Our problem with the humility

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

JWInsider said his father used to laugh, but I remember a fairly heated discussion with my mother and my quoting the scripture at Matthew 24:36 to her. She agreed that the Bible said that, but went on to say that the Witnesses were right in 1914 (referring to the War and world change) and that they could be right again (about 1975 being the end). (I wonder how many Witnesses know that other Bible students arrived at that chronology leading to 1914 and not just the Bible students associated with Russell.)

It's true that my father laughed at the way Brother Toutjian's experience was "toned down" (in 1984 or so) but the discussion with the Gilead missionary (who was also an elder) was probably a lot more like the discussion you had with your mother. And although I wasn't there, I'm sure he didn't laugh when being disciplined by a District Overseer for adding a quick caveat about Matthew 24:36 to his talk. I think the talk was called "The Time Left is Reduced."

It was one of those talks where we mentioned the exact number of months left before 1975. I asked him about it and it wasn't just that he just quoted the scripture of course. He also made a comment against the idea that Matthew 24:36 means we can know the year, even though we don't know the day or the hour. A lot of people were saying this same thing: "It might say we don't know the day or the hour, but that doesn't mean we don't know the YEAR!!"

You said that a lot of people don't know that other Bible students arrived at chronology leading to 1914, but it's also interesting that the World Wide Church of God, which also had some roots in the 19th-century Adventist movements, was preaching 1975, too. I think that they first brought it up on the radio around 1955 and then Herbert W Armstrong published his book in 1956: "1975 in Prophecy."

At the time, the 1955 Watchtower was still using 1976 as the end of 6,000 years since Adam's creation. But just like Charles Taze Russell had already taught, we realized that we didn't know the time between Adam's and Eve's creation.

• *** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
• According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from Adam’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began.  Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do.

 

 

[Melinda Mills]

Yes, thanks for filling in all that interesting information.  I remember most of those points.  It is good to share these things to remind ourselves and others, especially the  new ones.

[Anna]

On 2/8/2017 at 5:03 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie",

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!!

6 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Glad you like them. A benefit of preaching over 50 years and being on the Theocratic Ministry School for the same period.

It must be wonderful to go in field service with you!

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Therefore what you're actually, saying? The Governing Body should apologize for “YOUR” lack of understanding. Humility should therefore, be applied to yourselves. Being “dogmatic” about this constant misrepresentation of WTS literature.

Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

[Anna]

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Because, what they admit to, is how you people got it wrong, and they needed to make that distinction. If you weren't there, then understand what the Watchtower Researcher is conveying. In legal terms, speculation is argumentative, your friend "JWinsider" has a son that's a lawyer if you don't understand it. Or you can ask your former friend that's online again "JTR". So it doesn't matter who likes or dislike comments here, it's about what's accepted as truth vs fiction. THE WATCHTOWER NEVER CLAIMED THE END OF THE WORLD WOULD HAPPEN IN 1975! I was there for, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975. "IF" that was stated as "FACT" then why didn't we "ALL" react to it. Because those of us that understood knew it was just another year. So instead of watching a false narrative from Chevy Chase on the boob tube, I was having Pizza with my regular friends. I attended many assemblies that year, and the reflection was in the 6000 years.

 Ok. Let me put it this way then. When a group of people allow certain opinions regarding themselves to flourish, regardless whether that group of people has actually promoted or instigated that opinion, then they must also accept certain responsibility if others misinterpret certain things.  Many, many JWs, especially the older generation, view the GB as “almost Jesus”. This is a fact. It’s evident from what they say. I have heard it and seen it in action. So then when the GB says something, or insinuates something, especially regarding the end, then people naturally get excited. Why should they get excited if it is clear that no one knows except Jehovah and Jesus?  Precisely! Because they believe the GB has information that no one else has, from Jehovah and Jesus. So if you are going to mention ANY date, then the friends will prick their ears and listen. The society got burned a few times over this in the past, so much so that one of the GB members who gave a talk a few years back in our circuit said from the platform “Brothers, we promise you, no more dates!”  (The talk was about the refined understanding regarding the identity of the toes of the image in Daniel’s prophesy).

Of course I agree with you that none of the friends should have reacted the way they did over 1975 and should have viewed it as merely an opinion.  We have all learned our lesson I think though, and this is why now the explanation of the “overlapping generation” is viewed by many as merely an opinion.....

