Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?

[JW Insider]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:13 AM, AllenSmith said:

But, everything the Watchtower is about come “directly” from scripture.

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.

On 8/7/2017 at 9:13 AM, AllenSmith said:

Once again, by whose power and authority do you question the anointed ones. If you're questioning them, then you need to question yourselves, first.

Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?

(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .

(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .

(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .

(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.

 

[Anna]

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

It has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind.

I find this remark to be quite curious, especially about being right. If we are not right about one thing we might be wrong about another one too, and that's fine. Surely what is important though is that we be  be RIGHT in areas where it matters.

I noticed JWI reply to this, saying he hopes someone didn't misunderstand this....it looks like I am misunderstanding it?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

It has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind.  I honestly believe that we must have Jehovah's spirit to stay connected with Him and stay in the truth.

That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands.

@Annasince you asked about this: In the context of what @Arauna had said I was referring to the relative importance of being smart, scholarly or even RIGHT. We don't need to get all up in arms or push ahead. Knowledge is not the most important thing for Christians, as we both acknowledged.

At the time, I was thinking of this Scripture, where the context ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VERSE makes it appear that humility is the factor that keeps us from stumbling others, and that humility is the factor that keeps us from creating divisions among sincere persons who want to do what is right. Even if they have a zeal for God but not according to accurate knowledge.

(Mark 9:33-42) 33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” 36 Then he took a young child and stood him in their midst; and putting his arms around him, he said to them: 37 “Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me receives not me only but also Him who sent me.” 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.

(Luke 9:46-50) 46 Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, 48 and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.” 49 In response John said: “Instructor, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him: “Do not try to prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth. 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth. 

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ "

I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ "

I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine.

Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity?

Instead, you essentially 'sit' on your opinion. Maybe the theocratic organization will come around to it someday. Maybe they will even in some way notice your expertise and seek you out on that account. At any rate, the responsibility is theirs, not yours.

It's a little dicey putting such opinion out there publicly because countless persons latch on whose only goal is to thwart Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for. Really - do you think the ones hostile would all be placated if the WBTS came around to a new opinion on just this one point? 

Still, as has been pointed out, not everyone with a different view of chronology has ill intent toward Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe there is something to be said for the fact that we, too, acknowledge different views exist and they are not categorically wrong just because we did not say it first.

None of this is to be harsh to JWI. He is smart regarding these matters of chronology and I am not. It is easy for me to say 'zip it' because I don't know anything. I don't think he is writing here to gain disciples for himself, as some have accused. I think, rather, that he does not want to see theocratic interests take it on the chin because of a wrong understanding. One can hardly say that the organization has never been wrong before. He is just exploring ideas and I like that. But I am not sure it does not stir up more dissension than it is worth, which is not good. Ultimately, publishing doctrinal light is the responsibility of someone else.

I haven't figured this out yet. I probably will not succeed in doing so.

 

 

 

[Noble Berean]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ "

I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

Hi Anna. I too was concerned by this quote in a recent WT. It really jumped out at me. What authority does the GB have to claim definitive interpretation of scripture? Especially after they've established that they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred in the past. The GB can't have its cake and eat it too.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

I too was concerned by this quote in a recent WT. It really jumped out at me. What authority does the GB have to claim definitive interpretation of scripture? Especially after they've established that they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred in the past. The GB can't have its cake and eat it too.

The authority that is given, by God himself to commission those that can take the lead to shepherd spiritually, the flock,

Was God “wrong” to appoint Jesus? Was Jesus wrong to appoint the apostles? Was Jesus wrong to recruit extra help?

Luke 10:1-23New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two^[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. ² He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. ³ Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. ⁴ Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

Aside from Jesus among these men, who do you believe was perfect, as your statement reflects “they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred” that isn’t fallible, IMPERFECT, and can't err?

Mark 8:31-34New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Predicts His Death

³¹ He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. ³² He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

³³ But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

 

Did “Peter” not ERR in rebuking Jesus? Was Peter made “perfect” by his appointment? So, your assumption is baseless and insulting. As it has been stipulated, by whose authority do you perceive to judge God’s commissioned ones, by questioning their spiritual authority given “directly” from God?

