Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

Apostles, Judas, GB, Raymond, Satan, Holy Spirit

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
414
6029

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything.

Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was:

  • I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

I don't want  to labour this point as it's not too important but, it has been known for JW parents to put pressure on their children to do certain things or live a certain type of lifestyle. Now of course that is not God's fault, nor the JW Org's fault, but the parents have obviously been instructed/directed to bring up their children in a certain manner. Elders especially have to have their 'own house in order', keeping the kids under control. So maybe some children do not have any personal choices when they are young, and that could include their education... We know that 'in the world' some youngsters are expected to follow in the father's / grandfather's footsteps in the military for instance. So it is in the JW Org, some youngsters are expected to follow their parents into the ministry and for young men to follow into 'positions of responsibility'. I think that is why many leave home and leave the Org asap when they get a job, to get away from parental pressure. 

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, jado said:

That’s right. Jehovah has always had an “Organization” . 

“Jehovah’s direction is to use the swifter” .... many of our dear r and f (rank and file) loved ones use “Organization” and  “Jehovah” interchangeably.

To these ones - in many cases our still in - close family physically in mentally in, PIMI 

to them, sadly the words and concept ORGANIZATION + JEHOVAH mean exactly the same thing.

Too bad then. Because God is far superior to any man made organisation. 

It is wrong to interchange those words. 

An organisation is good as God is a God of order not disorder. 

However, the organisation has to have God's approval and be guided by God's Holy spirit.

The GB and the JW Org show that it does NOT have God's approval and is NOT guided by God's Holy spirit.

So it is not doing God's will properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Wasn’t that the same assumption apostate’s use for Pastor Russell? That he, in a subtle way was saying the end of the world would come in 1914 when he never directly or indirectly made that claim. It was a wait and see.

It's true that many ex-JWs, apostates and interested persons mistakenly believe that Russell predicted 1914 as the end of the world, when 1914 was NOT supposed to be the end of the world. It was only the final date for the "rapture" of the remnant of Christ's Bride, and the year when Gentile kingdoms would cease ruling, and all religious and political institutions would plunge into their final chaos, which could last until the end of 1915, perhaps even a months beyond.  At the same time, 1914 would also see a non-Gentile government in Jerusalem become established, which would begin to administer the earthly part of a one-world government for everyone on earth except Christians, who would all go to heaven (including the great crowd, also considered to be anointed.)

Many ex-JWs, apostates, and interested persons also mistakenly believe that F.Franz and/or the Watchtower Society predicted that 1975 would be the end of the "world." But in this case absolutely nothing was predicted that would definitely happen in that particular year. It was always about how close 1975 must be to the time when Armageddon was expected because of the unscriptural significance given to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. F.Franz must have sincerely thought that there was some scriptural significance to "the end of 6,000 years. And of course, this fit perfectly with the idea already being promoted that the end must come before the lifespan ended of those who were teenagers in 1914. In other words they would already be about 75 years old in 1975. And you are right that this was seen to fit a host of other "signs of the times."

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Anna said:

Jehovah's direction is to use the swifter rather than a mop and bucket to clean the floor in the restrooms". 

When cleaning the Kingdom Hall, there is nothing I like to do more than sing out: “A fine privilege opening up soon here in connection with cleaning a toilet!”

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think that is why many leave home and leave the Org asap when they get a job, to get away from parental pressure. 

To the extent that this is true, it is pretty much true anywhere. There is a well-known saying among religious persons that “the preacher’s kid is the worst kid in town.’ Either he chafes at being raised in a fishbowl, or he perceives a lack of attention because the preacher is attending to others.

In fact, it is not even religion, and perhaps it is more egregiously true elsewhere. Witness the kid who hates his successful businessman because his attention is everywhere but home.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

but some of us knew Fred in a personal level. 

Since personalities have become the topic, if you knew him, I’d like to hear your take - that is, if you think such is appropriate here, and you may not. JWI gives what seems to be his honest assessment, but it is still an assessment. I recall a verse somewhere about a first viewpoint carrying the day until a contrasting one is heard, that turns everything on its head.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

This is true. He has said the substance of this many times. Doesn’t seem bitter at all. Alas, I am trying to keep up with too many things & don’t read everything closely.

BTW, does he know of a Chris K who worked the art department at about the same time, give or take, and who now streams his work on I-gram? (did I mention this before?)

Also, we were driving through the mountains & just to break up the drive, we stopped in a small town & discovered there a small art gallery. I got to chatting with the proprietor (a Gary someone or other - I have his card somewhere), and upon my identifying myself as a Witness, he said that his wife was out in service at that very hour. As to him, he had gone inactive, and we spoke a bit further about his reasons. Maybe he is on this forum now as one of the bad guys. (No particular reason for me to think it...I just threw it in. He could as likely weigh in as a closet good guy.)

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2019 at 10:57 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Who is this newcomer so skilled in verbiage...

 

and strange tongues?   :)

Its Spanish for oh my goodness. I was around from time to time because I am looking for music from the dramas in mp3 format. One person who is close to me loves music from the song books, and asked if the dramas at mp3s of some songs.

I am on and off sometimes because of school. Right now I am we have a day off because of cold weather. To be honest, the cold is more brutal than the snow this year.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since personalities have become the topic, if you knew him, I’d like to hear your take - that is, if you think such is appropriate here, and you may not. JWI gives what seems to be his honest assessment, but it is still an assessment. I recall a verse somewhere about a first viewpoint carrying the day until a contrasting one is heard, that turns everything on its head.

I am afraid I disagree with that assessment. It takes much more than just having breakfast with the GB at Bethel to really know someone. You seem to forget, these are highly spiritual people that won't involve themselves in the daily struggles of their personal lives. They concentrate on the spiritual needs of all the worldwide brotherhood. 

That in itself is a monumental task to think of others before your own. JWI assessment is of an angry hateful person bent on maligning FRED, bottom line. Therefore, NO! it's not an honest assessment by any standard. Since you are an author, I would think your research is for the truth, not some halfbaked drawn conclusions by an individual that has made up his mind to align himself with opposers and try to persuade people he still holds the truth in his heart. I'm, sorry friend, the world doesn't revolve around JWI, for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel. I would enjoy hearing what the excuse is going to be, come judgment day.

This is another indicator:

·  Who gets called "The Oracle"?

·  Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?

·  Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 

·  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?

·  Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?

·  Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000?

·  Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example:

  • Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205): 

Yes, it was among the favs from the apostate site free-minds. I don’t know if they are still around, but it’s an oldie but goodie by opposers. I would encourage any sensible person to read the full context of “Righteous Requirements” for themselves instead of relying on a misrepresented, snipped. Although, I have no clue if Fred was the author of that article piece, if someone lays claim to being absolute it was FRED, I would ask for proof. After all, we need to distinguish rants from one another. The only thing proven here is personal resentment and hatred for one individual. The good thing, it’s all meaningless.

*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***

 

Once again, I would refer people to read the full context to understand how the presidency and the governing body worked at that time. It appears the misinformation is laying a foundation into a false claim.

*** w71 12/15 p. 755 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***

A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation

 

I believe the topic of how the Holy Spirit works by different people has been proven by scripture which can be tied to the operation of the Watchtower. Ex’JW’s insist in combining everything to make their argument solid. It hasn’t worked yet.

Now I'm not saying the early leaders weren't direct. If you asked a stupid question, you would get a profound hard response. One thing is dealing with imperfection, it's quite another thing to say they were doing things, for themselves. Only a blind man cannot see the advances and changes the Watchtower has adapted to by generation.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Queen Esther said:

Fact is,  NO JW can make unseen itself in the Kingdom Hall....   Every week, another group is cleaning Jehovah's  Holy-house.  Btw, Jehovah is watching us all, every sec.😀

I don't actually think God is watching every one of us every second. 

God has the ability to do so of course, but probably chooses not to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/31/2019 at 9:48 AM, Witness said:
On 1/30/2019 at 12:30 PM, Anna said:

I have never heard the organization compared to the "temple" or a priesthood. Can you post a quote indicating this? Jerusalem above is comprised only of the Christ and the anointed in heaven.

 

It is subtle in many ways, Anna.  If the organization is necessary for salvation, then it takes the place of the Temple of God.  Jesus is our salvation, nothing can replace that.  God’s House is his dwelling place, which is found in the “living stones” – the anointed ones.  The organization teaches that IT is God’s dwelling place, since it is “spirit-directed”.

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Cor 3:16

you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  1 Pet 2:5

in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:21,22

Ok, we have heard that the kingdom hall is God’s house.  We hear that Warwick is Bethel; and there are Bethels all around the world.  Bethel means “House of God”. I think what is the most blatant example, was the video about an assembly hall and maintaining it, as compared to the early temple.  I can’t find the video, but it seemed to be filmed in the southwestern U.S.   Although now a new one is up, calling the dedicated assembly hall, a gift from God. 

God has one House/dwelling place – his Temple built on Christ.  Why would he bless and call the material endeavors made by men, “God’s House” when he is building it upon his Son?  John 2:19-22  “Greater than Solomon is here”.  Luke 11:31 Since the organization calls its buildings "God's House", can you see how they replace the true house/dwelling of God?

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.  Acts 17:24-25

 

@Queen Esther 

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:
2 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

Fact is,  NO JW can make unseen itself in the Kingdom Hall....   Every week, another group is cleaning Jehovah's  Holy-house.  Btw, Jehovah is watching us all, every sec.😀

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

Greek meaning for "created things" - "the act of founding, establishing, building, etc; creation i.e. thing created..."

For the true temple, House of God, Paul states: 

What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
    and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.”

17 Therefore,

“Come out from them
    and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
    and I will receive you.”[

    Hello guest!
]

18 And,

“I will be a Father to you,
    and you will be my son and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”  2 Cor 6:16-18

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, FelixCA said:

It appears you are reading too much into the article. There is nothing between the lines. You misread your own tea leaves.

You could be right about this one. Especially the part where I made a big deal about how F.Franz says we shouldn't be "toying with Jesus' words." Those words were in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

  • One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

But you pointed something out in the May 1, 1968 Watchtower that tells me I need to correct something I've said here. I still think it's wrong to write an article in such a way that so many points are ambiguous. But I don't think that the above highlighted words mean that F.Franz was saying not to think about and apply Jesus' words. I have never seen the Watchtower say to ignore a scripture. If the writer means to override the common meaning given to a scripture, it will provide another scripture or some logic that shows how it shouldn't be applied in every case, at least in the way we might think. 

