Why Remain a Witness when Bad Things Happen?

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Janice Wright, a forty-year resident of Houston, said this 21 foot crocodile is nearly missed her grandson as he was swimming away from the beast.

Are you even in the right thread? A person is not a JW just because they have the same initials as Janice Wright.

Besides -- (This one took exactly 30 seconds.) -- "there's a time and a place" and in this instance you got them both wrong.

• These photographs actually show a crocodile that was shot and killed on  6 July  2003 at Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo. According to an article in allafrica.com, the reptile was a Nile crocodile whose vital statistics fell a bit short of the claims made above: he was estimated to be  50 years  old, about  16 feet  in length, and about  1,900 lbs.  (not quite the 80-year-old,  21-foot,   4,500-pound  monster described in  e-mail).  The local mayor reportedly insisted on preserving the crocodileÂ’s carcass against the efforts of locals who wanted to eat it and arranged for it to be shipped to a taxidermist.

[JW Insider]

On 8/31/2017 at 4:50 PM, Alessandro Corona said:

I left 3 days ago. Even though I still have faith in Jehovah and Christ, Jesus. But there are some doctrinal errors which are too great to ignore, and because of it I have been treated like a criminal by the brothers. 

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I'm interested in a few things. I take it you are leaving for the doctrinal reasons, and not because of how you have been treated. Do you have family among the Witnesses, any close friends still in the congregation? Are there nearby congregations meeting in the same hall or one nearby? Is it your intent to explain all of your doctrinal reasons to persons within the congregation? Have you already told the elders how you feel about "some" doctrinal errors. I mention that last one because I think you'll find that if you weigh the pros and cons you could still find more pros. I hope you will at least be willing to discuss some more of your concerns here, and directly with persons at Bethel. They will take a phone call on any subject, and although they will want to inform your local elders you can ask that they do not if you are not comfortable. Ask to speak directly with one of the GB Helpers whom you think might be receptive to a discussion. If you want to message me, I can give a couple of suggestions.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

JWI:

It was  OF COURSE so entirely and completely absurd that it should have screamed satire!

I thought it was a topical piece of humor that would provide a little comic relief to an otherwise beat to death topic.

Alas... now I have to "let go", my last comedy writer ... the other 16 disappeared mysteriously.

 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

9 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

Questions you might ask: Where else would I go? Am I prepared to do the things the other religions do? (Go to war? Believe in hell? Celebrate pagan holidays? Support political systems under Satans control? Be part of an organization that is divided politically, racially, ethnically? Would I deliberately hide Gods name in a Bible? Would I believe Jesus and Jehovah are co-equal as part of a Trinity?

Oh! I don't think Alessandro Corona reason to depart was for the uncommon traits "witnesses" are known for, but rather the common traits perceived by even our own skeptics, are known for. Doctoral errors constantly pushed by JWI, JTR, O'Maly, and their supporters that have caused many to "stumble" here, since people have a tendency of believing in their hearts, that what they read is the truth, from characteristics of people that never really understood scripture, to really make an honest assessment of what the Watchtower is really about. Pretenders, that are "bent" on setting their own biblical standards, rather than rely on GOD to guide them. An ancient fallacy that is still harbored today.

So, you would be correct to ask someone to remain, if only, to really "learn" Scripture the correct way, that, Jesus envisioned for people to understand, his father's words, that verbal knowledge wasn't accepted by God's ancient chosen people.

Even though TTH might be symbiotic, his semantics remain the same!!!!

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Do you have family among the Witnesses, any close friends still in the congregation?

"By sheer accident one fine blogging day I came across Brian, a Witness youngster who’d decided that the home team was wrong and that the atheists were right. The atheists! So he figured he’d better tell the Watchtower off. He had his letter of disassociation posted right there on the internet, building up courage to submit it to the elders. The letter contained six “blatant Watchtower errors.” He was worried about the consequences but brave enough to face them. Atheists were in the background egging him on:

"‘You could be with us! Forget the fountain of youth; we have the fountain of death! Fifty good years, and then you’re gone! No God to suck up to! No elders telling you what to do! You can be free!!!!!!!!!!’

"But it wasn’t the atheists who would face the consequences of Brian telling the brothers to take a hike. “What is that to us? - you must see to it!” the chief priests told Judas before he hanged himself. Formal disassociation would mean that few, if any, Witnesses would speak to him afterwards. Would the atheists be there for support? Or would they let him twist in the wind? Brian was not sure exactly how matters would unfold.

