efficiency and speed. I am sure there are more factors but these are the two I can think of right now... One more thing, you alluded to it yourself, the org. is a stickler for accuracy, I very much doubt it would allow for inferior work, knowing the website can be viewed by anyone.

I meant conveying, not convening!

Looks like Linmi and JWI are playing a game

JTR, thank you for the equations. First I should mention that I used to be a professional translator and proof reader, just letting you know so that you are aware that I do at least half way know what I am talking about. Yes, translation, the real thing, is a lot more complex than people who speak only one language realize. This is not to put anyone who speaks only one language down, it's just to explain that unless you know another language, it may be difficult to understand just how complex it is to translate, and that it's not just about translating words, but about convening the RIGHT meaning in the target language. Don't think Google translator. If you have ever read something translated into English by Google, you will know what I mean. Now I am assuming that when Geoffrey Jackson and others elaborate on the importance of reaching the heart of someone with the use of their mother tongue, then that means that the translation should be of superior quality. You will probably agree that the source language we JW's usually translate from is English. (There are some exceptions, as in life stories from other countries etc.). Anyway, not meaning to offend any native English speakers, English is a relative easy language to learn, when compared with many other languages. I know, since English is not my mother tongue. Now for a translator, who obviously speaks more than one language, it is more important to know the target language better than the source language, preferably the target language should be the one he knows from birth. Some have the privilege of growing up in a bilingual home (or even multilingual) where both parents speak a different language and so then the translator may speak both languages equally well, but this is quite rare since one language usually dominates over the other. So when we think of the source language as being English, and the target language as being the native language of the translator, then you might begin to understand that it is quite possible for a quality translation of the target language to be produced. We have to assume of course that the translator is well educated in their mother tongue as I am sure you have met plenty of native English speakers who can't put an intelligent sentence together nor can they spell to save their life. One mustn't forget invaluable aids such as a Thesaurus in the target language. This is an invaluable aid, at least for me, especially when I need to find an alternative word to better express what the passage is saying and my memory has had a relapse. The interesting thing is that one sentence can be said in so many different ways and also convey the correct meaning, so much so, that sometimes the translator is faced with a dilemma to have to chose which sentence should ultimately be used. I could go on and on about the joys of translation, but the point I am trying to make is that; it is quite possible to produce good quality translations in a short period of time for free if the translator's target language is their native language, and if they are dedicated and willing to do it for Jehovah. I can attest to that regarding at least one language, my mother tongue, the translation of which is of native quality. One last thing to remember is that we ARE an international multilingual brotherhood so there is always going to be plenty of native speakers in almost every language. P.S I have not read Jason BeDuhn's book but I have heard he made some favorable comments about the NWT. Oh and I have read the Elders manual.

You are probably right, but I still need his reply so I can comment....

Yes, many friends have the view that if they raise an issue, they may seem ungrateful. But really, the GB relies on feedback from the friends. How else are they to know where to make an reasonable adjustment if everyone is quiet, as if everything is fine? There is a difference between being overly critical and voicing genuine concern. The key is, once the concern is voiced, leaving it. It's been brought out into the open, and what happens next should be left with Jehovah. Interesting. There must have been many more "sisters" with the same question. There is strength in numbers! Although it took decades of perhaps just a few sisters each year bringing up the same question until it finally reached the right ears....

Although this sounds like a rhetorical question, I am sure you want someone to answer it. First another question. What's your theory?