So I don't think that F.Franz is saying that we should ignore Jesus words, or that we shouldn't invoke them as a caution to potential over-speculation. Someone might have thought I was saying that this was like F.Franz saying, "Don't try to use Jesus' words against me on this, because you would just be toying with them." Or, it could sound as if he was saying that no one else knows how to use Jesus' words, so don't toy with them: don't try to put a stop to all of this talk with your one little scripture." I do NOT think this is what F.Franz meant.

And, of course, this scripture is usually used among ourselves to remind us that we should avoid speculation. That's the way it is used with almost identical sounding logic and very similar context in the May 1, 1968 issue that @FelixCA already quoted:

*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly.

In this May 1st issue, its meaning is clearly to be cautious not to go overboard with speculation. Jesus had used it in the original context, not primarily about speculation, but primarily as a reason to avoid complacency, knowing that the end will come at any time as if a complete surprise; so be ready at all times.) But the meaning is slightly different from both of those prior meanings in the later August 15 issue. Here the most likely meaning is "Don't go making light of Jesus warning that no one could put a date on the end of the system, and therefore start thinking that it could therefore be far off in the future."  

If that's the meaning --"not to let Jesus' words make you complacent"-- and I think it very likely considering the following paragraph in that Watchtower, then it is not a wrong application at all. (It's also not wrong to use it in a way that tells us to avoid speculation.) What I still find wrong is how it's made to fit in the context of the entire article. It's as if it's saying the following, paraphrased:

"It's absolutely certain that 6,000 years of man's existence will be up soon, yes, within this generation, and if you read carefully what we just said, it was pretty much proven that those 6,000 years will be up in 1975, and that the actual 7th day (after Eve's creation) must have begun at most a few weeks or months, but not years after the fall of 1975. So that final millennium of the 7th day is going to be here very close after 1975. So don't any of you go thinking that just because Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour that this means we shouldn't be looking into all this. Don't go thinking that those words of Jesus mean that it could still be a ways off just because after all "we don't know; no one knows." To the contrary, we do know something here that's very important and significant about how close that end must be."

If that's the meaning in context, then it is used in a way that tends to supersede or outweigh the original meaning in Jesus' context: "No one knows so it MUST be close." This of course fits not just the context of the paragraph and article, but the entire context of all publications that year. (The Truth book with a half-a-dozen 1975 quotes from experts, later removed in the next version. Articles pushing urgency, from January through December: January Watchtower: "THE TIME IS SHORT" . . . December Watchtower: HOW WE KNOW IT IS GETTING NEAR")

And as you say, I could be mistaken on this point especially, by reading too much into it. And this was August 15, only a few months after the May 1 issue, when the Watchtower had published nearly the same idea, but had used it with a meaning that was made perfectly clear by the context.

The problem with the May article is that it had another problem/mistake in the context that was just ridiculous. Perhaps it's a mistake that the August 15 issue is trying to correct, but if it is, it doesn't correct it by much. This is the mistake.

*** w68 5/1 p. 270 par. 2 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
With accurate knowledge of Jehovah and his purposes, the Christian rejects the speculations of men.

Good so far.

According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.

This is speculation of men about what time of year he was created, but that's not the problem.

*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.

Now we have speculation but it is properly labeled as such by saying "it is logical that..." rather than "it is definite." There's a bit of speculation in the idea that God's 7th day, his "rest" day immediately followed Eve's creation. But the main point here is that we are speculating that Eve was created in 4026 BCE, within 12 months of Adam in a year that is counted from autumn to autumn.

Now the next paragraph:

*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.

So this article is saying that we KNOW that the full end of the 6th day was 4026 B.C.E. and that we KNOW --no speculation-- that the autumn of 1975 is "fully 6,000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day."

This article is basically rewritten in August, just a few months later. In this one we don't speculate about the time for Armageddon even though we KNOW that 1975 marks the last 1000 years of the 7th day, God's rest day. In the re-write we are back to looking an UNKNOWN gap between Adam and Eve and THIS is why we can't speculate as to the time when the millennium will most likely be timed. It puts a different flavor on the use of Jesus' cautionary words in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

 

·  Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?

·  Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 

·  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?

·  Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?

Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking?

But isn't this based on facts? Or are you saying it wasn't Fred who wrote these things, but someone else in the writing department? But even if that was the case, Fred would sanction everything before going to print, so he would have had to agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I am afraid I disagree with that assessment.

Okay. Still, you seem to indicate that you knew him, too. What was he like?

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel. 

Yeah. That’s fair. I guess I do. I mean, he’s been where I haven’t.

Whether it’s a good idea for him to blab away as he does, I have no idea. I was livid about it at first, but I have grown used to it. The point is, he is going to do it whether I am here or not, so I just glean what I can, always keeping in mind that it is through the eyes of another. That’s why I asked about how it looks through your eyes.

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Since you are an author, I would think your research is for the truth

I am probably one of the few here who has not read Ray’s book. I might someday but have no immediate plans. Such things are just red herrings to me, a distraction. I mean, if my books were about personalities, I would go there. But they’re not. My books are what of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done, not so much the individuals in it. I tell a lot of stories, but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I am on and off sometimes because of school.

Are you really still in school? Well well well. Most here are far older. You express yourself uninhibitedly.

7 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Right now I am we have a day off because of cold weather. 

What!? A day off? For cold weather??!!!

You kids are soft!

Why, back in MY day....

#WalkFiveMiles #Uphill #BothWays.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Anna said:

The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done"

I suppose. 

But somewhere there is a story of some old-time Bethelite who, when the younger ones would start squabbling over something, would tilt back and marvel at how Jehovah was able to do SO MUCH with what little he had to work with.

I mean, there’s always going to be people. They’re always going to do things. How God pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them around I’ll never know, but he consistently does.

It’s not my area of focus, that’s all. If I was shocked at it, I wouldn’t be here.

You commented a while back about pulling back the curtain at Oz. The fact that GB members show themselves on TV indicates to me that they pull back the curtain upon themselves as well.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The fact that GB members show themselves on TV indicates to me that they pull back the curtain upon themselves as well

To a certain extent yes. But we will never know what is being discussed behind closed doors. I would say it doesn't matter, it's not our business, but it is, because it affects everyone of us. (When I get around to it I want to make this a topic in the closed club, here is not the best place)

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 ......marvel at how Jehovah was able to do SO MUCH with what little he had to work with......  How God pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them around I’ll never know, but he consistently does.

I agree!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If that's the meaning --"not to let Jesus' words make you complacent"-- and I think it very likely considering the following paragraph in that Watchtower, then it is not a wrong application at all. (It's also not wrong to use it in a way that tells us to avoid speculation.) What I still find wrong is how it's made to fit in the context of the entire article. It's as if it's saying the following, paraphrase

Yes, I can understand your sarcasm and your obsession with Fred and the year 1975. I'm sure your motive goes beyond this site into others that share the same view as you do. It was a very interesting year that brought many changes to humanity. This, of course, was the urgency Fred was referring to. Time was of the essence to prepare the faithful sheep for hard times too difficult to deal with. By god, if that revelation didn’t come true if we are here arguing about 1975. 2 Timothy 3:1-17

 

Therefore, your subtle perspective is still only your opinion, based on how you are viewing the information cited.

Therefore, how can you justify Raymond Franz blatant disregard for Bible truth when he cited that others besides the 144,000 would join Christ in heaven. Give a scriptural example? You might as well tell people once they die, they go to heaven as Michael waits to welcome them at the pearly gates of heaven.

If you knew Raymond, you don't need to read his book. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Anna said:

But isn't this based on facts? Or are you saying it wasn't Fred who wrote these things, but someone else in the writing department? But even if that was the case, Fred would sanction everything before going to print, so he would have had to agree with it.

This would depend on how you see the operation of the Presidency versus the Governing Body. Who is anointed, and who worked closely with the anointed enough though they were not part of the anointed class.

People seem to forget Brother F. Franz knew C.T. Russell. What CTR administrative obligations were and what he would delegate to a board of directors. Did F.Franz proofread the writing department articles to see if they were consistent with scripture, or was that a responsibility he passes on to the GB? The GB does that now.

I can recall an assembly talk where Fred stated, that's what the book says, its here in print. NO one really truly knew the Presidents just like they don't really know the GB. Those are hypotheticals by witnesses that "interact" at some point with them. Therefore no one has the right to speak about someone they truly don't know. That's the bottom line if you want to continue calling ourselves Christian.

The problem with Bethel at that time was a cleansing of apostates. Perhaps JWI lost a good friend by being disfellowshipped. But still, that's no excuse under God's law. Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.

That was part of the Bethel gossip along with his ability to understand scripture. Some people thought he wasn't qualified. That was a question I asked JWI. Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time. That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages.

There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Anna said:

 July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205) 

For anyone who wants to read the whole article in context:

    Hello guest!

 

 

ITS MISSION

THIS journal is published for the purpose of enabling the people to know Jehovah God and his purposes as expressed in the Bible. It publishes Bible instruction specifically designed to aid Jehovah's witnesses and all people of good-will. It arranges systematic Bible study for Its readers and the Society supplies other literature to aid in such studies. It publishes suitable material for radio broadcasting and for other means of public instruction in the Scriptures.

It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances. It is entirely free and separate from all religion, parties, sects or other worldly organizations. It is wholly and without reservation for the kingdom of Jehovah God under Christ his beloved King. It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents In the light of the Scriptures. It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities.

 

1) It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances  

Plenty of doctrinal and instructional, corporative changes from 1943 to today reveals that so called "Bible authority" as base for WT articles was questionable intention. Is it Bible itself questionable authority that is not able to provide clear idea to those who reading Bible text? Is it human perception of very same Words some kind of trap that unable clear understanding?  What is general or particular Bible Idea? To create only true "religious organization"?  Really ?!

WT publications in general and here WT magazine as particular paper for dispensing spiritual food  clearly proved that it can't be trusted for it's readers. 

IN LIGHT OF THIS CONCLUSION, it is very significant how text continues with this: 

2) It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents In the light of the Scriptures.

The WT Magazine was Not dogmatic? If authors aka publishers and writers of The WT articles of those period of time were had such idea about own presentation of spiritual food, than that is for praise, undoubtedly. What was changed in meantime??

If you as author of your articles made claim that you and your written ideas are not dogmatic, and how all other are invited to make Careful and Critical Examination of ITS contents, than All Open Discussion, Reasoning, Pro et Contra Argumentation, Accuracy and Wrongness will Never be Sanctioned by Those in "Charge" , from so called "Spiritual Authority", who ever they are in particular time.   

No Shunning or Disfellowshiping  of those who have Other Opinion, because even Official doctrines are only this, Current Point of View, Current Opinion and nothing more, as reality shows us until this day!    