[ComfortMyPeople]

20 hours ago, Anna said:

This is a fact. It’s evident from what they say. I have heard it and seen it in action. 

·       

Quote

“Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic).

 

I had precisely this exact fear. The same fear Elihu could have had when he replied to Job: (Job 33:12) “But you are not right in saying this.” The fear to be seen as an enemy, an opponent of the brothers leading the worldwide congregation, the GB (I’ve explain this before in this topic.)

Anna said this:

·       

Quote

In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them

 

Good point Anna. I trust in the GB (I think so). What I mean is that these are sincere brothers. Their errors aren’t deliberate, as if they were looking for some unspeakable selfish interests. By no means!

My ONLY point in this post is: I believe that, for several reasons, these brothers have behaved in a way which, APPARENTLY shows lack of humility.

First acknowledgment: Obviously, me, the person pointing this idea, I’m the perfect example of petulance and pride.

Second. If I am right, this attitude not only has caused, but STILL IS CAUSING problems and wounds to God’s people. You and I are witness of this.

Third. The situation presented as the above statement disturbs me, trouble me, disquiet me.

Four. My attitude, my approach I’ve already mention before {in this other topic from Anna}. I partly reproduce bellow:

• ·        Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation.  I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him!
• ·        Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey.

 

 

 

Do I still think the GB is spirit directed?

It depends of the meaning of the “GB is spirit directed.” Anna quote is completely real, sadly real:

·       

Quote

Many, many JWs, especially the older generation, view the GB as “almost Jesus”. This is a fact. It’s evident from what they say. I have heard it and seen it in action. So then when the GB says something, or insinuates something, especially regarding the end, then people naturally get excited. Why should they get excited if it is clear that no one knows except Jehovah and Jesus?  Precisely! Because they believe the GB has information that no one else has, from Jehovah and Jesus

.

This is a fact. I’ve heard, probably you also: “the GB has more information, but not reveals it because is not the time.” In fact, I use to say there are three states of communication: normal (you and me). Inspired (Bible writers) and spirit-directed (some kind of intermediate).

But, if that was the case, the brothers overseeing the teaching would not have taught about the pyramids, 1925, 1975, vaccines and many other things the way they have done.

Then, how do I think the GB and God’s people are being directed by God’s spirit?

In a way different from Bible times, because this special way would cease! (1 Cor.13:8) “But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with… if there is {miraculous} knowledge, it will be done away with.” So, in what way?

• ·        (Daniel 11:33) “And those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many”
• ·        (Daniel 12:9, 10) “Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. … but those having insight will understand”

We can perceive:

·        There will be a people of persons who would be taught.

·        Some, between this people, would be in charge of teaching.

·        The mechanism! The way! Getting insight, acquiring knowledge.

·        Without error? No! it’ll be necessary to be refined, to be cleaned.

And, where fits into the painting God’s spirit?

Because God bless the study, to the degree that we let Him influence us. I explain this. Let’s supposed that one truth entrenched for God’s people is 1914. So entrenched that we try by all means to fit the rest of the scriptures to this idea. Will God force us to change our mind? Never, according the scriptures. Remember Daniel: “refined…insight”, not “flashes.”

Thus, God’s spirit directs us if we abandon any predefined, entrenched, favorite, beloved believing. If we try “by hook or by crook” to accommodate the scriptures to our “doctrinal corpus”, how can God give us “insight” without miraculously forcing us to this change?

God’s spirit guides His people to the extend His people allow this. And it is perfectly possible this people, inadvertently don’t allow Him to intervene. One more proof in this biography of brother Willi Diehl:

·        *** w91 11/1 p. 29  *** In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers. We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view. It was simply a result of the misapplication of organizational guidelines

Did God’s spirit guide the brothers in Switzerland? Yes, at which extend? To the extent that they allowed His influence.

What are some, in my opinion, harmful teachings we are holding?

Before, because the previous statement I see is “too strong”. Did the I Century GB cause some damage? Let’s take the counsel given to Paul about going to the temple (Acts 21)

·        *** w00 6/15 p. 14 par. 10 Honor the Ones Given Authority Over You *** […] Paul could have reasoned: ‘Those brothers previously instructed me to leave Jerusalem when my life was threatened. Now they want me to demonstrate in public that I respect the Mosaic Law. I’ve already written a letter to the Galatians advising them to keep free from observing the Law. If I go to the temple, others may misunderstand my action, thinking that I am compromising with those of the circumcised class.’ However, Paul evidently did not reason that way. […] The immediate result was that Paul had to be rescued from a Jewish mob, and he subsequently spent two years in prison. In the long term, God’s will was done. Paul witnessed before high officials in Caesarea and then was taken at government expense to Rome to witness before Caesar himself.

