Jump to content

Jack Ryan

The French Speaking Baptist Church of Stratford is now located in the former Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall at 494 Milford Point Road.

Recommended Posts

Screen Shot 2019-09-08 at 2.07.12 PM.png

The French Speaking Baptist Church of Stratford has moved into the former Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall on Milford Point Road, and has been meeting in its new location for about a month, a church official said.

Church leaders had been looking for a building in the area while renting space at the First Congregational Church on Main Street in Stratford.

Sauveur Joseph, a deacon, said the congregation is fairly new and has 60 members. The church meets from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Sundays and at various times during the week for Bible study and other events.

“Our job is to spread the gospel in Stratford and Milford,” Joseph said.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 494 Milford Point Road to the French Speaking Baptist Church of Stratford for $400,000 in June.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation that had met on Milford Point Road merged with other congregations in Orange and Stratford, according to spokesman Bryce Hemmelgarn.

Hemmelgarn said the sale and merger is typical of what is taking place on the national level. He said the consolidation is not because of shrinking numbers but rather growing numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The majority of growth has been in foreign language congregations, he said.

A study completed about five years ago indicated there was room in existing Kingdom Halls to house the growth.

Instead of buying new buildings, current halls were being looked at to incorporate other congregations, sometimes by offering different time slots.

“Evidence showed there was enough space to merge and share times,” Hemmelgarn said, adding that “full is ideal.”

Funds garnered by sales like the Milford sale are redirected to Bible and educational work in the United States and other countries, he said.

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEANWHILE a few hours north.....

They are building a new KH in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Canada | $450,000.

Part of the news:

Highlights of 2019's building permits include:

Mark Berlingieri's $6-million new Northside Volkswagen dealership at 878 Great Northern Rd.

a new $450,000 Jehovah's Witnesses religious building at 928 Second Line East

$1.5 million in interior and exterior renovations and site work at the existing New Apostolic Church at 135 Arden St.

a total of $1.3 million in Sault Ste. Marie Housing Corp. roof replacements at 55 and 90 Chapple Ave.

Etc

Read more at:

    Hello guest!

 

New car dealership costs $6 million, Apostolic Church renovations cost $1.5 million but brand new KH costs $450,000 due to slave labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

New car dealership costs $6 million, Apostolic Church renovations cost $1.5 million but brand new KH costs $450,000 due to slave labour.

What a slime ball!

My wife and I visited the zoo today. I discovered that for their habitat, conservation, and animal protection work they make use of scads of volunteers. I gathered them together, told them they were all exploited slaves, and they all quit.

Then I went to the hospital and liberated all the slaves there. Then the libraries. Then the nursing homes. Then Meals on Wheels. It’s disgusting how these organizations use and manipulate people! Jack and I will not hear of it!

Meanwhile, a closeby KH just had a massive remodel/build for a couple hundred K or so, with the aid of both skilled and unskilled volunteers, some of whom put in many hours and some few. One of the work overseers told of a neighbor who stopped by, learned of how it had been organized, and expressed amazement. His own church had burned to the ground a few years back. It took two years to begin planning reconstruction. The rebuilt church, hired out to a contractor, of course, ultimately cost them $5 million. 

This fellow was so impressed at what the brothers had organized and at the motivating power of faith. He didn’t even once grumble about “slave labor.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is very  significant to notice. When teaching new members and old members about Idolatry and Things that are connected with paganism and false religion and similar, WT JW organization expect from members to Destroy all things that have "smell" of false religion or pagan custom. Not to sell, for example gold cross jewelry, and get money and buy food. No, not sale BUT to destroy!

And here and in other places, we see selling of "dedicated worship place for JHVH" TO RELIGION which is considered as false, demonic by GB and WT JW organization. Irony? Double standard? Or Money greed? :))  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

dedicated

Buying and selling real estate for purposes of having buildings to meet in is just a common function of getting along in the world we live in. "Otherwise we would have to get out of the world," as Paul said.

But there have been some rather ironic "Dedication" talks by WT presidents, vice-presidents, and Governing Body members through the years. Some of these buildings were "dedicated" for one purpose, and one purpose only: to be used from that point until the Great Tribulation, and hopefully even through Armageddon as places where only true worship of Jehovah would always shine. I have a copy of a dedication talk for the old Assembly Hall in Queens NY from the 1970's, which had several of these types of references as I recall.