 

Curiosity for fun;

interesting terminology from 1943

."...while we were on Watchtower street work..."         :))) good title for preaching service :))))

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Anna said:

For anyone who wants to read the whole article in context: 

    Hello guest!

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

image.png

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, your subtle perspective is still only your opinion, based on how you are viewing the information cited.

Of course, it is. I will never claim otherwise. It's impossible to get into the mind of another person, no matter how many clues they give us, or how much we hear about them from others. A person can seem haughty and presumptuous and sarcastic, like F.Franz, but be motivated by good intentions. A person can seem always friendly, humble and spiritual, like R.Franz, but have murderous intentions that we might never know about.

All we can do is try to evaluate their stated perspectives from evidence and experience.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, how can you justify Raymond Franz blatant disregard for Bible truth when he cited that others besides the 144,000 would join Christ in heaven. Give a scriptural example? You might as well tell people once they die, they go to heaven as Michael waits to welcome them at the pearly gates of heaven.

I do not wish to justify R.Franz' doctrines, per se. If some of his ideas seem worth looking into, I am only concerned with evaluating the evidence he offered for his perspective. I did not know that R.Franz thought that the 144,000 was a symbolic number until I read his book. I was not surprised however, because it was fairly common to hear brothers ask about why it had to be literal if the number 12,000 was symbolic, or the number 24 was symbolic (symbolic of the 144,000!?!, at that). And I knew that at least two other persons in the Writing department had been discussing this question.

Personally, I do not know if the 144,000 is a literal number or not, so I cannot give a scriptural example. Before I left for Bethel, I moved to another city away from my home congregation, and pioneered almost exclusively with a group of 4 brothers, instead of the 3 sisters that I pioneered with previously. One brother in this group was a well respected elder who was the first person I ever heard wonder about the literalness of the 144,000 and he also wondered about the "other sheep" of John 10 as being the Gentiles who were soon to start flocking in after Jesus was finished going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I tended to forget about this because even if the great crowd of other sheep were Gentiles, and the little flock of current sheep were the Jewish believers, it still could have been that they represented "spiritual Jews" and "spiritual Gentiles" in Revelation 7 and 14 and, of course, especially so in our modern times. After all:

(Romans 2:29) . . .But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code.. . .

12 hours ago, FelixCA said:

If you knew Raymond, you don't need to read his book. 😉

Funny you say that, because just to be sure, I had to review what R.Franz said about the topic. I hadn't remembered anything too specific about his own view of this this in "Crisis of Conscience," and still have not read that much of "Christian Freedom." I knew that R.Franz had implied that there wasn't enough Bible evidence to prove that the number 144,000 had to be literal. But I didn't recall him stating his own belief. I assumed he didn't think it necessarily literal, and assumed that he would probably think it wasn't. I just don't think he had said for sure. I had no idea how he views the difference between those who aspire to an earthly hope and those who aspire to a heavenly hope. He seemed to have thought that no one should be "too extreme in their statements." (p.238)

I know that R.Franz spoke about the problems that were ensuing due to the focus on 1935, and I think this is another issue for which R.Franz predicted a change would need to be made. I think R.Franz book provided the impetus for the Governing Body to make that correction after they saw the points he made. 1935 is no longer looked at as a strict date that closed the door for all but the replacements of anointed who had proved unfaithful. This may become even more important as the number of anointed claimants rises to about 30,000 then 40,000, etc., because it would otherwise indicate that ALL the original pre-1935 anointed might be suspected of having become unfaithful. 

At any rate, I think that R.Franz probably believes that the number 144,000 is not a literal number, based on the fact that it is built on a foundation of 12 non-literal numbers of 12,000 from each tribe. Based on some of what I remember from "Christian Freedom" he probably also believes that the "other sheep" and "great crowd" represent gentiles, and the 144,000 represent Jews. Without knowing anything about what R.Franz thinks about this, I already have presented my own view that this is my own opinion, too. It's based on Paul's description of the ONE olive tree that represents the Jews so that the a number of Jewish persons would be sealed, and that the grafting into the same tree from the gentiles would continue until even "jealousy" motivated the full number of Jews to fulfill their invitations.

Since Paul says he was an apostle to the Gentiles/Greeks, just as Peter was to the Jews, this appears to be the symbolic reference to the two olive trees in Revelation also.

(Romans 11:7-24) . . .What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. . . . 11 So I ask, They did not stumble and fall completely, did they? Certainly not! But by their false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. 15 For if their being cast away means reconciliation for the world, what will the acceptance of them mean but life from the dead? 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root, . . . 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!

(Revelation 11:1-4) 11 And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. . . . 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees . . .  standing before the Lord of the earth.

Whether the full number of Jews, means literal Jews or symbolic Jews, I couldn't say. Whether it means a literal 144,000 or a symbolic 144,000 I couldn't say. It's compared with a great crowd which no man can number, which is a fair reason to conclude that it might be a literal number, but that's not definitive. (And even then we don't want it to refer to literal Jews.) We already teach that the 12,000 cannot be a literal number in the exact same context, so I wouldn't insist.

The illustration of the Gentile "wild olive tree" grafted into Israel's holy, "garden olive" tree and then growing together reminds me of Jesus saying that he has other sheep not of this fold but which must be brought in to be one flock. In "Christian Freedom," R.Franz sees the similarity in another scriptural passage:

(Ephesians 2:11-19) 11 Therefore, remember that at one time you, people of the nations by fleshly descent, were the ones called “uncircumcision” by those called “circumcision,” which is made in the flesh by human hands. 12 At that time you were without Christ, alienated from the state of Israel, strangers to the covenants of the promise; you had no hope and were without God in the world. 13 But now in union with Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, 16 and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. 17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to you who were far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit. 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God,  ... [cf. "one flock, one shepherd"]

For reference, I would add:

(Matthew 10:5, 6) . . .These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(Acts 15:1-11) . . .Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” . . . 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. . . . 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. . . . 11 On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.”

(Galatians 2:7-9) . . .On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised.

(Romans 1:16) . . .For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

(Romans 2:9-11) . . .on the Jew first and also on the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

(Romans 10:11, 12) 11 For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. . . . (Compare, 'no more wall that fenced them off into a different pen.' (John 10:16 and Ephesians 2:14.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

image.png

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

This is soooo funny. 

There is no religious organisation that ... oh um just a minute, yes there is it's us. :) 

Just so funny. 

And the bit about : -

"and composed of His spiritual remnant.. "  Well um, only 8 of them as bosses at the moment it seems. 

But it's all good for a laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

image.png

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Excellent and amazing founding, revelation. Nail in coffin, as some would say. Controversy in full measure, despite written statement in preface of magazine that say:   

ITS MISSION

............

 It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities". .............

No controversy? Writers are generate Controversy  in the Core Itself. Listen what is written in the magazine:

quote: "Such "society" is not legal society or corporation, chartered according to the laws of some state or nation, ...." they said.

They are exactly what they claim they are not !! Hey JW people,  AWAKE! Dear people, this is official hoax on paper.

Watchtower and all entities under Mother Organization are pure Corporations worldwide, and all, every single of them have Charter/s!!  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

Yes, I noticed that too. I think this is the same pattern of reasoning as in AW 7/09 "Is wrong to change your religion".

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However I think it shows cowardice and the lack of confidence in your own beliefs. 

You are taking yourself too seriously John. You should know TTH sense of warped humour by now.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Anna said:

You are taking yourself too seriously John. You should know TTH sense of warped humour by now.

I thought it was you who was going into the hidden cupboard, but TTH is in there with you i suppose. 

A merry mix of people tickling each others ears. 

As for TTH I know him not. Only that he sells books for a living :)  

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Anna said:

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

Only just noticed this one. 

But when I mention the reality I get told off for fault finding or criticism :) 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But when I mention the reality I get told off for fault finding or criticism :) 

Anna gets told off for fault finding and criticism, too. So do I. It depends on what someone is criticizing, to what extent, and how, etc. Sometimes I think you (and probably me, too) will criticize with too broad a brush, or harp on something that belongs under a different topic. Everyone's a critic (of something).

I just have one general rule. If someone signs out so @Foreigner can sign in and down-vote a post, then I know I must be doing something right. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 12:06 PM, FelixCA said:

. I'm, sorry friend, the world doesn't revolve around JWI, for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel.

I'm going to have another go at this.

I do not think that 'TrueTom vs the Apostates!' is a great book in its writing. It is adequately written. It gets the job done. It is even a little haphazard in its organization. Another person might do it better.

However, it is a great book in that it is the only one of its kind. And it should not be. There should be more, but there are not. I am convinced that there are many friends and onlookers who need such material. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there are.

@JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have.

Whether it is wise for him to carry on at such length as he does here I do not know. But I do know why he does it and why he does it the way he does it. I respect him for it, and I cannot detect an ill motive. That is not to say that he might not be loony, but in my case, he has proven more valuable than he knows.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do not wish to justify R.Franz' doctrines, per se. If some of his ideas seem worth looking into, I am only concerned with evaluating the evidence he offered for his perspective. I did not know that R.Franz thought that the 144,000 was a symbolic number until I read his book. I was not surprised however, because it was fairly common to hear brothers ask about why it had to be literal if the number 12,000 was symbolic, or the number 24 was symbolic (symbolic of the 144,000!?!, at that). And I knew that at least two other persons in the Writing department had been discussing this question.

Personally, I do not know if the 144,000 is a literal number or not, so I cannot give a scriptural example.

It appears you have the same reservation as Raymond when it comes to fully understand scripture on an ecclesiastical level. Perhaps that’s why you hate Fred so much.

Let’s take your comment about the 144,000 thousand that isn’t mentioned in scripture as a literal number. We both know this comment is a flat lie. But let’s see where you fail to understand the exegesis. Let’s take 14th part C of Revelation.

We know the saints (anointed) were purchased for the lamb, would amount to men gathered from the earth that wasn’t tainted and loyal to Christ. This, of course, doesn’t mean sinless just in case you want to misapply my words as you usually attempt to do to confuse the narrative.

These men are composed to reflect the 12 tribes of Israel. A symbolic initiative with literal numbers. Meaning, after Christ included others rather than just the Jews, ALL nations on earth were given that opportunity to serve in heaven as saints, and all the nations would receive the opportunity to be saved. Of course about the 12 tribes, we are referring to this literal number of 144,000 saints (anointed).

Shouldn’t these saints be positioned in a specific place somewhere in the new heavenly kingdom of Jerusalem? Just wondering with the other numbers mentioned.