I think it’s evident that the immediate outcome was negative. Note the expression in the article: “in the long term.” Did Jesus direct the GB to take this decision, because in this way Paul would give so fine testimony? Or, rather, was it a mistake the GB made but, instead, Christ took advantage of this, in other words, modify the outcome? Let the Bible answer us:

·        (James 1:13) “When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God … nor does he himself try anyone”

As it’s very hard for me to write in English, I am only going to enumerate these harmful (in my opinion) teachings. Grant me some time and reflection to explain later. Perhaps some of you wish to point out the order to start explaining.

·        Our dealings with disfellowshipped close relatives

·        Our view about sexual behavior between spouses

·        Our policy about child abuse.

I’m close-up witness about the pain our “tradition” has caused. Will God’s spirit help us to modify, if necessary these views? Yes! To the extent that we allow Him to remove our trenched ideas.

Final: before you consider I’m one of the camouflaged apostates over there. In spite of all my doubts, in spite of my disagreements, I OBEY.

[Melinda Mills]

Comfort, you have some excellent illustrations in here also. Like the one personifying a conscientious God-fearing soldier in the matter of King David's order to kill Nabal's household and the one about King David's order via Joab to murder Uriah.

I want to add my two cents to this: "However, Paul evidently did not reason that way. […] The immediate result was that Paul had to be rescued from a Jewish mob, and he subsequently spent two years in prison. In the long term, God’s will was done. Paul witnessed before high officials in Caesarea and then was taken at government expense to Rome to witness before Caesar himself." -- ComfortMyPeople

 

I remember in the ’70s a district overseer saying at a district assembly that God can bless mistakes. I never forgot this statement and I have also proven him to be right. He said sometimes we too much of these matters. And he brought the example of a group working a territory together. Somebody misunderstood the directions and ventured into a territory that was not allocated to be worked that day. However, the person not only enjoyed meeting an interested person but a Bible study ensued. So there was truth in that. Other cases were reported or experienced by many of us. God's hand is not cut short, and he can see our desire to obey him despite our imperfections. So he can maneuver things to bring blessings, nevertheless. That's why we can be more mild-tempered and overlook things and give the person the benefit of good motive, though imperfection was manifested.

 

I agree with you that faulty decisions are not from God, but it is his work and he only has imperfect humans down here now, so he can maneuver things to further his purpose, as in the case with Paul getting further opportunities to preach before kings. Nothing is impossible with Him.

"(Acts 9:15, 16) 15 But the Lord said to him: “Go! because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I will show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.”

 

I think this incident with Jesus' disciples fits in somewhere too.

People will not always do things our way but they can still be working with Jehovah and Jesus (“little ones who have faith”). So we don’t have to try to control them. We have to be peaceable, as nothing progresses without peace.

(Mark 9:38-42) 38 "John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea."

 

Compare Jesus’ attitude to that of humans. He is not threatened; he is confident and peaceful.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I think it’s evident that the immediate outcome was negative. Note the expression in the article: “in the long term.” Did Jesus direct the GB to take this decision, because in this way Paul would give so fine testimony? Or, rather, was it a mistake the GB made but, instead, Christ took advantage of this, in other words, modify the outcome? Let the Bible answer us:

·        (James 1:13) “When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God … nor does he himself try anyone”

This is an excellent point, and one we lose sight of now and then. I recall seeing a post over on jw-archive.org where someone insisted that it was a good thing that so many "little ones" stumbled over 1975. They were just being tested and found wanting. Therefore it was a good thing that there was so much talk about 1975 (or "the 1970's," or the final years of "this generation," or the preaching work that would be completed in the "20th century").

You brought up Brother Willi Diehl's experience from the 1991 Watchtower:

*** w91 11/1 p. 29 ‘Jehovah Is My God, in Whom I Will Trust’ ***
In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers.
We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view.

