Anna

I know what you are trying to say, but YOU are actually the one who is misunderstanding. The argument is quite easy to settle. If what you said above really was the case, then why would the study edition of the February 2017 WT direct readers to: " ..... Watch Tower Publications Index “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding"? There, under the caption 1975 you will find a reference to "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" book, which subsequently directs you to the WT and the quotes from it we have been discussing (WT 76 & 80). Just check it out for yourself. Go to ONLINE LIBRARY -> Publications Index -> Subject Index -> Beliefs clarified -> dates ->1975 So it is not an argument conjured up by ex-witnesses, it is what the writers of the WT are saying. The writers are the ones who have had to adjust their understanding too, not just the readers.

If you mean "erred perception perpetrated by individuals" to mean certain members of the GB then you are right. But if you mean certain individuals among the congregations then you are wrong. Members of the congregations only had this wrong perception about 1975 because of strong insinuations by the GB. This is a fact which the GB themselves admit. ("Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated" WT 1980 3/15 p.17) I am sure JWInsider would be able to dig up those specific statements that implied that the realization of hopes were a probability. However, I do agree that it is erroneous and foolish to accept anything and everything the GB insinuates without first checking if "this is so".

I can understand that, sometimes we can get so bogged down that we can't see the trees for the forest. This is why it's good to step back at times and look at things from a fresh angle. Also, we would all love for the end to come in OUR life time, so it's the natural thing to speculate and I believe that what you mom thought was the next best explanation for the "delay" as demonstrated by the comments of the Bethelites as well. But as we know, all of it was just speculation, just like the present Generation explanation is just speculation. And I don't think there is anything wrong with speculation, it's only dangerous when one bases their entire hope and faith on it..... I must admit I can see the reasoning here and this is why I chose to "get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint" regarding the present Generation explanation And there will be another discussion about the "Slave" in the Feb 2017 study edition of the WT, which I'm sure you've already read. So with regard to that, and going back on topic, what is your understanding of the "Slave" as per the parable? (In one or two sentences )

Unfortunately we (GB) have always seemed to have this peculiar little problem with speaking directly. It brings to mind the disappointments regarding 1975 and how it took all of 5 years before the WT 80 3/5 clarified a statement made in the 1976 WT: "In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date". Of course it was obvious that anyone who had set their sights on 1975 only did so because of "the persons publishing that information" and not because they had somehow come up with it themselves. Duh! But why couldn't this have been said in a more direct way in the first place? It is evident that until things change, we have to be on our toes, play detectives, and keep on trying to figure out what is actually being said

There will be another hearing on March 20th 2017 http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney

I do not think this is necessarily true. I do believe there is a time and place for confidentiality. And I can understand that it becomes enormously difficult to find the right balance in an organization so vast, and comprised of so many cultures, nations and social backgrounds, and levels of intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I too wish for more transparency, but I also realize that we just do NOT know the whole story on many internal matters, and very often it is impossible for ALL to know the whole story. We have been able to become privy to the issue of Child sexual abuse to some extend thanks to the ARC, but even there I can see where it was just too complex for a categorical conclusion. I remember in the early 80's when publications dealing with child sexual abuse came out, and I kind of poopoed it thinking the society is getting a little paranoid again. Especially when I was reading about parents not allowed to touch their children. I grew up in Europe, and our view of American culture was that they are a little over the top when it comes to natural nudity etc. (a little ironic since one of the biggest porn industries is in the US) I was used to seeing little children running around with no clothes in the summer. Little did I know that these articles were being published because of a NEED! Now looking back, I wonder how many readers took these articles to heart? And the problem, did those who really NEEDED to read these articles actually do so? Most probably not, because many of those who it was addressing, were on the fringes of the congregations or merely associating with it. And did those who actually read the articles put them into practice? I am assuming that those who were diligent in applying advise and counsel did, but those who were spiritually low and negligent didn't. Or what about those who belonged to a dysfunctional family such as Candace Conti's parents? I do not imagine either of them took any note, or applied the advice in those magazines. This is where the GB have assumed that if they "put it out there in the form of publications" no further action is needed. This was and is their biggest mistake I think. IF they had come straight out in those days and said that some congregations are having problems with child sexual abuse, so be aware, I wonder what would have happened. Then again, those who would have really needed to hear it, might not have even been at the meeting, as is often the case! So this is where I see the difficulty, it is just so complex. And I can understand the GB's attitude of "prevention is better than cure", and in an ideal situation that would work great, but unfortunately you are addressing all kinds of people, the dysfunctional, the mentally unstable and those who are JW's in name only. How can you control what those people do? You can't. And that's the problem. And this is where I think the GB will have to admit that they are going to have to change their policies not just regarding prevention, but helping those who have already become victims. Even now, the GB seem to be skirting the issue by putting out stories of sexual abuse victims, (video on broadcasting) but the abuser was a worldly person and the sister was abused before she came into the truth. Why not make a video of someone who was abused by an elder or "reputable" brother in the congregation? I can perhaps see why, but they could do so anonymously to protect the identity of both the victim and perpetrator, as is often done in documentaries. Is it perhaps because we would feel "cheesy" having criticized the Catholics for a similar thing? (there is a difference, but many might not discern this)......