I guess I would have to ask if you believe that we will get to see Jesus and the 144,000 saints in mount Zion, even though if we take that as a literal meaning, it wouldn’t be possible for millions that weren’t around a certain part of the world at that time to marvel and witness the Glory of Christ, since it would be impossible to literally see it from another part of the world. Ezekiel 37:22

Therefore, I guess all the nations that would stand to see Christ glory and victory from heaven is false, and shouldn’t be included in scripture. Perhaps I can see where you might agree with Raymond. A quiet man in public, but just as loud as Fred in private.

Revelation 7:9 King James Version (KJV)

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

I guess that would be the difference, Fred was not a hypocrite to hide his true nature like Raymond. Did it make him any less qualified? I wonder when I read the historical facts about  PETER and PAUL.

Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle. After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.

Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.

On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11.  After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.

This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.

I had a second cousin that started partaking of the emblems. That was a joke since we knew what kind of person he was. That just means there are some that have a passion to believe. He eventually stopped.

Now, all my nephews and nieces that attended Bethel, are successful and righteous in serving Jehovah without reservations whatsoever. They don’t dwell in the past and keep their eye on the prize, promised by God.

So, which 12,000 do you think we should do away with?

Luke 12:32 King James Version (KJV)

32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

John 10:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Revelation 7:3-8 New International Version (NIV)

“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,

from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,

from the tribe of Gad 12,000,

from the tribe of Asher 12,000,

from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,

from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,

from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,

from the tribe of Levi 12,000,

from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,

from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,

from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,

from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

Since you seem to be the favorite of True Tom and Anna with ecclesiastic wizardry, how far back do you wish to argue the interpretation of scripture?  I say this because you are so good with grammar and words that people tend to admire someone for the wrong reason. Well, at least TTH.

So, which ones should we dismiss, or where would you like to ADD to scripture to allow others aside from the 144,000 thousand anointed to rule in heaven as kings and priest?

Now, don’t respond with Watchtower literature. I’ve had enough distortion on the subject. Stick to scripture if it’s at all possible.

Just like the obsession you have with the 6000 years. Maybe if you look at it by someone else’s perspective. It’s pretty drawn clear you don’t trust or care for the Watchtower literature unless you find something to criticize about it. Perhaps this is the objective of this site and always has been.

To find the same kind of people with no faith and a weak heart.

HA1423

Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

@JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have

It could be, that’s the problem. Loyalty. I wouldn’t lose my personal relationship with God, for the sake of writing a book that is being collaborated by someone who is clearly a bad association and influence my decision to have an input of that book, right or wrong. Proverbs 3:3-13, 1 Corinthians 15:33

Too much of that kind have, authored books about the Watchtower, that allowed misinterpreted claims to stand. Raymond was one of them. 1 Corinthians 5:11

That just means, the desire of this world still dwells in the heart and minds of many Christians, instead of willfully trusting in Jehovah for guidance if they have a desire to print. 2 Corinthians 6:14

Could this be the reason TrueTom and JWinsider conspired to remove this Allen Smith JWI is so obsessed about? When it seems people like Butler can be more obnoxious yet still hold an account here? That would lead me to believe this person was proving some false claims here. That type of action should be embarrassing and shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

It could be, that’s the problem. Loyalty. I wouldn’t lose my personal relationship with God, for the sake of writing a book...

Hopefully that has not happened.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

that is being collaborated by someone who is clearly a bad association and influence my decision to have an input of that book, right or wrong

Without weighing in on whether he is bad association or not, he is one of the very few who offered constructive criticism of CSA matters. Whether he should have done so on this forum is a matter for others to haggle over, but the fact is that he did and I benefited from it.

For example, the Philadelphia.com slimed JWs with a front page lead that must have been seen by everyone in the city and well beyond. It was too much for me.  I subsequently declared war on this sort of thing. I submitted a reply to them. This was a big deal for me, to reply at length to a prominent source and tell them they owed it to their readers to publish my reply as prominently as they published the slam. There was a chance that they would do so. I didn’t want to screw it up. I ran it by JWI privately, knowing he has Bethel experience, he reasons well, and he wants to see CSA matters resolved WITHOUT burning Bethel to the ground. (the solution of the opposers) He did not disappoint me. He made valuable suggestions, most of which I accepted.

What follows is what I sent to the Philly source, followed by the refined version that is an early chapter of TTvtAp.

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

Could this be the reason TrueTom and JWinsider conspired to remove this Allen Smith JWI is so obsessed about? 

It takes a while to know the players & you do not know them yet. Both of us worked very hard to retain him on this forum. Besides, I am not sure that he is gone. As for JWI, he spots him everywhere as does the groundhog his shadow.

 I pleaded with @The Librarian (that old hen) that if for nothing else, Allen should be honored because he proves the resurrection.

As to your point about John being more obnoxious and still remaining here, THAT point is certainly valid.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

Up-vote!

 

Another thing.

It is good that You speaking about issue on your blog. No matter of your intention to defend GB. But it is positive that You talking how cases are open and they are in the midst of JW people. Those JW who will go on Your page will find, I guess, more information than from WT official channels of communication. hehe

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

It appears you have the same reservation as Raymond when it comes to fully understand scripture on an ecclesiastical level. Perhaps that’s why you hate Fred so much.

Nonsensical non sequitur just to imply I might hate Fred Franz. I have never hated Fred Franz. I was always very impressed at his abilities. But I also felt badly for him, because he entered the Bible Students under Russell back at a time when the Watchtower freely admits that many of the Bible Students had turned it into a "cult." According to Rutherford it was a personality cult that worshiped Russell. Rutherford himself had apparently fallen victim for a time, if you listen to his eulogy at Russell's funeral. (And if you read the twisted logic he employed in order to defend Russell in the booklet "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens.) Now that I have seen numerous additional examples of the same behaviors I saw in Fred Franz, I believe that he was a high-functioning autistic person. (Something akin to what many psychologists will now diagnose as "Asperger's Syndrome.") This does not belittle him as you might think. But it explains a lot of his anti-social behaviors, and it explains a lot of his talks and comments that were clearly intended to provoke, or push the envelope in terms of what he might get away with verbally.

If you think I have expressed something like anger here, and I hope I haven't, it might be related to the same way that that Raymond Franz felt anger, but not about his uncle, at a funeral of R.Franz' nephew. This was the funeral where F.Franz gave the talk, and started out, very loudly: "Isn't it grand to be ALIVE!"

[F.Franz] walked up to the podium, paused, and then in a very loud, almost
stentorian, voice said: “Isn’t it grand to be ALIVE!” After that
introductory exclamation, for several minutes he discussed, effectively
and dramatically, the meaning of the words at Ecclesiastes
7:1-4.  As yet my nephew had not been mentioned in any way.
Then, after approximately ten minutes, in referring to the words
about it being ‘better for us to go to the house of mourning,’ the
speaker said,  “And the reason why is that sooner or later we’re all
going to end up like THIS!” and, without turning, he threw his hand
backward in the direction of the coffin where my nephew’s body
lay. The talk went on with further commentary on the Biblical section
but with no other reference to the dead man until the close
when the standard statements of the reason for the occasion and
the names of the deceased’s survivors were given.

I felt a sense of burning anger—not at my uncle, for I sincerely
and honestly believe he thought this was the best way to deal with
the situation, the best way to combat the natural sensations of grief
and loss.
What I felt incensed at was the organizational attitude
that allowed a person to feel fully justified to speak in a way which
essentially transformed the dead person’s body into a vehicle or
platform on which to base a talk, a talk that expounded organizational
doctrine, but which throughout simply made no mention of
sadness at the loss of the person whose life had ended, as though
by ignoring this the hurt would be lessened.
I kept saying to myself,
“James deserves something better than this—surely the text
about a ‘name being better than good oil’ calls for talking about
the name he made for himself in life.

This is the kind of thing I remember most about F.Franz' comments in the morning, too. Fortunately, his assembly talks were rarely like this, although a couple of his Gilead talks seemed to test the limits. An nearly hour-long scriptural talk on "the Biblical meaning of the Liver," sounded like it could have been a F.Franz satire from "The Onion," in part, but was also intended to sound very serious by the Gilead Graduation audience. (Brother Schroeder implied to me that he took it as a satirical attack on a talk that he [Schroeder] had recently given.) Another example was his wearing of a T-shirt with the word "HELL" in its message, for nearly the entire week during his morning worship comments in response to Sydlik's call for a Kingdom Hall like dress code at Bethel breakfast.

But I liked that his rants at breakfast were not about dressing down specific Bethelites that he wanted to belittle, the way that Rutherford and Knorr had used much of their 'morning worship' time. He railed against certain questions that had come up, and process changes, but mostly he always tied what he said to a Bible passage or topic, even if it was a rule he wanted to talk about. Some GB members rarely spoke on Bible topics, like Henschel and Jaracz, for example. (Sometimes MH & TJ would literally start out a talk with: "Jehovah is a God of order, therefore . . . . " or, "Our God is a God of rules, so let's talk about . . . .") However, I always appreciated something in what F.Franz said every day that he spoke.

I think a lot of the things he said could be taken as funny and thought-provoking. But I don't think it was healthy for the organization that he carried on in such a socially immature manner for so many years. He seemed to have a bit of an obsession with the Russell and early Rutherford years, and more than once told the story of how Rutherford said he had made an "ass" of himself over his 1925 predictions. But he would always emphasize the word "ass" for dramatic effect. Some of his later talks highlighted Russell and Rutherford's Christmas celebrations, birthdays, pyramids, false expectations, dates, etc., but without a stated purpose except maybe just for effect. 

With F.Franz, there was a lot to like, and a lot to feel sorry for. I think he could be brilliant and foolish at the same time. Nothing to hate.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Those JW who will go on Your page will find, I guess, more information than from WT official channels of communication. hehe

“The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics.

“It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about “abhorring child abuse” as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears.

“It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby.”

...

 

If it was up to me, there would be an ‘Opposer Servant’ in each circuit. He would say: ‘Look, follow Matthew 11 if you can. But if you can’t, if you simply must have a specific reply to the negative publicity that is becoming frequent fare for mainstream news outlets, here is training on how to deal with them.’

Regarding my book itself, I repeated the thought:

“The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics.

“It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about “abhorring child abuse” as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears.

“It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby.”

...

 

If it was up to me, there would be an ‘Opposer Servant’ in each circuit. He would say: ‘Look, follow Matthew 11 if you can. But if you can’t, if you simply must have a specific reply to the negative publicity that is becoming frequent fare for mainstream news outlets, here is training on how to deal with them.’

Regarding my book itself, I repeated the thought:

“The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.”

 

@TrueTomHarley    I see you are pushing your book again. Well I suppose it saves on paying for advertising :) 

As for the line :-

The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?”

Well when you are preaching to the converted / brainwashed, what would you expect.

I expect Hitler got the same amount of applause back in the day too :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is at the point now where one must flip from one to another to follow the discussion.

