Demonism and the Watchtower

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I'll leave someone else to determine the probability ratio.

I think we should let @TrueTomHarley have a go at that one, since he did such a good job with pinpointing the day of the End in Tomsheepandgoats.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think we should let @TrueTomHarley have a go at that one, since he did such a good job with pinpointing the day of the End in Tomsheepandgoats.

On what? Wait - no matter. My system is that good. The probability is 72.4962% give or take.

[Anna]

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The probability is 72.4962% give or take

Now this one, you just pulled out of a hat! You need to try a little harder, I know it's late...

[Anna]

 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

OK, even though it seems you might not quite have understood Bro Jackson's summary,

How do you understand Br. Jackson’s summary?

 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

and you didn't answer the "fallible" part.

I didn’t think it was relevant to the topic, but I can give an example of fallibility, again using what Br. Jackson said in the previous quote: “and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light"

 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

ow is your understanding in prayer driven spiritual enlightenment directly through God's Holy Spirit. Wouldn't God inspire those he has chosen through prayer instead by spiritism, or other means of communication God has the "power" to achieve what direction he would want those that have full trust and faith in him, that whichever avenue he chooses, can't be questioned?

I am not questioning that God has the “power” to use whichever avenue he chooses to communicate, even today.  I am saying that it is reasonable to conclude that the avenue he is using today is his inspired Word, because with it “the man of God is fully equipped”  and needs nothing else. (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Anything we as JWs have ever taught always goes back to the Bible, even if our understanding of some of it has been erroneous in the past.

This brings me to your next question

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Now, you mentioned, we "all" have the same capability, How so?

We all have the Bible, and we can all pray for holy spirit. Which means we can all be guided by it, by means of the Bible, similarly to the GB. “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”( Luke 11:13), “for the holy spirit will teach you in that very hour the things you should say.” (Luke 12:12)  etc.

WT 12/1/15 mentions:  Making Study Time More Enjoyable and Productive

“The first step to take is to pray. (Ps. 42:8) Why? We should consider the study of God’s Word to be part of our worship. Therefore, we need to ask Jehovah to put us in the proper frame of mind and to give us his holy spirit. (Luke 11:13) Says Barbara, a longtime missionary: “I always pray before I read or study the Bible. After that, I feel that Jehovah is with me and that he approves of what I am doing.” Prayer before study opens our mind and heart to accept fully the abundant spiritual food that is before us”.

There are thousands more examples of how we all have the same capability, all you need to do is enter “holy spirit” , "Bible" and  "prayer" into the word search in your WT library….

When Jesus talks about the Slave in Matthew 24:45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time”  I notice  that Jesus never says they will have some special understanding  that no one else will be capable of, or that they will have an exclusive channel of communication or means of getting information other than the Bible. Jesus merely says that the Slave will be in charge of dispensing the spiritual food. Jesus also said he, not the Slave or any other man, will be with all of us as the head of the Christian congregation. 

So, where the slave differs to us is that they are anointed, and charged with the dispensing of spiritual food to the domestics, of which they are also a part. (Of course we know that the anointing itself isn’t a guarantee that the person will stay anointed forever, that can change).

 

 

 

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

She will go up to people while they are having a conversation and tell them  she has had a communication from heaven telling her such and such

Unlike "Albert"  she would get my attention.....if only to check the empty compartments of her dossette......

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

So in summary, to say that one of the anointed may have received some kind of communication from one of the anointed in heaven regarding the great crowd is not in line with anything we believe regarding that kind of communication happening IN OUR DAY. The way Jehovah communicates with us today is through the Bible.

This well explained. Is there any room for angelic direction in the preaching work?

[Anna]

19 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

. Is there any room for angelic direction in the preaching work?

Yes, I know, I know. This also crossed my mind and there is scriptural support for it isn't there? I just can't think of the scriptures right now as I'm getting ready to go to bed. Still, I think angelic direction in this respect works a little different to what we've been talking about....not only that, but apparently this angelic direction is not directed exclusively to a select few, but wherever and to whoever as ineeded.