[bruceq]

On 8/8/2017 at 0:30 AM, Noble Berean said:

Hi Anna. I too was concerned by this quote in a recent WT. It really jumped out at me. What authority does the GB have to claim definitive interpretation of scripture? Especially after they've established that they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred in the past. The GB can't have its cake and eat it too.

   According to that line of reasoning no one on earth has authority to interpret Scripture since all are sinners. So if everyone is wrong what is the point of being in any religion at all. I believe that Jesus is the head of the Congregation and he has the authority and has given the authority to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to interpret things like the meaning of 1914 or things related to chronology, Gentile Times or anything else. Jehovah has not given interpretational authority to bloggers on the Internet anymore than He would to Korah and his 250 rebels against the interpretational authority of Moses to speak for God.

   Jehovah has always led his people with imperfect people. Moses was about to lead the Israelites OUT of Egypt yet he "turned around" and went back in the opposite direction! The Egyptians thought they were "wandering in confusion" and even some of God's people said "What have YOU done to us by leading us out of Egypt? - That was said to who? Moses an 80 year old man with probably poor eyesight. {Ex. 14:11}. Some did not realize the big picture here. That Jehovah was the one leading the Congregation and if he wants us to do or believe in something "wrong" then is it not up to Him. Perhaps you do not have all the facts. such as the fact that Jehovah was setting a trap. Or the fact that Christendom's teachings and interpretations such as  chronology could be in error.

   So of course we do not have all the facts about 1914 or God's Name in the NT or any number of other teachings but sometimes Jehovah has reasons for what He does and no "scholar" will be able to figure that out with any kind of "chronology" Was it right or wrong for Moses to go in the "opposite" direction? We must be humble enough to realize that Jesus has been appointed head of the Congregation and He will direct it in any way He wishes and therefore we are to "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you and be submissive." Heb 13:17. 

 

 Some on this blog may think they should have "personal Christian freedom of interpretation" such as Christendom has. "Is it ONLY by Moses that Jehovah has spoken? Has he not also spoken through us? But remember when you say such things "Jehovah was listening" Num 12:1,2. And even Korah said the same idea: "We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, ALL of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah? Num 16:1-3. And  why did Aaron get a free pass when he got it wrong several times ? Seems like a double-standard if they didn't have consequences for teaching incorrect ideas to millions of others. But who are we to question Jehovah's way of running HIS Congregation back then OR today.

 Do You Appreciate Jehovahs Representatives.mp3

   God's people once believed the "superior authorities" were the human Governments but then in 1929 "changed" to Jehovah and Jesus! It was the "opposite direction" Was that wrong? The brothers had no idea a war was coming ten years later and this changed teaching protected them and enabled them to win dozens of Supreme Court victories...and then changed back and improved to relative subjection to human Governments. Did the head of the Congregation Jesus have a reason for those changes in doctrine?  Who are we to question His authority to change anything? Could changes be for something we do not understand or something in the future we cannot possibly see yet? If something "doesn't make any sense" then there is probably a reason for that.  LOYALTY  is sticking to someone out of love even if we do not have all the answers and even if they are imperfect.

 Jehovah is With His People.mp3

This talk will bring shivers up your spine! {1914 Meps...Supreme Court....} Jehovah really is in control!

[ComfortMyPeople]

3 hours ago, bruceq said:

   God's people once believed the "superior authorities" were the human Governments but then in 1929 "changed" to Jehovah and Jesus! It was the "opposite direction" Was that wrong? The brothers had no idea a war was coming ten years later and this changed teaching protected them and enabled them to win dozens of Supreme Court victories...and then changed back and improved to relative subjection to human Governments. Did the head of the Congregation Jesus have a reason for those changes in doctrine?  Who are we to question His authority to change anything? Could changes be for something we do not understand or something in the future we cannot possibly see yet? If something "doesn't make any sense" then there is probably a reason for that.  LOYALTY  is sticking to someone out of love even if we do not have all the answers and even if they are imperfect.

 

Years ago, when reflecting about this same fact, I came to the same conclusion: Jehovah propitiated, tolerated in some way that His people was taught with a false, or incorrect idea, in order to a higher benefit:  strengthen the resolution of witnesses during IIWW in order to face the cruel persecution.

But, some questions arise:

• ·        Did the Christians of the first century need to think incorrectly about Romans 13 in order to resist the persecution of Nero?
• ·        When our point of view was finally rectified (I believe in 1963 or close) did the brethren under the steel curtain begin to be less faithful then?