I can try to move the CSA centric posts here to there, but they will sort themselves by the time of the post and might cause some confusion there too as they "interleave" with the original posts, there. I'll look to see if it might improve things.

OK. I moved them. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2019 at 5:35 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

Unfortunately, I don’t share your views and value about, bad association. I am not here for the association but rather show how Ex’JW’s distort Watchtower publications to benefit what is clearly a misapplication of them. The 1943 Watchtower that was posted by Anna comes to show, how vital it is to have good expectations rather than try to satisfy the status quo.

It also appears this is being done with the claim of being an active member whereas if these thoughts and outdrawn misguided conclusions were set before the congregation, they would have nothing to do with such ideology.

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books, however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Another area of how the early brethren dealt with issues, was by being direct and frank. A characterization of Fred, seen as a hardnose can be applied to Raymond in private since he was hypocritical in public, but how the early Bible Students which Fred was baptized under and the Jehovah Witnesses that took a different direction.

This example on an exchange comes to mind.

Dear Brother Woodworth:-
Your editorial of July 8, 1931, entitled "Bible Students Radio Echo", has been read with much interest. Both you and I have often gloried in the privilege of scripturally refuting the audacious claims of the various Babylonian sects who boast that they constitute the only divine channel and repository of all truth. How often have you punctured the pompous pretensions of popes, priests, and ministers who have said that they possess God-given authority to judge and excommunicate all dissenters from their views, no matter how conscientious and devout such "heretics" might be!

We have both known and long taught that the Christian is called unto liberty, and that every child of God is divinely authorized to preach the Truth as he sees it. Is it possible that we are forgetting these past sound teachings and have come to ignore that precious heritage of Christian liberty that has long been ours? Are we now willing to adopt the "human ordination" arguments policies of the clergy whom we have so strenuously condemned?


Are we now ready to consign to everlasting destruction sincere Christians who have done no wrong greater than that of proclaiming Christ's Kingdom without first having been authorized by man or by a man-made organization? I cannot bring myself to believe, dear Brother Woodworth, that you and thousands of other Bible Students or Witnesses of Jehovah are giving your willing assent to such God-dishonoring theories and practices as your article implies. Hence, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, and with no thought whatsoever of retaliation, I write this letter in the hope that I may help you to arouse yourself from the spiritual stupor into which circumstances seem to have gradually forced you, manifestly against your better judgment.


In your attack against brethren who are preaching the Kingdom message without authority from the Society, you make no attempt to show that they are teaching error. Your argument is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the only instrument that the Lord would possibly use to proclaim Christ's Kingdom (although no scriptural reason for such a conclusion is given); and upon this premise you reason that any independent effort to proclaim the Truth is displeasing to the Lord, no matter how sincere or how effective such an effort may be, and that the Lord will vengefully visit upon such tellers of His Truth swift and lasting destruction.

You will agree, I am sure, that Jesus is the Head of His church, and that all laws governing that
body must come from Him. In spite of this, you have lent your name to a wholesale condemnation of consecrated Christians--your brethren--who are proclaiming the Kingdom message because they love it; and in support of your rash action you have not attempted to produce any authorization from the divinely-appointed Head of the church-evidently for the very obvious reason that no such authorization exists.

Haman Class seek to Monopolize
Both you and I well know that after the apostles fell asleep the early church departed from the faith and from the freedom in Christ which the Lord and His apostles had instituted. Priests and bishops then began to usurp authority; to claim a monopoly of the Truth, and to assert an autocratic control over believers. They claimed infallibility for the pope; all independent Bible study and teaching was banned; the priceless heritage of Christian liberty was taken away; and thus was brought about that dark, dismal period in the church's history during which thousands of Christians were burned at the stake or otherwise cruelly mistreated, when they tried to break away from that unauthorized, unchristian bondage of men and claim the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.


Finally, a successful break for liberty was made and the Protestant Reformation was launched. But one after another of the Protestant sects soon fell away to the very same error against which they had protested; boastingly to assert that they had the power to open and shut the doors of heaven to whomsoever they would. Is history again repeating itself?

This is the kind of openness the Watchtower framers had. Did, it make these people less qualified for their openness, and direct approach? Perhaps, you yourself would suggest this can be seen as a bad association. If this is the case, it would be applied to justify the end means, not the truth. This type of OPED’s can be seen throughout the Watchtower history, including the Zion Tower.

Also, with this illustration, it should be able to give more clarity to other issues.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.

Evidently, Fred Franz was NOT a "framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clear under scriptural bases." This was one of the more surprising points in "Crisis of Conscience."

When the Aid Book was being researched and written, it became obvious that the congregations would have been able to utilize all the elders who met the qualifications. By now it probably surprises most Witnesses that there ever was a time when each congregations was "run" by an ONE autocratic "congregation servant" who could hold that position for decades. He reported to a circuit servant who reported to a district servant who reported to the service department in the US or a respective branch servant elsewhere.

When R.Franz showed F.Franz the evidence that an elder arrangement was Biblical, he says that F.Franz appeared to have known this all along but had held off doing anything about it.

(Of course, under Russell and Rutherford, there already had been an elder arrangement, but this is something that Rutherford stopped in favor of the autocratic arrangement he called "Theocratic.")

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time.

Just another take on this, but I think that F.Franz was very unqualified to take on the same type of leadership role that Knorr took on. Milton Henschel, definitely, or even Ted Jaracz. I could see Sydlik probably capable but not in the running due to a condition that was rarely spoken about. In fact Max Larson would have been the most equivalent replacement for Knorr had he been anointed and on the Governing Body. F.Franz was very different, and so many of his early talks in public are forceful only in the sense that they were sometimes "shrill." He was more like a nerdy expert witness on a court stand that no one would speak against because everyone thought he was so much more qualified from the perspective of his intelligence. 

If you listen to his talks going back to 1950 and 1958 (some are recorded), you can see that several times he was given these very small talks that should have been called "Bible Greek Trivia," short snippets of linguistic expertise but on topics that would have seemed insignificant in the context of an international convention. Yet, I understand that when his office filing cabinets were opened after his death, it was obvious he had been the primary writer of all Bible-based articles in the Watchtower since Knorr's presidency (1942) and that he had even been the writer of many articles in Rutherford's lifetime. He wrote almost 100 percent of every prophecy book from 1942 through 1988. Articles that were written by others on these same topics merely copied his previously published material and reworded it. 

Jehovah no doubt blessed the decision to go back to an elder arrangement, and I think that F.Franz knew he could not stand in the way of this change, now that someone else had seen how clearly the Bible defines this arrangement. I sometimes think that Witnesses were protected from something quite chaotic and damaging that would have happened had F.Franz been the bureaucratic head and the unchecked spiritual head of the Society at the same time. The Governing Body arrangement was very timely. Jehovah provides.

Of course that didn't stop F.Franz from writing an article that included some non-Biblical speculation when he accepted the elder arrangement, and a very limited Governing Body arrangement in 1971. In the infamous 'tail wagging the dog' article from December 15, 1971, he wrote:

*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.

This may be an excellent idea. But where in 1 Tim 4:14 is there any hint that there was a 'chairmanship' among the body of elders, or that this 'chairmanship' rotated among coequal elders? The argument had been built from the idea that Peter speaks in Acts 2, and then James in Acts 15.

*** w71 12/15 pp. 758-759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
The governing body does not have officers such as the Society’s Board of Directors has, namely, president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer. It has merely a chairman, such as the governing body of the first century had. Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages. 

F.Franz was fairly proficient in several European languages and had studied Biblical Greek. He did a lot of work translating Hebrew and Greek into English, but I'm pretty sure he was not involved in translating scripture into any other languages.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

I found him to be a very interesting man. I'd read it.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980.

 But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others?

And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written:

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.

Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb.

So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.

This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. 

And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11. 

Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.

Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own.

If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.

That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. 

When was it ever anything else?

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books,

From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.

JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.

The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.

No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.

With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.

Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.

Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?

You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

Share this post


Link to post

I imagine you have dismissed the OPED I submitted, with how many in charge would be frank and open with their responses. Raymond was no different in private. Perhaps his behavior was more polished in public but that would be something people that liked him would only see.

There are two sides to a coin, and I got to experience both sides. It really didn’t matter to me, since adults at that times were by and large as you stated “child abuse” oriented by today’s standards, not so much by the signs of that time. Perhaps, this is the problem people have today.

They look at every situation with today’s ideology rather than being intellectual and cite with the past.

The ecclesiastical determination allows viewing scripture correctly. The understanding of rapture is defined by how God’s Holy Spirit can and will operate. I believe that has been discussed before.

The inference that Fred was not involved in translating scripture to other languages when at that time there were around 109 languages if memory serves, is not an adequate characterization of Fred’s abilities. I believe that was something that was challenged in court.

While the word “framer” is taken out of context, it was the foundation for best practices for having a judicial system through the congregations, Committee. Which Fred had a fair amount of input on how this committee should be conducted, with various scriptural conditions to support it?

Once again, perhaps this is why you hold loyalty to Raymond. In an ecclesiastical level, there was no one more qualified than Fred Franz.

This, however, will remain one opinion over another. The “actions” of both subjects speak for themselves.

This is why I don’t see how you can effectively contradict arrangements that weren’t part of the Watchtower after 1931.

Before that, each congregation ran independently of each other. There was no central system, even though some continue to insist, Bethel was Pastor Russell main hub when it wasn’t.

Elders in each congregation had the ability to choose for themselves what was best for their congregants. Another reason why other denominations were welcomed to speak at their church meeting. Traveling preachers. If they had internal matters within local congregations, they would form an Ecclesia body of Elders.

“We write to apprise you of the fact that a class of Bible Students of this town have organized as an Ecclesia--24 members --Brother W. Sargent of Halifax officiating; and have voted you in as Pastor and Elder.”

“We have heard of cases in which an Elder refused to speak to one of the Congregation because the latter had not voted for him”

Dear Brethren:

I am writing you this to testify my appreciation of the visit it of dear - Pilgrim Brother Blackburn. I so much enjoyed his sweet fellowship. He seemed so, charged with the Message of love-the Gospel of Glad Tidings­ that there was no room for malevolent backbiting and -slander of fellow-servants . . . Brother Blackburn, in all his discourses, emphasized the possessing of the spirit of -Christ Jesus as the all-important, qualification of Christian character . . . Ali! how can those 'Who have tasted of the heavenly gift be so lacking in the spirit of love as to smite brethren who cannot accept every wild speculation and vagary thrust before them! If those who do such things are thereby manifesting the spirit of the Lord, then I have read the Divine Word in vain.