[Evacuated]

30 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Then you would agree that in times, God will discern when to give enlightenment to fulfill his set course (spiritual food at the proper time). And that NOT “all” of us would be in a position to receive such enlightenment.

I certainly agree with this.

In fact, the very anointing received by some true Christians is a very specfic and selective communication from Jehovah (and Jesus) by means of His spirit. Information found in the Bible is, of course, integral to this.

I would be pretty sure that my understanding, and particularly application, of scriptural passages such as 1Jo. 2:27 and Rom.8:16 would certainly differ from that of Bro. Jackson for example. And yet we are both right. 2Tim. 4:8 indicates another example of specific and personal enlightenment by spirit.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Now if we are going to start washing the dirty linen of past error on the part of those associated with the movement we now belong to, great care must be taken in the manner and context in which this is shared. Otherwise, there is a danger of  undermining respect for the information and counsel we now get through what amounts to being the same channel. This of course will serve the same interests of the one behind spiritism and will  prove the wisdom of Jesus' words "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." As we are aware that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that "will never be brought to ruin", (Dan.2:44 NWT1984), we do not have to use much imagination to know which kingdom, city, or house will come to desolation, not through overt spiritism, but simply through an unwise use of the tongue which could serve, ultimately, the same purpose.

I know that the counsel about not exposing dirty laundry is sincere, and for this I thank you. As far as I can tell, such counsel should not apply to this particular situation. Obviously, then, we see our duty in this regard quite differently, and so, in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15,  I feel I should explain. 

The dirty laundry is already hung up for everyone to see. This is the Internet. Anyone can simply Google the information claimed in the original post of this topic, and they will discover that there is plenty more information out there. As usual, some of it is true and some of it is false.

So we are back to discussing the old dilemma about whether we should reveal truth in response to falsehood, or just ignore it. For the most part, we just ignore it. But there are times when it is obvious that the person posting does not necessarily know that the claims contain false charges. Or perhaps they know for sure that the information is skewed toward the false but that there is still some truth in it, and yet, other people who read the skewed information may not know what to believe. Perhaps they think it's all true, or all false. Perhaps their first instinct is to call the whole thing "rubbish." But what if calling something "rubbish" is not really honest either, because perhaps it contains more truth than falsehood? Is there any value to pointing out the error? What if an interested person who has Googled the information now sees us as a people who are just too anxious to cover up facts?

Through private messaging on this forum someone just asked me why I think JWs have so much turnover. I know that we are always anxious to say that our moral standards and expectations are very high and we are expected to judge those people who leave on their own as persons who just didn't want to live up to those expectations. But in speaking to many of these persons, we often come away with a different picture. I think it's more of a matter of realizing that nothing is quite as perfect as it appears at first. When people first study and are baptized, it is with the understanding that we have the only true religion in the entire earth. Therefore, it is expected to be the most perfect. Even though they are warned that it isn't perfect, it still sets up the highest expectations. Then they learn that not all the brothers and sisters live up to the moral standards as well as they expected. They learn about or perhaps see examples of lack of love, or even racism, shunning, child abuse, or gossip. When they are disappointed, they often start to believe that there is no religion that is really what it claims to be, and they often leave all religion altogether. In spite of the focus of ex-JWs online, I think it's rarely about past JW or IBSA history, or related issues with doctrine.

If this were merely about the error of a brother or sister who made a false step in the past, then we would do best to just ignore it. Love covers a multitude of sins. But what if the errors are being denied specifically because it would reflect on the trustworthiness of current doctrine?

That last question reminds me of your own statement here:

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Otherwise, there is a danger of  undermining respect for the information and counsel we now get through what amounts to being the same channel.