I do not go searching for instances where the GB have erred. We all err, we are all imperfect, I am very well aware of that. All I was saying was that GB themselves have reminded people they err (although any thinking person would be able to deduce that from the simple fact that, as I already said, we a ALL make mistakes and sin - Ecclesiastes 7:20 "For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins.") But some people obviously need reminding. Here is a quote from the Feb. 2017 WT Page 26, par 12: "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870." So you can see the examples in "Beliefs Clarified".

Really? That is news to me. So what is the final one? So do you think that purpose has changed? Hmmm, ok. I was under the impression it was Raymond....

I do agree with you that the apparent directions regarding handling of pedophilia and the others were not good at all. My mother in-law was subject to an abusive husband for years and was told by elders to stay with him and put up with it. Some even chose not to believe her, despite ample evidence. The question is, was this direction from the Slave, or was it the interpretation of elders, on how they decided to handle the situation? The same with the other problematics. I don't know. And how do you know the GB thought it was "bad food". In the instance of the handling of pedophilia it seems they thought we had the "best policies".

The truest thing you've said on here Allen The Governing Body themselves have said they have erred at times.

Thanks!

And yet, there will be those of a "mixed vast company", (as there were with natural Israel), who will follow Christ's brothers, but who themselves are not spiritual Jews. Zechariah 8:20-23 " “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘It will yet come to pass that peoples and the inhabitants of many cities will come; and the inhabitants of one city will go to those of another and say: “Let us earnestly go to beg for the favor of Jehovah and to seek Jehovah of armies. I am also going." And many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek Jehovah of armies in Jerusalem and to beg for the favor of Jehovah.’ “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe of a Jew, saying: “We want to go with you, for we have heard that God is with you people.”’” Isaiah 2:2-4 " In the final part of the days,The mountain of the house of Jehovah Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, And it will be raised up above the hills, And to it all the nations will stream.And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, To the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths." For law will go out of Zion, And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.He will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore".

Haha, funny. I had a look at that, and in the paragraph prior, he quotes Br. Russell in the WT from 1881, where Russell says that the "little flock" IS the faithful and wise servant. However, as you say, in the book The Battle of Armageddon, as per the footnote under the asterisk, Br.Russell definitely insinuates that the faithful and wise servant is ONE person. Evidently and logically himself, although he never says so directly. I do not understand why Br. Franz didn't just leave the quote from the WT without referring to the Armageddon book. And you are right, in later years Br. Russell did view himself as the servant, although again, not directly. But from what I have read of the old Watchtowers, he wrote mainly in the third person anyway, so he would have never said "I am the servant". So how did Br. Franz react to your observation?

