When a teaching changes after baptism.....

[LloydSt]

Holly said:"I think you can see that even though the men on the governing body say they don't claim to be infallible, what they determine to be a Bible teaching must be accepted just as though they do claim to be infallible."

Another swing and a miss. 

Your conclusion that the reason Bible teachings are agreed upon as they are revealed is NOT because the governing body wants to be accepted as "infallible".

But I'm gonna give you a little hint.  What does 1 Cor. 1:10 say?

 

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

>" to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality. "

Again with the black and white thinking Holly?

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  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

Again, please try and grasp the similar scientific concept wherein there are many things that are established, such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes Principle that will never change, at least for the normal environment in which we now live.  But the fact that there are many things that are established and that will never change, does not mean that in other more nuanced investigations, new things might be learned in time.  

You did hit the target however when you said this, "you've agreed by your dedication and baptism [that I wish to be identified] as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using."

Quite true.

If your belief changed to what you think is the truth, what you changed it from wasn't the truth.  I mean, you don't believe you're changing what is true, do you?  For instance, for many years you believed the truth was that the identity of the faithful slave was the 144,000.  You don't believe that's the truth any more, you believe the truth is that the governing body is the faithful slave.  That means what you used to believe is no longer the truth, even though you called it the truth when you believed it.

If the men on the WTS governing body received new light about the Trinity teaching, I'm sure they would approach this new teaching in bits that you would be able to accept and believe are based on the Bible, just as all the other changes that you have already accepted.  After all, they already say if you read the Bible alone without reading anything else, you'll end up believing in the Trinity.  That might be a way for them to receive new light about the Trinity, by reading the Bible alone or in groups.

Being identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the WTS, you've accepted at your baptism that you will change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them. 

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

My family found the truth in 1957, I the oldest child was baptized in 67, the date of 75, was never taught to us as nothing more than the end of 6000 yrs. of human existence on earth. We were never looking forward to Armageddon. My father bought a home for my mother and siblings, I went off to college. Just as I had planned. He became an elder in the congregation, which he stayed u til his death. Yes, this organization changes. It is imperfect. Each one that has been used by Jehovah in scripture has done no better. Why is this one set on such a high pedestal of standard? To be part of the Jewish organization there were regulations that would identify one was following after this nations standard of worship. The same is with us as Witnesses. Using the Bible, we do not tolerate what is normal in the mainstream as life choices. And ones who act and think are so removed.

 We we do good to follow after this way, even if we do not understand. Did not Peter do so? The way of everlasting life is here, not anywhere else. Life was onboard the arc, even if the person did not like Noah, he could have been save just by being onboard the ark. That is what we tell people today. Read your Bible for yourself, learn and come be among people of like faith and understanding. All the stumbling that happened in the past, is painful. But it harms that person and any who listens. Jehovah saw all what happened. Any wrongs will be made right. Any who died, will be raised. That is the beauty of this. We forget to see it fro Jehovah's viewpoint, which is what he is telling us to do. We are fighting, arguing among ourselves with all these posts, but in the end Jehovah as all the answers. If Sodom will come back, be there to see. Those you thought done wrong by this organization, be there to see Jehovah happily give them life again. That is what scripture tells us. Be there to see all the promises Jehovah holds out. Love we should have, not this arguing, the hate. That will not be there and any who foster such feelings will neither. Agape, my friends.

John, when you say you found the truth......what is that?  Did you find the one who is the Truth, Christ Jesus?  Or are you saying you found a religious organization whose teachings you agreed with at the time, even though many of the things being taught as truth are no longer considered to be the truth?

If your family was taught only that 1975 marked the end of 6000 years of human existence on the earth and nothing more than that, you could not have been very zealous for what the WTS was printing and saying.  Children were told they would not finish school before Armageddon came, JWs were praised for selling their properties in order to pioneer until the end came in 1975.  Even the governing body admitted their own culpability in raising JW hopes for the end to come in 1975, saying the date had been based on false premises. 

[HollyW]

47 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Holly said:"I think you can see that even though the men on the governing body say they don't claim to be infallible, what they determine to be a Bible teaching must be accepted just as though they do claim to be infallible."

Another swing and a miss. 

Your conclusion that the reason Bible teachings are agreed upon as they are revealed is NOT because the governing body wants to be accepted as "infallible".

But I'm gonna give you a little hint.  What does 1 Cor. 1:10 say?

 

If the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible, what would that change for you?

As you posted earlier, 1 Cor. 1:10 was Paul admonishing the Christians in Corinth to be in agreement and not be looking to a person nor promoting one person over another, even if that person were himself or one of the apostles.  It's a call for Christian unity, not a call for uniform acceptance of teachings that keep changing.