Some of this was 1970's "hyperbole" just like the way Rutherford dedicated Beth Sarim in San Diego for the continued use of Abraham and David after 1925, but ultimately sold it off to "worldly" persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 5:21 PM, Jack Ryan said:

New car dealership costs $6 million, Apostolic Church renovations cost $1.5 million but brand new KH costs $450,000 due to slave labour.

Let us look at this complaint one more time so as to take in just how wicked it is. This is not to say that Jack himself is wicked, but when he posts up to ten such complaints in a single day, you have to wonder.

Historically, nothing is more noble than volunteering. Though it could all be likened to “slave labor,” no decent human being does that. Jehovah’s Witnesses are also well-known for rebuilding the homes of their brothers in times of disaster. Presumably, Jack wants to undermine this as well. At any rate, those he hangs out with certainly do.

All that remains in the following chapter of “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” is to substitute Jack for Victor:

At the home of Victor Vomidog, an alarm panel light pulsed red. Victor read the incoming feed. It was serious. Someone was saying nice things about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instantly, he swung into action. There was not a moment to lose. He opened his door and whistled. The media came running. “Witnesses are selfish!” he cried. “They only think of themselves! Why don’t they help everyone? Why do they just do their own people?” That evening, media ran the headline: “WHY DON’T THEY HELP EVERYONE?”

But they had asked the wrong question. The headline they should have run, but didn’t, because they didn’t want to deal with the answer, was: “WHY AREN’T OTHERS DOING THE SAME?” The answer to the first question is obvious: Witness efforts consist of volunteers using their vacation time. Just how much time is the boss going to grant?

So do it yourself, Victor! Organize your own new chums! Or send your money to some mega-agency where they think Bible education is for fools. Be content to see monies frittered away on salaries, hotels, travel, retirement, health care benefits, and God knows what else! Be content to see much of what remains squandered! It’s the best you can do—embrace it! Or at least shut up about the one organization that has its act together.

The obvious solution, when it comes to disaster relief, is for others to do as Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Why have they not? There are hundreds of religions. There are atheists…aren’t you tight with them now, Victor?  Organize them, why don’t you? They all claim to be veritable gifts to freedom and humankind. Surely they can see human suffering. Why don’t they step up to the plate themselves?

They can’t. They are vested in a selfish model that runs a selfish world. Let them become Jehovah’s Witnesses and benefit from the Bible education overseen by the Governing Body, Plato’s and Sider’s dream brought to life. But if they stay where they are, they must look to their own organization or lack thereof. There’s no excuse that they should not be able to copy Witnesses. They have far more resources to draw upon. We’re not big enough to do everyone for free, and we don’t know how to run a for-pay model; we’ve no experience in that. Instead, other groups must learn how to put love into action, as we did long ago.

C’mon, Victor! If all the world needs is to ‘come together,’ then see to it! We don’t know how to do that. People without Bible education tend not to get along. You make them do it! You don’t want to, or can’t, do large-scale relief, yet you want to shoot down those who do! What a liar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, biddy2331@gmail.com said:

Perhaps its time Jack was sent on his way somewhere else.

Banned.jpg

I don't believe this can ever happen. I would recommend witnesses pass the word around to stay off this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there was a difference between Charles Taze Russell’s understanding of the definition of the word “dedication” and “consecration” it does not diminish todays understanding by Jehovah’s witnesses that understand what an “acceptable” dedication really means.

Something the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Governing Body have been correct to apply after 1934.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider or have considered a building as consecrated ground that it cannot be moved, just like the “ark of the covenant” was, constantly; moved.

I believe Jesus action in cleansing the temple can be considered. It should be correctly understood the consecration, portion is something that should be given to any building at the time of worship.

To those wanting to learn about Jehovah’s witnesses and their “dedication” to serve Jehovah no matter where they end up? There are plenty of references in JW.org.

No one needs to accept the writings of individuals. They don’t need to accept the Watchtower. You only need, to compare and understand what Jehovah witnesses, teachings are based on to accept their doctrine. They accept Jehovah’s word, along with Christ instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who "can't handle the truth" (I know it's hard to watch the disintegration of everything you hold dear)

There is a group on here of self-righteous "JW's only" who love to segregate themselves and post paradise pictures and only think good sweet thoughts.