"So I told him. And I suggested how to better submit his letter. Shorten it. Delete five points. If any one of them is enough to justify jumping ship, why include them all? That’s just the atheists stoking the fire. Offer just one point, and then you have the option of discussing more at any subsequent meeting; you haven’t locked yourself in that way. ‘Look, it’s not a good decision, but if you’re going to do it, you might as well do it right.’ Furthermore, I challenged two of the points. Not vigorously, not condescendingly - indeed, the specific facts were not incorrect, they were just skewed in a peculiar atheist light. ‘Here’s another light in which you might see them,’ I wrote.

"Next thing you know, Brian has hit the books, uncovered the atheist ruse, torn up his letter, and deleted his blog, leaving the atheists shaking with rage! Trust me, I had no idea such a thing was going to happen. I was even a little sorry about it; I’d looked forward to commenting a few times on his site. They’re slippery, those atheists are, ignoring 2nd Peter 2 and the ‘Enemies’ campaign, masquerading as saviors of the human race. I don’t like them, and they don’t like me. One of them said online that I reminded him “of the ‘too clever’ Witnesses that were in love with themselves.” How did he know?"

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

JWI:

It was  OF COURSE so entirely and completely absurd that it should have screamed satire!

I thought it was a topical piece of humor that would provide a little comic relief to an otherwise beat to death topic.

Alas... now I have to "let go", my last comedy writer ... the other 16 disappeared mysteriously.

I hadn't seen this one before, but I figured it was satire, or at least fake news, before I finished the first sentence. (Actually I scrolled upward to get to this post and had already seen the all-important info under "Breaking News" strategically cut off in a story that begs for validation.) Then the opening line, "in one Houston neighborhood," is another give-away, as in the more Onion-esque "area man."

My comment was just an excuse to "play" on the words "there is a time and place for everything." "Tuesday" and "one [area] neighborhood" don't really count as "time and place" for a real newspaper-styled story. And, of course, the primary "play" on the words is the reference to Ecclesiastes 3, and the fact that Alessandro had just said he left 3 days ago. The fact that this was the first response coming immediately after Alessandro's was about as unexpected as hearing a comedy message recorded by Robin Williams when one calls up a suicide hotline.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Oh! I don't think Alessandro Corona reason to depart was for the uncommon traits "witnesses" are known for, but rather the common traits perceived by even our own skeptics, are known for. Doctoral errors constantly pushed by JWI, JTR, O'Maly, and their supporters that have caused many to "stumble" here, since people have a tendency of believing in their hearts, that what they read is the truth, from characteristics of people that never really understood scripture, to really make an honest assessment of what the Watchtower is really about.

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.

I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.

What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.

I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 

So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

[TrueTomHarley]

I'll add a few other points to 'Why Remain a Witness when Bad things happen?' - all gleaned from this week's meeting. These verses all came up for comment.

'For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field under cultivation, God's building' - 1 Corinthians 3:9

it's nice to be in a field and to feel yourself cultivated for the better. Outside of the Christian congregation, you are on your own. There is little to help you become a better person and much to impede you. Some aspects train the mind but almost never the heart, and training of the mind is a mixed blessing unaccompanied by a trained heart: "Sam Harris gave yet another TED talk in which he asked: “Can We Build AI Without Losing Control Over It?” The answer is no; you’ll screw it up like you screw up everything, like you drove Albert Einstein to say 'if I had known, I would have become a locksmith.'"

In God's organization, all you have to do is go with the flow and you will be automatically improved. If you step on the gas, all the better. Of course, you must avoid the piss pots of 2 Timothy 2:20.

I like, too, how the priests of Ezekiel 44:23 will instruct the people about 'the difference between what is clean and what is unclean.' People don't know. We live in a time where what is good is said to be bad and vice versa. The young have been sold down the river by the old, who have swooned over every means of the trickery of men and every wind of a faddish teaching. Their 'students' reap what they have unwittingly sown and suffer for it, yet, stuck with only the moral compass of this system of things, never know why. The Governing Body sees to it that the Bible's teachings are undiluted and its beneficial doctrine preserved at the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, the meeting did not go without a hitch. The Largatherins made a fuss, insisting on their own teachings as they always do. Harvey and Irma Largatherin are - let us not mince words here - blowhards, pure and simple.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

I assume, the reference is to how, people “dogmatically” push their own “doctrine” of scripture on others to think, just because they are unwilling to explain a doctrine that cannot be, conceivably defended by them or anyone unwilling to view the logistics the correct way, doesn’t mean it has NO defense.