The answer is obvious. Isn’t it?

I fully agree with you regarding Moses, Israelites, loyalty and faith. So, perhaps you’re  annoying, to some extent, with thoughts openly exposed here by @JW Insider or myself, in the sense that certain teachings or explanations of the "slave class" are incorrect.

• ·        In the first place, is it necessary to be faithful to accept all the explanations provided by the slave?
• ·        Can I be faithful if, although I am not convinced of certain explanations, I try not to disturb others and I go ahead?

Let me explain what I’m trying to do with this kind of situations.

In the recent regional convention, in the last talk, was mentioned the end is imminent (well, the Spanish expression was “inminente”, I suppose in English was used another equivalent). Now, not that I do not believe that the end is imminent, is that I do not know. My base: our Master declaration: “…at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.”

I’ve watched the danger of these kind of imprudent (in my view) declaration many times, during many years (1914, 1925, 1975, 1994 end of generation, now overlapped generation). Brothers disappointed, at some degree bitter. The clear majority of Jehovah’s servants don’t need a false sense of immediacy. We give Him the most day by day. The end will come at his own due time. Concerning this, one question:

• ·        Is it more loyal if you strive because you believe that the end is imminent?
• ·        What happens to those who do not know when the end comes, and despite this we give Jehovah one hundred percent?
• ·        Are we therefore less loyal?

Do you know, in my zone, the most repeated expression after the convention? “the end is imminent, the slave said this”. My answer: “oh yes, when I was a child also believed the end was imminent, in 1975. Sometimes our wishes are so strong that make this kind of statements”.

Oh, I wish go further, but for several weeks I’ll be busy

 

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

  I think that very few people work on the teaching of Christ that we should lessen ourselves and be prepared to suffer for it as he did. Most Witnesses need to work on this. 

Absolutely. I have been lately communicating with an oaf who regularly launches vicious attacks at the Governing Body. He tipped his hand recently (IMO) to reveal his core difficulty - he thinks it is all about us. In fact, it is about the vindication of God's purposes and the sanctification of his name. Occasionally we take it on the chin as we yield to these greater things as the focus.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

sometimes have to step back and be happy with being a no-body and not achieving anything of great significance!  ....all of us should investigate ourselves to see if that spark of putting ourselves in front and grudging others a place in the sun is still part of our personality.  

Having said that, I sometimes get discouraged that intellectual work is often misconstrued as  'showing off.' If I were an electrician, I would receive nothing but praise for developing that skill to the full. If I relished a certain electrically challenging project, no one would say I am being full of myself. Nobody would question my motive. Nobody would accuse me of attempting to stand out and achieve recognition to be admired by my peers. I will even concede that @Ann O'Malyhas a point in her carrying on about stifling talent - it is just that she takes a grain of truth and tries to bake it into a seven layer cake that I object to.

In my case, I write because I am not good at anything else. If someone should say - like @The Librarian -  'good writing!' of course I am pleased. But it is no different than a hands-on worker being commended for craftsmanship.

Jehovah's Witnesses are top-heavy with persons who work with their hands. Far from being a negative, this is added proof that Jehovah's Witnesses follow the pattern of first century Christianity. A carpenter is less likely to become too big for his pants than an educated statesman. Working class people came into the truth in droves back then - less so, the upper classes. It is exactly what one should expect. Nonetheless, it is not as though intellectual talent is a pejorative. Leave @JW Insider alone. Or at least, if you criticize him, as can arguably be done, do not do so in a way so as to imply that he is trying to outshine his brothers.

 

[Anna]

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine.

Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity?

Instead, you essentially 'sit' on your opinion. Maybe the theocratic organization will come around to it someday. Maybe they will even in some way notice your expertise and seek you out on that account. At any rate, the responsibility is theirs, not yours.

It's a little dicey putting such opinion out there publicly because countless persons latch on whose only goal is to thwart Jehovah's Witnesses and what they stand for. Really - do you think the ones hostile would all be placated if the WBTS came around to a new opinion on just this one point? 

Still, as has been pointed out, not everyone with a different view of chronology has ill intent toward Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe there is something to be said for the fact that we, too, acknowledge different views exist and they are not categorically wrong just because we did not say it first.