They like their "ears tickled"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider or have considered a building as consecrated ground that it cannot be moved

Dedicated or consecrated (sorry for my lack of English language knowledge)  point is very clear. How would you look at your bro/sis in congregation  who decide to sell his house to people who openly said to him how house will be used for something that Bible teaching condemn or say it is bad? 

There is a saying how we always have a choice. Not only between two possibilities, but more than two. In this  trade with real estate WT JW organization have free will to choose buyer. And because of "spiritual" reasons to sell, even for lesser price, to somebody who will not promote"false teachings" :)))

As verbs the difference between consecrate and dedicate

 is that consecrate is to declare, or otherwise make something holy while dedicate is to set apart for a deity or for religious purposes; consecrate.

As adjectives the difference between consecrate and dedicate

 is that consecrate is consecrated; devoted; dedicated; sacred while dedicate is (obsolete) dedicated; set apart; devoted; consecrated.                  - source: 

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As verbs the difference between consecrate and dedicate

 is that consecrate is to declare, or otherwise make something holy while dedicate is to set apart for a deity or for religious purposes; consecrate.

Consecrate:  make or declare (something, typically a church) sacred; dedicate formally to a religious or divine purpose.

Thanks, Srecko, they are one in the same, as you pointed out.

15 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

While there was a difference between Charles Taze Russell’s understanding of the definition of the word “dedication” and “consecration” it does not diminish todays understanding by Jehovah’s witnesses that understand what an “acceptable” dedication really means.

Something the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Governing Body have been correct to apply after 1934.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider or have considered a building as consecrated ground that it cannot be moved, just like the “ark of the covenant” was, constantly; moved.

I believe Jesus action in cleansing the temple can be considered. It should be correctly understood the consecration, portion is something that should be given to any building at the time of worship.

So, these transitory buildings that are temporarily consecrated/dedicated for worship can be compared to the ark of the covenant?  God was in complete control of its movement, since it housed His Spirit. Only His priesthood was allowed to move it.  Josh 3:17   In the case of kingdom halls, men are in complete control of its use; when it should be discarded and another built.  In the meantime, these buildings are called the dwelling place of God’s Spirit – God’s house.  This appears to be a matter of convenience.   Unless I’m missing what you’re getting at, I don’t see the comparison at all to the ark of the covenant. 

15 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

No one needs to accept the writings of individuals. They don’t need to accept the Watchtower. You only need, to compare and understand what Jehovah witnesses, teachings are based on to accept their doctrine. They accept Jehovah’s word, along with Christ instructions.

Christ’s instructions:

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”  John 4:21-24

Worshiping in this way, doesn’t take any building to be consecrated or dedicated to do so; not even a mountain-like organization.  Jesus made this clear when he said, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”  That temple was the dwelling place of God, but Christ became the chief cornerstone of the new spiritual Temple, built on the apostles and prophets and all faithful, sealed "living stones" throughout the last 2,000 years.  John 2:19,21,22; 1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14

Stephen clarified it this way: “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:

49 ‘Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the Lord,
Or what is the place of My rest?
50 Has My hand not made all these things?’  Acts 7:48-50

I can imagine when a JW walks into a kingdom hall, assembly hall, and most definitely, a Bethel; thoughts are, that God’s presence in Spirit resides within the building.  This is why Bethels are decorated and pristinely presented, as a tribute to “Jehovah”. It is considered a “spiritual house”.   Is it all an illusion? Well, yes it is.   Can a JW separate the building from God, and God from the building? 

So if we are God’s children, we shouldn’t think that the divine being is like an image made from gold, silver, or stone, an image that is the product of human imagination and skill. 30 “God overlooked the times when people didn’t know any better. But now he commands everyone everywhere to turn to him and change the way they think and act31 He has set a day when he is going to judge the world with justice, and he will use a man he has appointed to do this. God has given proof to everyone that he will do this by bringing that man back to life.”  Acts 17:29-31

There is only one exclusive dwelling acceptable to be God’s house – His Temple:

1 Pet 2:5,9 - you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house (“into the temple of the Spirit”) to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.   But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

1 Cor 3:16 – “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

If God has chosen His dwelling in the anointed, what right does man have to formulate their own and claim God has blessed it? 