Last week’s lesson in the October 16 WT, page 27 about exercising faith in Jehovah’s Promises brought out that Noah exercised faith by preaching to his neighbours. Par.7 "Hebrews 11:7 highlights the faith of Noah who, “after receiving divine warning of things not yet seen, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household.” Noah exercised his faith by building the gigantic ark. Without doubt, his neighbors must have asked him why he was building such a colossal structure. Did Noah keep quiet or tell them to mind their own business? By no means! His faith moved him to witness boldly and to warn his contemporaries of God’s coming judgment. Quite likely, Noah repeated to the people the exact words that Jehovah had spoken to him: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them . . . I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy from under the heavens all flesh that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish.” Also, Noah no doubt explained to the people the only means of escape, repeating God’s command: “You must go into the ark.” Thus, Noah further exercised his faith by being “a preacher of righteousness.”—Gen. 6:13, 17, 18; 2 Pet. 2:5". We have always understood that Noah witnessed to the inhabitants of that time, while he was building the ark. We say this because 2 Peter 2:5 calls Noah a “preacher of righteousness”. But it occurred to me that Noah must have been a preacher of righteousness BEFORE Jehovah asked him to build the Ark, as this was the reason Jehovah asked him to build the ark, to preserve him alive. Genesis 6:9 says: “This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God”. Is there any scriptural proof that Noah witnessed to “his neighbours” about the impending destruction while he was constructing the ark, or are we simply assuming he did? And wasn’t Noah exercising faith mainly by building the ark, rather than preaching destruction to the people? The only scripture that I can think of that would indicate that Noah may have talked about the destruction is in Matthew 24:39 where it says that “they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away”. But this could also mean that they took no note of him building the Ark rather than any reasoning from Noah. Or Heb 11:7...after receiving divine warning of things not yet seen, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this faith he condemned the world. This seems to indicate that it was because he acted and constructed the ark.....or was it that he actually voiced a condemnation to the people?

Thanks for the insight into the goings on at Bethel, JW. Always an interesting read. Funnily enough my mother in law met Br. Franz before she got baptized. She told me that years ago there were no official questions for baptism, so when she met Br. Franz, he just asked her a couple of questions and then said "nothing is preventing you from getting baptized", and that was that. I remember the Ka book very well, (not it's contents mind) I was only young but I remember the yellow cover, and the blue writing. It was the first book I remember underlining (although I didn't really have a clue). My mom had shortly come into the truth and this was when we started going to meetings, so really this was her first book at the book study too. Isn't it funny, all those years ago, and now I am talking to the person who proof read it! I don't remember re-studying it in 81 though. I am aware that the commentary of James was written by his nephew, but before I knew that I always wondered why we never studied it. I know this is off topic, but what was in the Choosing book that was apostate? Funny. I guess he took it personally instead of relying on Christ to judge who he was going to be the mediator for. It seems like the present members of the GB are a lot more humble.....

I will tell you how I understand it. In context, it seems that what was meant by "direction" was not necessarily of doctrinal nature, although I must admit it could be viewed that way. But Br. Jackson was talking about directions given to the branch office in Australia, regarding matters of Child abuse. He was asked whether branch offices were able to act autonomously, to which the reply was no. It seems he was implying that if some direction was un-scriptural, it would be noticed, but not necessarily voiced. I believe this too, and I trust the GB does as well, as they view themselves as the domestics too. Going back to your original subject "who really is the faithful and discreet slave", is it all of us, feeding each other? It is to a degree, but at the outset, how would we have known what, when and how to feed? Would we all do this as we saw fit? According to our own personal interpretation or opinion? The present day "Bible Students" do this. They believe it is their "freedom in Christ" that allows for differing views on doctrinal matters. But where is the truth? Where is order? Aren't truth and order important to Jehovah? Wouldn't we all just end up like Christendom, and each of us join the denomination that most appealed to us? What about the preaching? In my mind, it is nothing short of a miracle that we function the way we do, all on voluntary work, headed by a bunch of imperfect men in Warwick. I just posted earlier in a reply to Witness, that our Magazines rank no.1 and 2 in the world in distribution, and that our website ranks no. 1 as the most translated website, by far. Is this a coincidence? Of course Witness has a different answer to that, which was to be expected, but really, looking at it objectively, shouldn't one expect that God's word, and publications and websites directing people to God's word and advertising God's Kingdom would be the most widely distributed and translated in the world? So we, inclusive of the GB, must be doing something right.

Thanks so much for getting all this together, so I don't need to! Hahaha, yes indeed! So really, from reading the above, I don't understand why people would think the other sheep could NOT approach Jehovah through Jesus. It seems quite clear that they can, all it is saying is that the other sheep are not in the covenant and so in that sense Jesus is not their mediator, but as the scriptures say people of all nations can, actually not just can but must go through Jesus. Unfortunately the first article from 79, although saying pretty much the same thing, was not as clear, so I can see how it could have caused a stir, especially this statement: "However, by their associating with the “little flock” of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant". This could have been misunderstood to mean the anointed and not Jesus mediate for the other sheep when they pray. But praying through Jesus as a mediator, and Jesus being a mediator of the covenant are two different things.This is where the problem I think happened. The other sheep knew they were not in the covenant, and that was ok, but when it looked like this could affect their approaching Jehovah, that is when it got worrying. It just goes to show though, that one really needs to check for oneself "if this is so". P.S. When I mentioned this issue to my mother in-law, who is 86, she came back as a flash with "Oh, but the other sheep still have to approach Jehovah through Jesus". So simple and scriptural.