If the Associated Bible Students were offering "strange fire" when they preach the Truth independently of the Society, not only would their efforts come to naught but they themselves would be cut short, even as your article suggests. But, instead of this, the Lord is richly blessing their efforts, and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society.

 

 All in all, we choose to believe what Satan has placed before us. If we refuse to acknowledge that effort, we will always play into his handy work. To distort the facts by distorting the truth.

For the Watchtower history, it’s been clear, the framers besides Raymond and former apostates like him, fell in a trap of their own device. Self-destruction by opening their hearts to Satan. Another evidence of this was the writing department in Raymond’s time. Conflict within, what a shame and wasted effort.

 

TTH, it is true some consideration should be given to some that still consider themselves as being part of this organization, but NOT when we are dealing with apostasy. If Raymond resigned and then disfellowshipped for it, how much more slack do you think people here should have? Therefore, you have the same conflict the writing department had back then with misplaced loyalty. But, that's between you and our creator.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

But, that's between you and our creator.

That’s a good way to put it. I like it.

If you cut people absolutely no slack, you almost push them out.

We do cut people slack in most areas. For example, if we cut them no slack on ‘loving violence,’ we would REALLY clamp down on those watching sports like American football, which has been PROVEN to drastically curtail life. (See the movie ‘Concussion’) But we don’t. We allow for the fact that all have missed the mark.

This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective.

Plus, he makes his posts so long that people skip over them, unless they are absolutely fixated on the points he raises, and if they are, they may as well get data from him, rather than from people who decidedly think ill of the JW cause and will make up falsehood. No, Felix, it is not that your point is invalid, but there are bigger fish to fry. 

Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ and MANY say they were driven away on that account. You (forgive my bluntness) are here a case in point, striving very hard to ‘control’ him (with good motive—don’t misunderstand). Of course, it is in the nature of the truth that there is going to be authority, but in light of ALL opposers saying it and MANY friends conceding that it can at times be smothering, it pays to give thought to not being unnecessarily that way.

My blog and book experience has led me to think of other areas where change may one day come. Elsewhere I wrote:

It may be unavoidable, but the scriptural counsel to avoid apostates come what may has a serious downside. If a youngster of ours succumbs to the oldest trap of human nature- going somewhere out of curiosity because he has been advised not to, and he stumbles, he finds himself totally unsupported because we don’t know what is there ourselves. All we can say is that he shouldn’t go there, which opposers spin as proof that he should stay in order to escape from being “controlled.”  I don’t know the answer, but it would be nice if there was one.

Share this post


Link to post

Quote TTH "From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. "

Plus belittling people. Making fun of important issues,

And advertising your books. 

And from my viewpoint the 'one of good heart' seeks only truth and justice, along with mercy and honesty. And in doing so looks to God through Jesus Christ for the guidance of holy spirit. Also reading and believing God's word, not mans.  

They do not take the easy, cowardly, way out, by serving 'A body of men' and hiding in an organisation that they know is dishonest and has no true love in it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Quote TTH. "Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ "

Opposers do this opposers do that. Apostates do this, apostates do that.

Dear old TTH, he loves to generalise.  Tom, everyone is an individual.

Haven't you watched 'Life Of Brian' ? We're all individuals. 

However if ten people saw a vehicle accident happen and had to give a report to the police, they would all probably give similar accounts.

If you have 50 ex JW's, they will each have their own experiences. If all 50 of them found the Org to be controlling then doesn't that tell you something ?  If you are not blind or deaf, it should tell you that those 50 people found the JW Org to be controlling. 

The only way JW's can get out of that control is by not completely obeying the 'rules'. And it seems that you are saying that the rules are not always enforced. BUT the rules are there none the less. 

Quote TTH "We do cut people slack in most areas."   Please explain.

WHO cuts people slack ? What slack are they cutting ? Do you mean that Elders allow congregants to break the rules ?

So are you admitting that there are those rules in place ?

If so, having those rules in place, is controlling. 

Yes I know we all have to obey rules in everyday life. For instance, which side of the road we drive on, stopping at red lights. 

But the superior authorities will admit they put rules in place, so they are controlling.

So why won't the GB of JW Org ,and you, admit that the Org is controlling ? After all isn't it supposed to be that way ? 

If there are rules it is for the purpose of having control. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Luke 12:32 . . . little flock; . . . John 10:16 . . .other sheep. . . Revelation 7:3-8 . . . the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, . . .

When you juxtapose those 3 verses as you have, it helps to make a case for the idea already presented that the little flock might be Jews and the other sheep might be non-Jews, that is: people out of every tribe and nation. In fact you stopped just one verse shy of verse 9:

(Revelation 7:9) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.

So we already know that in some sense the 144,000 refer to Israelites, and the great crowd refer to Gentiles. The question is whether the reference is literal. We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not. In fact, we teach that people of every tribe and nation are a part of that 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel, and that even many who are fleshly Israelites can end up being a part of that great crowd from all nations. Saying these expressions are NOT literal might appear to some people to be the equivalent of adding and subtracting from the Bible.

If the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning.

At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000.

R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth  --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16. The best argument the Watchtower uses for our current view of John 10:16 is that Christendom teaches they are literal Jews and Gentiles. This is not a real argument because we use Christendom all the time as evidence that we are right when Christendom's commentaries and scholarship agrees with us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I did explain. All you had to do was read the next sentence.

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

The post itself explains those things.

if you don’t mind, I’ll pass, John. Many others have explained these things for you. I haven’t seen any of them make an inch of progress.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

f the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning.

At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000.

R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth  --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16.

Then your exegesis is flawed. While the Israelites do hold some of the 144,000 saints it is conclusive with Jesus mandate by God’s Holy Spirit that the none-Jew (Gentiles) be included. Therefore, when scripture mentions all the tribes of Israel, it can’t be seen other than the descendants of all the tribes that have gotten mixed throughout the generations.

The same flaw found with Raymond. The same ill-conceived argument, when he failed to consider if Jesus was really a Jew because of his Parents. Raymond, just like about everyone doesn’t consider that Jesus was conceived by God’s Holy Spirit, therefore, Jesus was ALL nations (ADAM), not just the heritage of his parents. Was he clinging to his heritage, or was he framing how the Jews and none-Jews would be included?  He was the first Christian, meaning the first none-Jew, by a proclamation not by heritage. If we consider Raymond’s argument, with that logic, where does it leave Apostle Paul?

To that extent, the 144,000 would have the same proclamation. So, don’t think too much into the heritage that the Jews ultimately lost favor for, defying God so many millennia, ago.

Let’s not confuse the original Israelites that Jesus himself claimed to be Matthew 1:1–17 with the Jews in his time. Why else would Paul make a distinction with Romans 11:1 as to the Remnant of Israel? Paul demonstrated that Israel followed God by works instead of faith. That’s why those Jews refused to believe in Jesus and accept him as the Messiah. Had Jesus been born in the time of the Israelites, what do you think would have happened, seeing the son of God present.

We’d be having a different conversation if any, however, the makeup of humanity wouldn’t have been this evil. The same outcome present-day Israel is trying to do by building their own righteousness and their own sovereign state (Kingdom).

With Raymond’s understanding and yours, the 144,000 are already collected by heritage, way before Jesus was born, and serving as kings and priest, presently. This would leave out all the gentiles and converted Jews to Christianity. That is a distention the Watchtower makes when it refers to the false teachings of Christendom.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective.

I guess that would be the point TOM. What part of apostate views can be accepted? Especially when those same ideas are found in apostate sites. Where can we compromise as not to be seen hypocritical by NOT practicing what we preach? James 1:22–25 How can this marvel be seen different just because JWI explains it the same way as opposers. Where’s the intellectual capability with mistaken loyalty.

That in itself makes no ecclesiastical sense. In this case, there is no persuading those that honor God, not to have things seen, contrary to bible standards. Sorry. 😉

But, as you state in such an indirect way. JWI is a power player here and he can say whatever he wants. When he gets challenged by showing those areas of error, people get deleted, which decides where the greater influence lies. I get that, thanks for the warning, I’m on the verge of being erased, by Tom, Anna, JWinsider.

That being said, I do agree it’s your world TOM, the slave must conform to the master. 🤔

Now just because I used the phrase, “that being said” doesn’t automatically make me Space Merchant. JWinsider, LOL! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.

Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.

One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".

Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.

So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.

This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

JWI is a power player here and he can say whatever he wants. 

All you have to do to be a power player here is to hang around This is a commercial site, after all 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

When he gets challenged by showing those areas of error, people get deleted, 

The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.

    Hello guest!

Butler is right. I shamelessly self promote (but it is for the best)

 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I get that, thanks for the warning, I’m on the verge of being erased, by Tom, Anna, JWinsider.

None of these have that power. The ones that do, @admin and @The Librarian (that old hen) would not want you erased.  You contribute to eyeballs on this forum, and that drives traffic, which drives money in the form of advertising. This is a commercial site.  The worst you can do from their point of view is to disappear. JWI has been given minor clerical powers. They are mostly so that he can straighten out the messes that his posts mak in the form of launching tangents. The Librarian is a Witness, I would call her an ‘avante gard’ one, which to some means she is not. Admin is not a Witness and is ambivalent in how he feels towards them. Certain posts of his have not been encouraging, but he stays on his side of the fence. Business, you understand.

You have made your point well. Possibly I may mention it again, but I have no plans to bring it up again. An ‘agree to disagree’ thing, and yours is undeniably the majority view among our people. Perhaps it must be that way.

I will be with you as I am with him. In the words of the great American forefather, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will argue mildly for your right to say it!!’

That being said, that being said.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.

It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.

This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.

I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.

Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:

  • 24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls),
  • the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic,
  • the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic,
  • the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic,
  • the number 666 to be symbolic,
  • the 7 mountains to be symbolic,
  • the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic,
  • the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic,
  • the 2 witnesses to be symbolic,
  • the 12 stars to be symbolic,
  • the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic,
  • the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic,
  • the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic,
  • the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc.,
  • the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic,
  • the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic,
  • the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic,
  • the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles),
  • the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and
  • the 144 cubits to be symbolic.

I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.

The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:

  • John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed.
  • John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.)
  • Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue.
  • These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are:
    • standing before God's throne
    • standing before the Lamb
    • dressed in white robes
    • waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb."
  • John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength.
  • John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them:
    • they come out of the great tribulation
    • they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne
    • they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.)
    • God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.

==================

So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:

(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.

(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.

The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."

Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:

  • The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000
  • The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple

There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.

I will not quarrel over the meaning of the words “abusive” versus “obnoxious” since I’m sure its use is meant to justify the wrongful act of another.