2 Cor 6:16 - 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.”

Eph 2:20-22 - Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

The “living stones”, the “royal priesthood” and dwelling of God, is right among the JWs.  Do they notice?  No, they notice their kingdom halls, assembly halls and Bethels, as landmarks of God’s dwelling places; replaced when needed with more work of their hands.  Rom 1:25

Regarding the dwelling place of God's Spirit, would you say that the organization has accepted God's Word through His Son, Jesus Christ?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

There is a saying how we always have a choice. Not only between two possibilities, but more than two. In this  trade with real estate WT JW organization has (corrected by spell check) free will to choose buyer. And because of "spiritual" reasons to sell, even for lesser price, to somebody who will not promote"false teachings" :)))

Can Jehovah witnesses be held liable for the personal action of a single person? Can they be held liable for the decision the Baptist church uses the building they bought? If they decide to worship Baal in that old Kingdom Hall, it is not the Watchtower position to condemn such false teachings.

For those of you that don’t understand scripture. Dedication is a personal action while consecration is a position.

The difference is on the person, place or thing, a group of united followers wish to use to worship the almighty.

You may wish to start with the understanding, Christ is the church. Is the Body of Christ a building? Did Jesus not use the temple? Perhaps by visiting JW.org, these questions can be made clear.

I will remind the readers there is a vast difference between the Bible Student Zion Watchtower, and the Jehovah Witnesses Watchtower. Those differences must not be compared, since doctrine does differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

The difference is on the person, place or thing, a group of united followers wish to use to worship the almighty.

You may wish to start with the understanding, Christ is the church. Is the Body of Christ a building? Did Jesus not use the temple?

The building of kingdom halls is looked upon as bringing “honor to Jehovah”, and it is not by coincidence that the Warwick Bethel has as its address, 1 Kings Drive. (1 Kings 8:13)  Buildings mean something  sacred to JWs.  I have watched a JW video of an assembly hall compared to the early temple,and how it must be treated with care as the early temple was.    They have great value as a place of consecrated worship.  Does it bring “honor to Jehovah” when these dedicated buildings are put up for sale?   If you say this thought would not be applicable at such a time, then how would anyone know that building a kingdom hall to begin with, brought "honor to Jehovah"?  How is it, one knows that God receives honor at the completion of  building a kh, but not privy to what He thinks when the 'for sale' sign is posted?

It is the hypocrisy, that is in play.  Hypocrisy and the idolatry of placing spiritual value in the work of man's hands.  Ps 135:15  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

Can Jehovah witnesses be held liable for the personal action of a single person?

In general view, it is not reasonable to expect how some bro/sis in Honduras (or anywhere in the World) is/are responsible for act of JW lawyer or GB member who making more or less important decisions on activity of Organization.

8 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

Can they be held liable for the decision the Baptist church uses the building they bought?

The same as above :)

8 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

If they decide to worship Baal in that old Kingdom Hall, it is not the Watchtower position to condemn such false teachings.

:)) WT JW Organization position is to point with "finger" how some/many religious beliefs and practice of Christendom and other religions is/are "condemn" by Bible through WT JW organization publications and representatives and rank and file members.

8 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

I will remind the readers there is a vast difference between the Bible Student Zion Watchtower, and the Jehovah Witnesses Watchtower. Those differences must not be compared, since doctrine does differ.

This would be interesting to discuss :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In general view, it is not reasonable to expect how some bro/sis in Honduras (or anywhere in the World) is/are responsible for act of JW lawyer or GB member who making more or less important decisions on activity of Organization.

This is true. No one can be held responsible for the action of another. This is why the Governing Body cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual witnesses and members who attend meetings but are not baptized.  The Governing Body is held accountable by Jehovah himself. 

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

:)) WT JW Organization position is to point with "finger" how some/many religious beliefs and practice of Christendom and other religions is/are "condemn" by Bible through WT JW organization publications and representatives and rank and file members.

Can this not be said of other religions that condemn Jehovah witnesses for just about everything? The only thing left would be, condemn witnesses for the air they breathe.

I have no doubt Jehovah witnesses consider their K.H. as a consecrated place of worship while they are worshipping Jehovah at the time of use. I can see where any place can be considered consecrated ground for the purpose of worship.

When Jehovah witnesses use other building to conduct such as circuit or regional assemblies, I don’t see where they would own such property to use as consecrated ground to accommodate a larger audience of worshippers.

I can relate where in California, Jehovah witnesses purchased a Baptist Church to hold their weekly meetings. Can I say because it was purchased by another religion, that building in stained?