Well no, neither do I for the same reasons as you. It is each person's responsibility. I quote that statement by Br. Jackson: “......the Governing Body, which is, may I state, a group, a spiritual group of men who are the guardians of our doctrine, and as guardians of the doctrine, look at things that need to be decided based on our doctrines, which are based on the constitution of the Bible”. What I understand from from that statement is that the GB's concern is that when Bible truths are disseminated, or when decisions are made by them that these remain faithful to what the scriptures intended, and not that they are taking away the responsibility for this from others. This is confirmed by another statement that Br. Jackson made regarding others, quote: “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction. So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable”.

I would say, those who you call an "evil Save" seem to be doing a pretty good job of providing spiritual food. The WT - Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, is at no. 1 for the most widely distributed magazine in the world, the Awake is at no. 2, and JW.org is at no.1 for the most translated website in the world. All this achieved through volunteer work. And just in case you have some comments about Satan being in charge of that, then be aware that the Bible is at no.1 for the most widely distributed book in the world. Kind of cool, the Bible at no.1, a magazine announcing God's Kingdom at no. 1, and a website announcing God's Kingdom in most languages at no.1. As for people leaving the organization and then choosing the right road is kind of complicated don't you think? I would have though that people leaving Babylon the Great would be sufficient. Or are there multiple evil slaves?

Haha, ok, thanks for the clarification . There is still a WT article regarding that question of Jesus being a mediator for all or just a few, especially with regard to the other sheep. I will try and find it, unless you beat me to it. It's been a while since I read it. Do you have the WT on hand which says that Jesus is the mediator only for the anointed?

So, just a few simple questions, why did God create the earth in the first place? Do you believe what Christendom does, that the earth was created as a testing ground for mankind, before they were allowed access into heaven? Is heaven the place where the angels were to mingle with humans who had experienced life on earth and then were given spiritual bodies to become like the other angels, who had never been human but were created already with a spiritual body? Or do you believe what the Mormons believe, that God created only angels who, in order to appreciate being an angel, were sent to the earth to experience evil?

Yes, I've seen opposers indignant at the thought that Jesus is only the mediator between Jehovah and the anointed, as if the other sheep cannot be heard by Jehovah when they pray. This of course cannot be the case. When a member of the other sheep pray, they do not need someone of the anointed to mediate on their behalf with Jesus so that they, the other sheep can be heard by Jehovah. Jehovah hears their prayer. Although the other sheep are not in a special covenant with Jesus, and therefor it can be said Jesus is not their mediator, Jesus IS their intercessor. There was an article about this difference in a WT but I can't remember where!

It could be, if you believe there is no basis for a positive future.

Exactly. I don't know which Assembly or Convention this was at, but I am sure it was the one with the faith theme, the brother (may have been one of the GB) who gave one of the talks highlighted this scripture and applied it to the elders and the GB. Any mature Christian will know that the GB are just like any one of us. The unfortunate problem is, that because of the nature of the situation that there is a handful of "them" and millions of "us" it becomes inevitable that some kind of "celebrity" status is awarded to them which is not really deliberate, but happens as a result of this difference in number. To illustrate. Br. Lett, as we know a very friendly amicable chap, loves to have his picture taken with the friends. (There are other members of the GB who don't like their pictures taken). At our last assembly Br. Lett was present as our visiting speaker. Funnily I think it was the imitate their faith one. In any case, after the program there was a long queue of brothers and sisters waiting to have their pictures taken with him and his wife. One of my friends was in the queue and I jokingly asserted she was being a creature worshiper. She laughed. We both knew I didn't mean it. And we both knew that in practice, how else could this be done? There is no other way. They ARE prominent whether they strive to be so or not. They are no longer anonymous to the majority like they used to be. The question is, is this necessarily wrong? Not if you keep in mind the scripture you quoted. If everyone keeps that scripture in mind then there should be no problem at all.

I understand what you are saying. However, in practice what does that mean? What is it ultimately that will decide whether we will be granted entry into the paradise? Or conversely, what is it that would make us not qualify? When we really get down to the grass roots, answer those questions, isolate only what is really relevant, then we can get a clearer picture of what really matters with regard to what the GB/Slave is doing or not doing. My thoughts