None of this is to be harsh to JWI. He is smart regarding these matters of chronology and I am not. It is easy for me to say 'zip it' because I don't know anything. I don't think he is writing here to gain disciples for himself, as some have accused. I think, rather, that he does not want to see theocratic interests take it on the chin because of a wrong understanding. One can hardly say that the organization has never been wrong before. He is just exploring ideas and I like that. But I am not sure it does not stir up more dissension than it is worth, which is not good. Ultimately, publishing doctrinal light is the responsibility of someone else.

I haven't figured this out yet. I probably will not succeed in doing so.

 

 

 

Thank you Tom. I like your thoughts on this, and you raise many valid points  (it's one of your few posts where you are actually being dead pan serious, not that I don't enjoy your tongue in cheek humour).

The reason I posted that question was because I am very aware that if one doesn't happen to be on the same wavelength, its easy to misunderstand what the other person is actually saying. I understood it to mean that "how dare we even try interpreting the Bible, if that is the exclusive privilege of the FDS". Judging by @Noble Berean's answer, it looks like he understood it similarly. Your interpretation sounds perfectly reasonable though. I like this point "I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine" it kind of puts it in a nutshell. Also this observation is very valid "Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity"? I know I'm not the only one who has noticed points ahead of when the GB has adjusted their view. (I mentioned this on here a little while ago referring to Babylonian captivity, in the spiritual sense). Some things may not be important enough to warrant starting a new religion over, but your point is perfectly apt!

I don't think JWI is trying to gain disciples for himself either, and as you mention in your following post it kind of sucks that in the minds of many people a carpenter who has expertise is never judged the same way as a writer or scholar who has expertise. This brings to mind an instance a few years ago, which actually involved you (yes, really, lol) when I was reading your stories in "Sheep and goats" and someone criticized it asking why on earth would anyone want to write about stuff like that and I replied that you were sharing your "creation" just like a composer won't forever just play his music for himself, but will want to share it with others. Jehovah created us to be this way.

P.S. Apologies to @JW Insiderfor causing a break in the thread. Maybe this should be posted as a new subject....

[Noble Berean]

13 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The authority that is given, by God himself to commission those that can take the lead to shepherd spiritually, the flock,

 

 

Was God “wrong” to appoint Jesus? Was Jesus wrong to appoint the apostles? Was Jesus wrong to recruit extra help?

 

 

Luke 10:1-23New International Version (NIV)

 

 

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

 

 

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two^[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. ² He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. ³ Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. ⁴ Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

 

 

Aside from Jesus among these men, who do you believe was perfect, as your statement reflects “they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred” that isn’t fallible, IMPERFECT, and can't err?

 

 

Mark 8:31-34New International Version (NIV)

 

 

Jesus Predicts His Death

 

 

³¹ He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. ³² He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

 

 

³³ But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

 

 

 

 

 

Did “Peter” not ERR in rebuking Jesus? Was Peter made “perfect” by his appointment? So, your assumption is baseless and insulting. As it has been stipulated, by whose authority do you perceive to judge God’s commissioned ones, by questioning their spiritual authority given “directly” from God?

 

 

Correct, Jehovah God has used imperfect men to take the lead, and I am not suggesting a Governing Body shouldn't exist or that we shouldn't strive to follow along with them. My concern is the lack of personal Christian freedom when it comes to Bible interpretation under threat of shunning.

What is more important to Jehovah God: organizational unity or personal Bible-based conscience?  It's a sticky situation to contemplate. Obviously, the organization puts much greater emphasis on unity, but does that always work out well?

For instance, let's say hypothetically after much Bible research I came to a differing view on a Watchtower doctrine. If my differing views were exposed, I would probably get disfellowshipped. However, what if that doctrine was later revised by the Governing Body and now agreed with my personal views? This has happened before. So, who is in the wrong in this situation? Should we just follow along with a direction even if it violates our own Bible-based conscience? What scriptural basis does the Governing Body have to be the special ones that are definitive interpreters of scripture?

And furthermore, why does the GB get a free pass when they get things wrong? Because there is a history of that. Since the standards are pretty strict on rank-and-file JWs, it would seem like a double-standard if they didn't have consequences for teaching incorrect ideas to millions of others. Wouldn't they as suppliers of spiritual food be held to a much higher standard than anyone else?