I believe the destruction of Jehovah’s House also confirms the looseness in the use of the word consecration. I also believe, when the Philistines captured the Ark, 1 Samuel 4, an instrument of Jehovah, can we say; while the ark was in the Philistine’s possession, was it held on consecrated ground?

*** w51 7/15 p. 431 Expansion of Theocracy in Indonesia and Singapore ***

On Sunday morning 45 turned up at the Victoria Theatre to hear a discourse on baptism, after which 5 persons symbolized their consecration to do God’s will by being immersed in a pond near the edge of the city. The question now was, How would the public respond to the advertising for the public lecture, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”? At 4 p.m. came the answer. We saw the ground floor of the theater filled with an audience of 307 persons, which, considering the restricted avenues of publicity available due to municipal ordinances and emergency regulations, was a splendid result.

I recall, Joseph F Rutherford had to sell almost all the Watchtower assets to continue running the Watchtower, after his release from prison.

I believe there is an overreach with these definitions. I don’t recall where, Jehovah witnesses are fanatics as to consider the issue of consecrated ground, they couldn’t sell the original Tower in Pennsylvania and the original Headquarter in New York.

The fact that Russia confiscated all Watchtower material that includes Kingdom Halls can also be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 10:18 PM, Jack Ryan said:

"JW's only" who love to segregate themselves and post paradise pictures and only think good sweet thoughts.

They like their "ears tickled"

What do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ray Devereaux said:

No one can be held responsible for the action of another.

This go to sphere of hierarchy.

Parents are responsible to their minor children. Boss is responsible for his employee. Commander is responsible for his soldier. Church /leaders) is responsible for believers. 

Why? Because instructions, lessons, direction for acting, guiding etc. coming from those people who are in power and making influence on lower levels of group. In that sense GB carrying responsibility and have to bear effect/ outcome of decisions they have put on members as obligation that they must do or not to do.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 6:51 PM, Ray Devereaux said:

Banned.jpg

I don't believe this can ever happen. I would recommend witnesses pass the word around to stay off this site.

This club is open to anyone. If you want to join a JW only club here it is:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This go to sphere of hierarchy.

Parents are responsible to their minor children. Boss is responsible for his employee. Commander is responsible for his soldier. Church /leaders) is responsible for believers. 

Why? Because instructions, lessons, direction for acting, guiding etc. coming from those people who are in power and making influence on lower levels of group. In that sense GB carrying responsibility and have to bear effect/ outcome of decisions they have put on members as obligation that they must do or not to do.  

 

It's a little bit more complex than that. Yes, parent's are definitely responsible for their minor children, even when their minor children are out of  sight, the responsibility for what the children do is still the parents, because the parents should be watching them.  However, is an employer responsible for what his employee does outside his employment? If the employee does something bad while on vacation (robs a bank) would his employer bear responsibility? Obviously not. Now if the employer planned the robbery with the employee, and got the employee to carry it out, then the employer will hold some liability. But it is still the employees choice, whether to go along with the plan or not. I don't think the claim "he made me do it" would hold up in court.

It always seems to me that when people try to hold the GB responsible for their choices in life, its like they forget that no one actually MADE them do anything. That it was the persons personal conviction, that whatever the direction the GB gave was correct, and therefor they followed it. We have to make the choice whether to follow it or not. Now if the direction proved wrong, then sure, we can blame the GB for the bad outcome, but it was STILL our choice and we have to get up and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 9:58 PM, Witness said:

The building of kingdom halls is looked upon as bringing “honor to Jehovah”, and it is not by coincidence that the Warwick Bethel has as its address, 1 Kings Drive. (1 Kings 8:13)  Buildings mean something  sacred to JWs.  I have watched a JW video of an assembly hall compared to the early temple,and how it must be treated with care as the early temple was.    They have great value as a place of consecrated worship.  Does it bring “honor to Jehovah” when these dedicated buildings are put up for sale?   If you say this thought would not be applicable at such a time, then how would anyone know that building a kingdom hall to begin with, brought "honor to Jehovah"?  How is it, one knows that God receives honor at the completion of  building a kh, but not privy to what He thinks when the 'for sale' sign is posted?