I don't know exactly what the Society's view was in 1949 in Switzerland, but one can still easily trace the where the idea came from. Full-time service (while married) was only available to pioneers (including missionaries) in 1949. If you got married you were showing that you were not serious about full-time service. This is why, in general, no one would get married at Bethel (and be allowed to stay) until Brother Knorr married Audrey Mock in 1953. (Audrey was actually engaged to Brother Richard Wheelock who would have been one of the first, if he had been allowed to stay at Bethel, but Brother Knorr made him break off the engagement, and then married her himself.) 

*** w04 7/1 p. 26 A Satisfying Life Despite Heartaches ***
Since the 1920’s, Bethelites who desired to marry had been required to leave Bethel and serve Kingdom interests elsewhere. But in the early 1950’s, a few couples who had served at Bethel for some time were allowed to marry and stay. So when Nathan H. Knorr, who at the time was taking the lead in the worldwide Kingdom work, showed an interest in me, I thought, ‘Now, here is someone who will stay!’

In the 1960's and 1970's it was still quite common in my Missouri congregation for the old-timers to quote the infamous old line that Rutherford had used in a talk at the St. Louis assembly, directed primarily to 15,000 children sitting together out on the grounds instead of in the regular arena seats. Here it is:

*** w41 9/15 p. 287 'Theocratic Assembly at St. Louis' ***
The "sheep" will inherit on earth the blessings of the Kingdom. . . . They shall be children of the King, and he will be their King-Father. . . .Then the divine mandate shall be carried out, to fill the earth with a righteous, perfect offspring, and this by marriage and childbearing. . . . "Why, then, should a man who has the prospect before him of being of the great multitude now tie himself up to a stack of bones and a hank of hair?" (Applause) . . . "Soon you will see Barak and Deborah (I got a picture of her in this book), and when you see her you will love her very much. She is a real woman, and will be able to give you girls proper advice, you girls who are looking for a husband. When you see Daniel, David, Moses and all the prophets, listen to what they have to say, and they will properly advise you boys and girls.

This was the attitude toward marriage among regular publishers. Imagine what it was like toward those chosen for full-time service! Over the previous 10 years, some awful things were being said about marriage and courtship and family relationships. "Having no natural affection" had become a kind of requirement if you wanted to show you were serious and spiritually mature. Dating and courtship was considered an "offense" to long-time Witnesses, although it began quickly changing among new ones being baptized. My own father wasn't even allowed to date until Knorr got married in 1953, and then he was immediately allowed to date for the first time, and my parents then married in January 31, 1954, exactly one year after Nathan and Audrey Knorr married on January 31, 1953. (And of course, if you did marry, you could not have children if you desired to ever go into the circuit work, as others in my family of that generation had done.)

A lot of this type of slightly warped thinking remained at Bethel for at least another decade. Note:

*** w61 12/15 p. 767 Questions From Readers ***
How can girls guard against temptation in this sex-crazy world?
When a girl reaches the age of puberty or physical maturity, her body has developed in the matter of sex more than in the mind. . . . However, the time will come when there will be great danger in such actions. Why? In answer to this question, we can learn about nature and sex from the bovine family of mammals, both wild and tame.
Large herds of cattle, both male and female, wander over the plains feeding. Ordinarily the male or bull would not think of approaching the female or cow for sex purposes. If he did approach he would not receive a hearty welcome, but, rather, he might be gored by the cow’s horns. There is no petting or sex relations between bull and cow permitted, because the female is not in physical condition to breed. The bull seems to understand this and keeps in his own place. However, when the female of the species is in condition to breed, she makes the matter known. If there is no male in the herd, she will go elsewhere looking for one and she is unsettled until she finds one and then is bred by him. Now she is contented, and the end result is a calf. In this connection it is interesting to note that the male animal has no season at which he is not willing to engage in the breeding act. If we humans would take a lesson from these creatures, we would learn something of importance in matters of sex, as to its purpose and the results of its operation.
As with a cow, when a young girl who has reached her puberty is in physical condition to conceive and become pregnant, her sex emotions are greatly aroused. . . . If the boy friend should become sexually aroused and lets her know it and then she yields her body to the advances of the amorous boy friend, she is likely to become pregnant as a result of just one sex experience of this kind.