I would think a witness would welcome a defender from abusive rhetoric like Butler and this person by the name of James Thomas Rook Jr.

Therefore, I see this as an unconstructive action on how the Pharisees tried to justify the persecution of Jesus, by removing an obstacle of righteousness from within their populous.  No difference here.

As you stated, this is something we are all guilty of by being here, including the librarian. Ephesians 5:1

Walk in Love

5, therefore, be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 wLet no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

 

By your explanation, there was no good reason to have removed Allen, and what is offered, is another form of unjust, justification to retain those that are abusive and against the Watchtower for the sake of revenue. Therefore, apostasy sells.

Then it becomes a matter of what side we're on.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, FelixCA said:

What part of apostate views can be accepted? Especially when those same ideas are found in apostate sites. 

I wrote the book on apostates.

Literally.

’TrueTom vs the Apostates”

Everything there is to be known about them I know. They come in many shapes, sizes, permutations, colors, and genres. Some of them may even be misnamed. Some are too young to be apostates, though they must be treated pretty much the same. Call some of them apostates-in-training. They are more like the inexperienced one snatched away by some wave of the trickery of men. (Ephesians 4:14)

Is JWI one them? It is probably good discipline for him to keep hearing it from every Tom, Dick, and Harry Witness that passes through here, for he undeniably is ‘out there,’ but I am not ready to throw him under the bus just yet, if only for fear that he may grab me by the ankle and pull me in, too.

Are his views ‘apostate,’ even if they can also be found ‘on apostate sites?’ There are many of such views that have eventually become adopted by the Witness organization. Were they apostate right up until the moment they were adopted and then revealed truth afterwards? It makes no sense.

There is some verse somewhere about not running ahead. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but it may be in John’s writing. Help me out, someone. Not you, Butler. That’s not good, to run ahead, but it mostly finds expression in those who are promoting a sect. Is he? It’s arguable, perhaps, but imo he is not. 

The prime component of what makes an apostate to me is a lack of submission to theocratic authority, and he goes out of his way to make clear that he has no problem with that. If you can’t even talk about something that (history has shown) might eventually be adopted, then it really IS true that eight men are the only ones authorized to think. Neither they nor anyone else would want that to be the case, I think.

When push comes to shove, he is submissive to appointed authority. Let that be enough on a bayou backwater thread as this. If he set up a booth at the Kingdom Hall: “JWI’s Thoughts,” that would be one thing, but he doesn’t (you don’t, JWI, right?)

Honestly. If he was an apostate I would know it because I wrote the book on apostates and he is not in it. (Yet. It is an ebook, after all, which has already been updated and no doubt will be updated again) Remember, ALL of us are apostate if you stretch the word too far, for Bethel clearly prefers we abstain from sites of off the grid spiritualality and yet here we are.

 

528A1187-AE31-4A1B-8352-0C146786AC6D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post

Quote TTH  " Remember, ALL of us are apostate if you stretch the word too far, for Bethel clearly prefers we abstain from sites of off the grid spiritualality and yet here we are. "

Oh dear thar word APOSTATE. 

 

apostate

Dictionary result for apostate

/əˈpɒsteɪt/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
    "after fifty years as an apostate he returned to the faith"
    synonyms: dissenter, heretic, nonconformist; More
adjective
  1. 1.
    abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.
    "an apostate Roman Catholic"
     
    GET IT IN YOUR HEADS THAT, A PERSON CAN LEAVE A RELIGION, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ABANDON GOD OR JESUS CHRIST
     
    And, all f you will know exactly how JESUS spoke to the Pharisees. That would have made Jesus an apostate to the Jewish religion. All Jesus' followers became apostate to the Jewish religion.
     
    No more animal sacrifices, Jesus fulfilled the LAW. 
     
    So why are you all so keen to worship the GB of JW Org, and to hang on their every word. If you GB wishes to misuse the word Apostate are you all so stupid you have to follow them ? 

Share this post


Link to post

Quote TTH :-

"I wrote the book on apostates.

Literally.

’TrueTom vs the Apostates”

Everything there is to be known about them I know."

Ah but only from your viewpoint. And only with a view of being famous for writing such a book. 

Self recommendation i think Tom. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

By your explanation, there was no good reason to have removed Allen, and what is offered, is another form of unjust, justification to retain those that are abusive and against the Watchtower for the sake of revenue. Therefore, apostasy sells.

I think it was personal with Allen. I afterwards had some private communication with him and found that I liked him a great deal. He got under the Librarian’s skin, I think. It is very hard for me to justify why he was thrown overboard and the equally bombastic Rook and shrill Butler were not. I don’t try. I just explain what I think happened.

The Librarian is one of those Witnesses who thinks truth emerges from vigorous debate. When you shine the bright light of TRUTH around, cockroaches disappear. (I think they just go elsewhere.) It is even possible that she is disfellowshipped. It is impossible to know with anyone. My practice is to update the words of Paul, “Every man is a liar,” to “Everyone online is a liar.” It is impossible to know, which is why the slave repeatedly advises young ones (and probably everyone else) to friend only those whom you know personally, counsel everyone here has chosen to ignore.

On Facebook there is a originator of Witness memes, commonly copied by the friends, that is supposedly run by someone disfellowshipped. It is a huge page. His work is excellent and loyal, shared widely by those who don’t know his status. Who can say what his motive is? but it doesn’t appear to be bad. Someone who knows he is disfellowshipped because she personally knows involved parties created a major ruckess trying to get everyone to unfriend him. (I never had in the first place; his kind of material is not what interests me) It looks absolutely ridiculous to outsiders, and to even most of us, when you try to enforce congregation standards on the Internet. Talk about a bad witness!

The one serious beef I have with The Librarian, besides her being an old hen, is that she drags people in through social media (I came in through Twitter) purporting to be a fine gathering site for Witnesses. I blew a gasket when I found that it was not, and one of the ones I came after was JWI, though to a MUCH lesser degree than I went after ones like Rook. I wrestled for some time whether it was right for me to stay here at all. In the end, I decided to and that move has facilitated two books, both loyal, and both absolutely one-of-kind, that I would not have been able to write otherwise. I hope that brothers enjoy it, but the brothers are not my main targeted audience in either case.

I have gotten comfortable here now. I’ve even struck up some sort of semi-camaraderie with Rook, the old pork chop, who I sometimes think of as ‘my’ apostate. A good number of opposers here I don’t think are mentally sound. They probably (inaccurately- or is it?) think the same of me. Several I can’t stand, though in some cases I have caught a glimpse or two of what makes them tick. I have gotten to prefer the word ‘opposer’ or ‘detractor’ over apostate, partly because the latter makes for a ridiculous spectacle to ones like @adminand partly because, in my case, it pays to know that they, too, are people. They chose a wrong course, imo, but they are still people, and I benefit by putting myself in their shoes sometimes.

There you are, Felix. As honest as I know how to be. Though it is very objectionable in many ways, I have reaped benefits by being here, and to the extent that my books are any good, Kingdom interests have also. There are so many sites 100% devoted to opposition, that this site cannot rate too highly on the JW HQ annoyance list. However, maybe because it is in some respects disingenuous, it is at the top of the list.

Share this post


Link to post

My goodness, if peeps can't handle this forum then how do they handle the real ministry ? 

As for me, Tom, can you honestly show me any reason I should be removed ?

Have I been any more direct than Jesus was with the Pharisees ?

I've just given as good and I've taken. Some of it just  mudslinging which i know is pointless but it is a sort of stress relief. 

 Quote "It is very hard for me to justify why he was thrown overboard and the equally bombastic Rook and shrill Butler were not. "

Perhaps the forum should come with a massive warning, 'IT'S A HOT KITCHEN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE HEAT THEN KEEP OUT'

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There is some verse somewhere about not running ahead. I cannot quite put my finger on it, 

What! Are you going senile now, you disgusting old fool? At least if you do, the damage will be slight. Nobody will be able to tell the difference!

Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” 2 John 9

Why don’t you try READING that book that you beat everyone over the head with? I think John Butler has you pegged pretty well, you hypocrite!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Tom, can you honestly show me any reason I should be removed ? Quote "It is very hard for me to justify why he was thrown overboard and the equally bombastic Rook and shrill Butler were not. "

It’s not so much that you should be. It’s that he shouldn’t have been. It is anything goes here. That’s just the way it is.

The one-sided action favors the perception that The Librarian, that old hen, is in bed with apostates. ( Yeccchhhh)

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, Raymond developed the same obscured understanding, when the Watchtower has kept in line with Bible understanding. To some extent, some within Christendom have kept the fundamental understanding of John’s vision, but yet fail to see the reality within John's vision. The same problem Raymond inherited.

Therefore, there is no reason for the Watchtower to redefine scripture for the sake of some blind faithful.

I asked Raymond how he could see the great crowd celebrating God’s triumphant victory if in that since it was to be literal upon mount Zion, with his updated understanding. The same reason Raymond's books are theologically useless.

The misguided understanding comes by not subjecting the vision in its proper context. 144,000 thousand from all the nations is literal, which Jesus presence along with the saints end up being a symbolic endeavor.

Those that remain will see Jesus victory and God’s glory in the heavens.

 

                           *** w15 7/15 p. 19 pars. 17-18 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***

17 The resulting war of Armageddon will lead to the magnifying of Jehovah’s holy name. (Rev. 16:16) At that time, all goatlike ones “will depart into everlasting cutting-off.” The earth will finally be cleansed of all wickedness, and the great crowd will pass through the final part of the great tribulation. With all preparations completed, the climax of the book of Revelation, the marriage of the Lamb, can take place. (Rev. 21:1-4) All those surviving on the earth will bask in God’s favor and experience bounteous expressions of his love. What a marriage feast that will be! Do we not look forward to that day with eager expectation?—Read 2 Peter 3:13.