As for the younger generation of witnesses that enter into a perception of faith, only to be throttled by “bias” teachings are a good example for causing someone to stumble. The difference is, No one here is willing to see the person in the mirror to object to such callousness.

Now, the use of Russell, and Rutherford to benefit the argument, when most of the time, their core doctrine was rarely understood, especially by people with no scriptural understanding. How about a reality check, of not clumping together Bible Student ideology with Witness ideology? Then, perhaps, the understanding of “revision” made by Christ to the Jewish laws can be understood, as it is done, in modern times.

As for it being a requirement of acceptance of “all” core doctrines are based on scripture with a complete understanding of prophecy. No different than in ancient times. If that is the case, people here, are unwilling to submit to understanding GOD’S law and have gone rogue with their own understanding.

Then, the next generation of witnesses should reframe themselves from such association as not to have their faith tainted by “false” teachings of scripture.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, perhaps, the understanding of “revision” made by Christ to the Jewish laws can be understood, as it is done, in modern times.

The 'higher critics' who assume scriptures are human writings until proven otherwise say the same about Paul revising Jesus's teachings. They have him essentially founding another religion. I wonder how that factors in with those who carry on about Rutherford succeeding Russell, or Knorr succeeding Rutherford.

On the other hand, regarding someone on a much lesser level who caused considerable unnecessary chaos in the family, when a C.O. tried to soften it as Jehovah sending just the right personality at just the right time, I said 'Look. I know the line. I'm perfectly willing to spin it and even view things that way - God works with people. But I also want to call a spade a spade. The man is an unbalanced nut.'

Later when my daughter asked the C.O. about his conversation with her dad, the latter replied: "He was ... frank."

[TrueTomHarley]

I also like, somewhere in the meeting last night, the synopsis of God's dealing with Israel:

'I let my people get beat up because they were too bad for too long. But then the nations said: 'Look! God can't protect his own people!' So I beat them up too. And I brought my own people back just to show them.'

It's no more complicated than that with the great God of all creation? No. It's not. Sometimes we overthink things.

Though his wisdom surpasses all understanding and we can see only the fringe of his outer garment, when he chooses to relate to humans, he is breathtaking in his mundane common sense. He's not ashamed of it. He glorifies it.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I assume, the reference is to how, people “dogmatically” push their own “doctrine” of scripture on others to think, just because they are unwilling to explain a doctrine that cannot be, conceivably defended by them or anyone unwilling to view the logistics the correct way, doesn’t mean it has NO defense.

It has been typical of AllenSmith, J.R.Ewing, Gnosis Pithos, etc., to rely on a kind of "word salad" or various other types of "plays on words" and twisted and incorrect meaning of words. The problem is that while you probably think that it defends a particular Watchtower tradition, it ends up highlighting the weakness of that same tradition. For example, if the word "people" in the above statement of yours refers to people in the Writing Department at Bethel, then it makes more sense. 

This isn't exactly on topic, but in a way it really is. Consider: 

One of the bad things that can happen to a baptized Witness is that she is reading the Bible, runs across a passage that raises a question, then she studies the Watchtower's answer to that question, and her study reveals one of the contradictions or weaknesses of the traditional explanation or a recent update to that explanation. So she goes to the elders where her question reveals doubts, and because it is a question that the elders are unable to answer, she immediately comes under suspicion of having been influenced by apostates. But because her question is not solidly answered, then the same thing might happen again with a second difficult question, so that a pattern has now emerged and some elders might take this as evidence that she is now most definitely under the influence of apostasy, so they must shift the subject to a question of loyalty and obedience. In her frustration at having the topic changed from answering her question to a question of loyalty, her frustrated demeanor is seen as rebellion and an unwillingness to put herself under the authority of the elders or the Governing Body. She may not be disfellowshipped for this, as she might surely have been between 1979 and 1986, but the perceived haughtiness of the elders' response pushes her away from the congregation and she begins to draw away from close association. Her joy is gone and she now finds it physically and mentally depressing to go to the meetings.

You may not have run across such a case, but I did. It was a sister who moved into our congregation in the 1990's, who attended for a while and then disappeared. When my wife spoke with her, this was her exact explanation for why she had moved into our congregation. She had hoped that the attitude she saw displayed was going to be different, but she saw the same kind of haughtiness among some elders and couldn't "shake" the feeling that it would just happen again.