It's just an opinion, but I think that the type of "divisions" we should be more worried about than doctrines in the congregation are these types of differences that lead to judging others. The brother (Diehl) who married was judged as if he was worthy of being disfellowshipped. When the Bible speaks of divisions in the congregation it's often about how we tend to judge others. (James chapter 2)

Also, I don't think that these things from the 1950's and 1960's are worth troubling ourselves over. At this point the experience might be almost humorous to us, although at the time it resulted in people sacrificing their opportunity to have children, or even a spouse. But no one held a gun to their head, and Christians have faith that Jehovah can make up for all physical losses. But it doesn't show love to trouble our brothers with unnecessary legalism like this. All we can do now, is to remember the experience so that we apply principles learned to any new decisions. There are definitely still people at Bethel, even now, who feel they are somehow more righteous and spiritually mature for having given up their opportunities for marriage and children. So we should always be on the watch for attitudes of self-righteousness and superiority. It's just one way in which we, as faithful servants, might start "beating" our fellow servants.

[ComfortMyPeople]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Also, I don't think that these things from the 1950's and 1960's are worth troubling ourselves over. At this point the experience might be almost humorous to us, although at the time it resulted in people sacrificing their opportunity to have children, or even a spouse. .

You always add very interesting historical background. By the way, any acknowledgment of error about this behavior in our publications? Or was it, as always, the brotherhood in general the responsible for this attitude? Remember the post's theme: humility

[Melinda Mills]

Shows an unbelievable lack of maturity and respect for human rights. We have come a long way.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

By the way, any acknowledgment of error about this behavior in our publications?

I don't recall one, but I could have missed it. Based on several other experiences I know about, I rather doubt this was ever acknowledged as an error. After all, it's based somewhat on scriptural phrases that were used a lot throughout the mid-1940's, and which saw a resurgence in the mid 1950's, when 'Armageddon talk' spiked for a few years, and then again pre-1975. The idea was based on ideas such as: 'woe to the woman suckling a child in those days' 'let those with wives be as though they had none' etc. Assembly experiences included more praise for single pioneers as 'those who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom.' Even discussions of Lot's wife were sometimes tied to marriage and childbearing as if it were one of the things this system offers us, but which was considered to NOT be a part of the theme of building up the nucleus of the "New World Society."

I believe this is something that tended to resolve itself with new ones coming in, and it has not been a serious problem, even in rhetoric, after 1953. I don't think anyone expected an apology or acknowledgment of error. 

[Anna]

7 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

My ONLY point in this post is: I believe that, for several reasons, these brothers have behaved in a way which, APPARENTLY shows lack of humility.

I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock  for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence.

There was a letter once from the GB to a publisher, which expressed those sentiments, and I have also heard it expressed elsewhere, that the GB cannot lose the trust and confidence of the bothers. So maybe this is the reason why it appears they are not humble, because with humility they might expose weaknesses which in turn could lead the brothers to view them with distrust. I personally do not believe that would actually be the case. On the contrary, I think it would lead to more respect.

Another aspect tied to humility I think is transparency. I would love to see more of that. But all in all I do think there has been a lot of improvement in these areas with the new set of GB.

[Anna]

9 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

·        Our dealings with disfellowshipped close relatives

·        Our view about sexual behavior between spouses

·        Our policy about child abuse.

The first one affects me personally and I have my own "theories" regarding this. Perhaps we can make this into a new subject.

The second subject I have heard a little bit about, but things already began to change when I got baptized, although some things regarding what's appropriate between a husband and wife still surfaced sometimes. But I have not been aware of anything in the past 15 or so years. I am glad. I never thought it was appropriate for the brothers to pry and get involved in dictating  what was a very private affair. I never really understood why they were so concerned about what practices go on behind closed doors of a married couple.....to me, it was none of anyone's business. Interpreting what was correct sexual behavior according to their interpretation of the scriptures was taking it too far, in my opinion anyway. What goes on in the bedroom should be based on scriptural principles, (just like everything else in life) and not on specific actions deemed right or wrong according to opinion.

The third point I have been following for some time as you have probably figured out. We actually had good policies but not perfect ones. Plus the trouble was that they didn't always get followed. It's a complicated subject and a lot of it has been distorted by the media and ex- witness victims who have a grudge against the society on the whole.  What is good is that our policies will keep on improving. It will be interesting to watch the new hearing in March https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/27353-australian-royal-commission-final-report-of-handlin-of-child-sexual-abuse/#comment-34899