18 With these exciting events ahead of us, what should each of us now be doing? The apostle Peter was inspired to write: “Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah

 

         *** w51 12/15 pp. 751-752 pars. 13-14 Release Under Way to the Ends of the Earth ***

 

13 This joyful prophecy extends now to the Shepherd’s “other sheep” who must be rescued from Babylon before Armageddon. That fact is revealed to us in the Revelation. John the apostle first describes his vision of the gathering and sealing of the 144,000 members of the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel. Then he says: “After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues.” That makes this a Gentile crowd, when compared with the 144,000 spiritual Israelites. But they are where, and what are they doing? “Standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes, and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’”

14 Have this “great crowd” come to Zion and submitted to the theocratic rule of Jehovah who is seated on the heavenly throne? They have; for one of the elderly persons identifies the crowd to John and says: “These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation [this locates their coming between 1919 and Armageddon], and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

ii. Great Multitude in Heaven (7:9–17)

 

The saints who are sealed on earth are next seen in heaven (see arguments below) wearing the white robes of triumph and holding palm branches in a reenactment of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:9). Draper (1983: 135–38) develops this imagery, asserting that the scene builds on Zech. 14:1–21. There the feast is connected with the pilgrimage of the Gentiles to Jerusalem in the last days, and here the great multitude have white robes (= the purity of the feast) and palm branches. They celebrate the great victory of God and the Lamb (7:10) and then are joined by the heavenly host, who sing another sevenfold praise reminiscent of chapters 4–5 (7:11–12). This obviously causes John considerable confusion, for one of the celestial elders tells John both the identity and origin (7:13) of those with the white robes: they are the saints who have emerged victorious from the “great tribulation” and have kept themselves pure (7:14). Their reward is to serve God continually as priests (7:15a) and to experience both the Shekinah presence of God and the shepherding activity of the Lamb (7:15b, 17a). As a result they will never again suffer the deprivations of this life (7:16, 17b).[1]

 

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel

I have no objection to someone else softening the focus of the ideas presented in my post by using the word 'might' instead of 'must'.

But for me, there are only two Israels in scripture, the fleshly and the spiritual (regardless of quibbles over the chequered history of fleshly Israel). The fleshly Israel had long lost it's identity when the apostle John wrote the words referred to above. So for me, he must be referring ONLY to spiritual Israel, as international a group in a fleshly sense as the "great crowd" he later describes, but, in contrast, a specific number against the latter, which are innumerable.

And as far as I can see, it is this concept alone, (a spiritual Israel), that incorporates satisfactorily the various references to the spiritual significance of terms like "Israel", "Jew", "circumcision" etc. in the Greek Scriptures. They all have their  connection with the anointed or heaven-bound "firstfruits" of those responding to Jesus. Unequivocally heaven-bound I say, to serve as king-priests alongside Jesus in the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham that his offspring or seed, (Christ and these 144000 "spiritual" Israelites), would serve for the blessing of all the nations, (the international "great crowd" of Armageddon survivors along with the rest of resurrected, obedient mankind).

I have yet to hear or read of a viable alternative that makes any sense overall.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There is some verse somewhere about not running ahead. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but it may be in John’s writing. Help me out, someone. Not you, Butler. That’s not good, to run ahead, but it mostly finds expression in those who are promoting a sect. Is he? It’s arguable, perhaps, but imo he is not. 

The prime component of what makes an apostate to me is a lack of submission to theocratic authority, and he goes out of his way to make clear that he has no problem with that. If you can’t even talk about something that (history has shown) might eventually be adopted, then it really IS true that eight men are the only ones authorized to think. Neither they nor anyone else would want that to be the case, I think.

When push comes to shove, he is submissive to appointed authority. Let that be enough on a bayou backwater thread as this. If he set up a booth at the Kingdom Hall: “JWI’s Thoughts,” that would be one thing, but he doesn’t (you don’t, JWI, right?)

I believe the context you are looking for is found 1 Corinthians 4:5, Philippians 3:13. This, however, can be seen depending on the Bible translation.

1 Corinthians 4:5 New International Version (NIV)

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

1 Corinthians 4:5 the Message (MSG)

So don’t get ahead of the Master and jump to conclusions with your judgments before all the evidence is in. When he comes, he will bring out in the open and place in evidence all kinds of things we never even dreamed of—inner motives and purposes and prayers. Only then will any one of us get to hear the “Well done!” of God.

 

Philippians 3:13 New International Version (NIV)

13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,

apostate.jpg

It’s interesting the perception you have about apostasy. Is it just afore dawn conclusion it’s only meant to “depart” from one's belief or is it also an action taken by one's heart.

James 1:26 ESV

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

 

Matthew 5:22 ESV

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

As you stated, enough of attempting to justify other people’s behavior by their personal actions. Let's move on.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

James 1:26:   If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue 

Well, you’ve got me there. And he. I plead ‘No contest.” Probably he will, too.

 

42 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Let's move on.

Yes. We’re going to get along just fine. I like being corrected by you and I do not blow it off as nothing, even if it does not trigger an immediate change. It surely will trigger a subtle one, in the ‘iron sharpens iron’ vein.

A Christian ought to be uncomfortable to find himself out of the mainstream of the Body of Christ, and he ought be ready to yield to it. THAT is where I might fault some, if anyone is demonstrably unwilling to yield. I do not ever say that the slave is wrong. It is not my place, even were I to think it. I have said, however, that there is a downside to this or that policy, as I did with what is becoming my specialty:

“It may be unavoidable, but the scriptural counsel to avoid apostates come what may has a serious downside. If a youngster of ours succumbs to the oldest trap of human nature- going somewhere out of curiosity because he has been advised not to, and he stumbles, he finds himself totally unsupported because we don’t know what is there ourselves. All we can say is that he shouldn’t go there, which opposers spin as proof that he should stay in order to escape from being “controlled.”  I don’t know the answer, but it would be nice if there was one.”

When I was asked to give the funeral talk by the widow of a good friend, I replied that I would but I didn’t know if it would be allowed at the KH, me being neither elder nor MS. It was. On the night of the talk, an elder there known for dotting ‘i’s and crossing ‘t’s asked me if I was using the outline. I told him that I was not and he was unhappy. Afterwards, however, he was. Another brother there with Bethel experience told me that they don’t mind at all ‘departing from script’ if one can improve upon it...they do it all the time.

Many things that are eventually adopted HQ was initially skeptical of. The quick build KHs are a case in point. They kept their distance until they saw that the brothers with experience in the field could pull it off. When they were satisfied it could be done, they leant full support.

The paranoid JTR often says of the GB, “Everything not expressly allowed is forbidden!” It probably is so in his case because everything he does is accusatory and crass. But in the case of brothers of good heart, I think it is not. They’re okay with probing about and experimentation at HQ, I think, so long as it is done in an appropriate way and so long as the one doing it doesn’t ultimately come to regard it as the hill he is willing to die on. 

I am ‘out there’ in some respects, but I do not think myself above theocratic arrangements. If the brothers at OPI said, ‘FalseTom, what are you doing?? You’re screwing up the works!!’ I would change course promptly. I have not kept myself hidden from them.

Share this post


Link to post

To quote the pussycat CA 

26  If any man thinks he is a worshipper of God but does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he is deceiving his own heart, and his worship is futile.

Ah but if you then look at the next verse 

27  The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.

Um, GB and JW Org complete FAILURE  

Share this post


Link to post

To quote TTH " I do not ever say that the slave is wrong. It is not my place, even were I to think it. "

This is so sad as I presume he is talking about the Governing Body. 

Psalm 146

  Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.

Remember that Tom. Those 8 men are only men. They are not God nor Jesus Christ. 

And ''if' they form part of the Anointed, they are only a tiny part of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 

7 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

To quote TTH " I do not ever say that the slave is wrong. It is not my place, even were I to think it. "   This is so sad as I presume he is talking about the Governing Body. 

No John. I keep a slave at home. In some respects I am behind the times.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Remember that Tom. Those 8 men are only men. They are not God nor Jesus Christ. 

Come, come. This is why your side becomes disorganized rabble, each person flailing away, and ultimately accomplishing little. Worse, they soon take sides over the many divisive issues of this system and are presently at each other’s throats—despite each one’s ‘personal relationship with Jesus.’

Every project needs direction and someone to lead. It is no more complicated than that. Refraining from critiquing them over every little thing is not the same as ‘worshipping’ them.

Many have tried to explain this to you, to no end. For the life of me, I cannot bring myself to explain something so obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No John. I keep a slave at home. In some respects I am behind the times.

And you need an OUTLINE to give a talk at a funeral ?  

You people really are puppets. 

And you were saying the other day that the GB / Org is not controlling ?

But they want you to stick to an outline to give a funeral talk and they much prefer you to be an Elder or M/S ? 

Bit of contradiction me thinks.. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Come, come. This is why your side becomes disorganized rabble, each person flailing away, and ultimately accomplishing little. Worse, they soon take sides over the many divisive issues of this system and are presently at each other’s throats—despite each one’s ‘personal relationship with Jesus.’

Every project needs direction and someone to lead. It is no more complicated than that. Refraining from critiquing them over every little thing is not the same as ‘worshipping’ them.

Many have tried to explain this to you, to no end. For the life of me, I cannot bring myself to explain something so obvious.

You poor man. You cannot stand the point that I AM AN INDIVIDUAL.

You always harp back to things like "your side becomes disorganized rabble"

Tom, i do not have a 'side'.  Please get it through your head that i act totally ALONE. 

Um Tom, does that cause you a problem with your BOOKS ?  Does it mean you may have to rethink and rewrite some of it ? 

You pretend that you know everything about ex-JW's, or apostates as you like to call them. But in truth you probably know very little, or more to the point you only know what you want to know. 

"Every project needs direction and someone to lead.    8 basically American men, where you could have 12 or more men from around the Earth. The Anointed are many and widespread it seems. 

And, the GB / Writing dept / JW Org, leaves itself wide open to inspection and criticism. 

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Tom, i do not have a 'side'.  Please get it through your head that i act totally ALONE. 

Well, there you go then. Coordinated effort such as under the direction of the GB can result in real spiritual benefits to people around the world, particularly in developing lands.

You sitting ALONE in your hut cannot, even if you are tight with Jesus.

I think it is the selfishness of the independent course that most annoys me. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Well, there you go then. Coordinated effort such as under the direction of the GB can result in real spiritual benefits to people around the world, particularly in developing lands.

You sitting ALONE in your hut cannot, even if you are tight with Jesus.

I think it is the selfishness of the independent course that most annoys me. 

you would be funny to some distorted minds. 

I was part of the JW Org. I am now on my own as someone seeking truth. But you would just be happy to distort everything I say because you know I'm right in most things. 

I think the Catholic church have  'Coordinated effort' too, and possibly the Protestants / Anglicans and more. So coordinated effort does not mean much. Even armed forces from different countries get together to go and kill people. You might call that coordinated effort. 

" particularly in developing lands. " Of course you mean less educated and more desperate people. Easier to 'convert' to JW's. 

If the GB were really the F&DS then yes, and if they told the truth, and if they were guided by God's Holy Spirit, and if they kept the Org clean instead of 'only washing the outside of the dish', then yes. But they are not, and therefore cannot. 

It's not my selfishness that annoys you TTH, it's my strength. My faith in God and Christ is still strong even though I have no human I can trust. 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It's not my selfishness that annoys you TTH, it's my strength.

Yesterday in service there was one of those pissy little yappy dogs nipping at my pant leg. I was annoyed with its strength.

You overestimate yourself, John.