Does telling the truth about the past undermine respect for information we now get from the same channel? What you said appears to be an inadvertent admission that it does. If it does, then it is probably all the more important that we offer a true and honest perspective. I should mention that personally, I don't even see much real importance in wallowing in the problems of yesterday or last week, much less the problems of 100 years ago. This applies to the Governing Body, too. I know that one person here often comments that no one should try to use the past examples of Bible Students to shed light on our current beliefs as JWs, even if we consider the same "Governing Body" to have begun in 1919. But I don't even consider the Governing Body of last year to be the exact same "channel" as the Governing Body of this year, even if they be the same persons. That's partly because none of us are expected to be the same from day to day:

• (2 Corinthians 4:16-18) 16 . . .  certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. . . . 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.

On the other hand, it must necessarily be the case that if an honest approach to the Governing Body's past can undermine the respect for the present Governing Body, then this is almost a direct admission that both the present and the past is being misrepresented. And, of course, it's easy to show that we regularly misrepresent our past almost every time we print a book about it or make a claim about it. We do it as individual humans and we do it as an organization. It's a common human failing to want to be seen as better than we really are. It's what's behind the instinct to call something "obviously rubbish" and "nonsensical gobbledygook" even if it's more true than false. (That's the reason that I included that paragraph about Rutherford that you reviewed as you did. In fact, there was a lot more truth to it than falsehood. Not just as a Bible Student, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Rutherford really did believe that the holy spirit was no longer available to us after 1918, and that new truths could now be revealed with the direct help of angels. And the idea that Jehovah's throne was in Alcyone, the brightest star of Pleiades, was still being promoted and taught from the 1880's into the 1930's, and not dropped officially until well into Knorr's presidency in November 1953. Details available upon request.)

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

This of course will serve the same interests of the one behind spiritism and will  prove the wisdom of Jesus' words "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."

One of the most dangerous problems among many Witnesses that we can see today is the equivalence that is made between the Governing Body and Jehovah. Surely this is what serves the same interests of the one behind spiritism. Idolatry is also something Jehovah hates.

On this forum, several persons who have presented themselves as sincere Witnesses have recently said that the way we "follow the Lamb wherever he goes," is to follow the Governing Body wherever they go. They have said that they would rather follow the Governing Body into KNOWN ERROR than to accept the Bible where it is known to differ from the current teachings of the Governing Body. The slave has become greater than his master. Witnesses here have defended having this kind of faith in men even where they KNOW personally that something is amiss.

This is a good reason to be completely honest, and not try to whitewash either the present or the past. I think it's important to show that we are not trying to please men, and to make it clear why we should NOT put our faith in princes, nobles, or any humans, where we feel that faith is related to salvation:

• (Psalm 146:3) “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs."
• (Luke 16:15) “. . .For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.

.

JWI:

I STRONGLY suspect that in the great majority of cases where a person professes loyalty to those that deliberately pervert Justice and Truth in order not to be embarrassed, or sued, and to maintain their positions of authority, and keep the money rolling in  .... it is because they themselves are afraid of punishment for "disloyalty" ... having their reputations ruined, and their families destroyed.

No one LIKES being "burned at the stake for a witch".

.

.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Through private messaging on this forum someone just asked me why I think JWs have so much turnover.

Anything with significant upside is likely to have a downside.

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And the idea that Jehovah's throne was in Alcyone, the brightest star of Pleiades, was still being promoted and taught from the 1880's into the 1930's, and not dropped officially until well into Knorr's presidency in November 1953.

Some of these things are like State's laws still on the books to regulate some arcane practice that has long been discontinued, like "no ice cream cones on Sundays" it is not necessary to repeal each one. Not reiterating it is enough.

That said, i was somewhat bummed when they doubled down on toasting after I had hoped it would go the way of all the earth. At a non-Witness wedding reception, our table of Witnesses was caught flat-footed when a crew came around to record everyone toasting to the bride. Had I had my wits about me, I would have rose and said: "We don't toast but we want to to wish the bride the greatest joy in life & we thank her for the honor of inviting us & etc etc." That's all they wanted. No need to explain toasting. Instead, I just sat there and looked a bit dumb.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

....