Don't you count on those in other churches to ignore this very scripture and change their beliefs to yours?

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

This tells me that you are following MEN and not God. 

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

[Shiwiii]

3 minutes ago, HollyW said:

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

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

[io.porog]

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.

So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?

 

[HollyW]

3 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

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

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said:

Quote

Lloyd, I believe you've presented exactly what baptism as a JW means, "to wait on the organization Jehovah is using", and that means you've agreed, by your dedication and baptism identifying you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using, to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality.

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

[Shiwiii]

3 minutes ago, HollyW said:

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said:

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

gotcha

[LloydSt]

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  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."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

2. Shwiii wrote: "So you would accept that the org is right even though you know that they are not. That is called Cognitive dissonance. 

"

Again an attempt to put words in my mouth, a common tactic called a "straw man" argument where one takes issue with something that is easy to contend with, but which is quite different from the original discussion. 

But the answer is that if I thought I might have happened onto something that seemed more correct than what we had thought, I hopefully would just keep my big mouth shut and wait on Jehovah.  How would I really know that I was correct about a matter anyway?

3. "Who according to the Bible is to teach us all things? Who is to be called "teacher"? Who directs us? The answer to all of these is most definitely not an organization."

So is it you?  You're the one that has presumed to know more than the organization right?  Further, who did Jesus tell, 3 times, to feed my little sheep?  Who made the decision about circumcision that was distributed to the congregations?

  As I have already said, it is a group effort and by definition that involves organization.  They try their best to understand the Great Teacher and what is said in the scriptures and to use that understanding to build up those who want to be Jehovah's servants.  Try to grasp that.

4. Shiwiii said, "So your hope is in the elders to tell you what to do and what not to do. This is not the "main plot" or theme of the Bible."

Again, I never said that.  Just another straw man argument that Shiwiii relies on quite heavily. 

What I hoped that the elders would do in a case where I broke from the unity of Jehovah's people is to point out that I was embarking, like Eve did, on a course of independence.  And yes, choosing independence, as Eve did, over submission to Jehovah IS the main plot! 

5. Shiwiii wrote: >Lloyd: "I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead."  Shiwiii: "No one said anything about feeling superior to others or tooting your own horn."

Dude, YOU asked me, and I quote, "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?" (caps mine)

See the words, "What would that say to YOU?"  You are asking me to come at this as if I was the one with the problem, not you.  And if I was embracing beliefs that would break unity with Jehovah's people, i would feel like I was being superior and tooting my own horn, at least in my mind.

6. Shiwiii said: "This is the thinking that has been ingrained in followers to not think for themselves, or else they are being proud or boosting their own ego. This keeps people toeing the company line and turning in those who think differently.'

Wow. You really have no idea how Jehovah's people think, do you?  Dude, we've studied, sometimes for years and pondered deeply over just exactly what we are doing, thinking for ourselves, and coming to the conclusion that this is the way.  What you call "toeing the company line" is in reality a purposeful decision to remain loyal to an organization that obeys Jesus command to preach and teach the good news worldwide and has done so in over more than 700 languages with more to come, in some cases risking imprisonment or even death, and in almost all cases being made fun of, or how did Paul put it?  Ah yes, "we have become as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things."

You think that's fun?  But we endure because we choose Jehovah's side, and not the independent side.  We try to be patient, show a waiting attitude, and don't push ahead.  Yeah, we know lots of people have lots of different ideas, but we know from intense study that what we have been taught, coming from an organization that is actually doing what Jesus said to do before the end comes, is generally vastly superior to anything else.  So we don't take issue.  Instead, having received this vastly superior knowledge, we try and show gratitude and deep appreciation.  If one receives a beautiful work of art, is it wiser to condemn that art because there is a minor flaw somewhere, or would it be wiser to express gratitude that you even were able to own such a masterpiece?

Fact is, you know the drill, and it seems that you have made your choice.  But you have precious little time to become humble, and pray that Jehovah allow you to return.  Everyone would think most highly of you if you did so.  But I'm gonna guess that you will remain stubborn, remain independent, and continue to choose Eve's way.  Big mistake.  Big.

 

 

[LloydSt]

Kudos to Holly for explaining what she did to Shiwiii about misinterpreting my "trinity" comment!  Thanks kiddo!

[HollyW]

16 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  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."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

 

Hi Lloyd,

I think the point Shiwii is making is that you would accept the Trinity doctrine, or any other doctrine you were told to accept, in order to, as you've said, not break unity with the other members of the WTS.  This would be looking to men and not to God.