It is the hypocrisy, that is in play.  Hypocrisy and the idolatry of placing spiritual value in the work of man's hands.  Ps 135:15  

Something is only as good as what it is on the inside.  Any structure has value to the Witnesses when it is used for pure worship. I know an old church that was converted to a KH. So it's not about the building, but about what goes on on the inside. Once a building stops being used for the purpose it was built for and is put on the market, it becomes immaterial to the JWs what or who occupies it after that. This proves there is no idolatry or placing of spiritual value on the building itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anna said:

Something is only as good as what it is on the inside.  Any structure has value to the Witnesses when it is used for pure worship. I know an old church that was converted to a KH. So it's not about the building, but about what goes on on the inside. Once a building stops being used for the purpose it was built for and is put on the market, it becomes immaterial to the JWs what or who occupies it after that. This proves there is no idolatry or placing of spiritual value on the building itself.

A very 'practical' viewpoint.  As a young Catholic, I would set up a shrine to  the "Virgin Mary" in my bedroom for the month of May.  I didn't think much of the statue until I dressed up the temporary shrine with bouquets of flowers and anything else I could think of that would make it appealing.  I prayed to Mary in front of that statue...just for the one month.  The rest of the year, Mary was put on the book shelf and left there.  There is no doubt in my mind that any JW would believe I was committing idolatry, which I was.

Definition of “shrine”:

shrine is a place of worship which is associated with a particular holy person or object.

Shrine comes from the Latin scrinium meaning "case or box for keeping papers." Think of a shrine as a niche or case in which the spirit of someone special is kept. It could be a statue or some other form of commemoration to either a person or a relic. A shrine can be as small as a tiny mantel in your house or it can be as massive as a building commemorating, or shrining, a sacred person. (vocabulary.com)

 

Armenian Branch Dedication Video

David Splane:

“Is it your desire to dedicate the Branch facility, the assembly hall and the school facility to Jehovah today?”  (met with applause)

You say this isn’t idolatry?

wp16 No. 2 p. 10:

“Originally the word “shrine” represented a case that held sacred relics. The meaning has since broadened; it now refers to a place considered sacred, religiously or otherwise. Religious shrines are dedicated to the worship of a deity or the veneration of a “holy” person.

“Many of the world’s major religions have shrines, and countless millions of people visit them. In professed Christian lands, there are numerous churches and shrines dedicated to Jesus, Mary, and the saints.”

Is it not a shrine if it is dedicated to “Jehovah”?  Is it not a shrine if it is called a kingdom hall or assembly hall?

“How, then, should Christians view pilgrimages to and worship at shrines? (video - “The dedication week started off with a welcome night, where many traveled long distances to attend.  And some had not seen each other for a long time”)

Taking into account Jesus’ command that true worshippers worship God with spirit and truth, it is clear that worship rendered at any shrine or sacred place has no special value to our heavenly Father. Additionally, the Bible tells us how God views the veneration of idols in worship. It says: “Flee from idolatry” and “guard yourselves from idols.” (

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) Therefore, a true Christian would not worship at any place that is viewed as holy in itself or one that encourages idolatry. Thus, on account of the very nature of shrines, true Christians refrain from worshipping at them.”

Every time a building is ‘dedicated to Jehovah’; and its finished product is spoken as bringing honor to "Jehovah”, idolatry is encouraged; even if at a later point in time, the building is sold.  This building and discarding of dedicated kingdom halls, assembly halls, and Bethels, reminds me of Isa 44:9-20  Yet, it is not a new idea with the organization, since it also is “worshiped”. Rev 13:4,8  To verify this, JW believe salvation is not possible without it.  We worship God who is our salvation.  Christ also deserves our worship, since “there is no other name under heaven” by which we must be saved.  Acts 4:12; Rev 5:13,14

 But an organization as man’s salvation?  Built in Satan’s realm?   Any bit of truth, such as stated above in the article, is not put into practice by your leaders. (like child abuse)

2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."  Matt 23:2,3

 

All who make idols are nothing,
    and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
    they are ignorant, to their own shame.
10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
    which can profit nothing?
11 People who do that will be put to shame;
    such craftsmen are only human beings.
Let them all come together and take their stand;
    they will be brought down to terror and shame.

12 The blacksmith takes a tool
    and works with it in the coals;
he shapes an idol with hammers,
    he forges it with the might of his arm.
He gets hungry and loses his strength;
    he drinks no water and grows faint.
13 The carpenter measures with a line
    and makes an outline with a marker;
he roughs it out with chisels
    and marks it with compasses.
He shapes it in human form,
    human form in all its glory,
    that it may dwell in a shrine.
14 He cut down cedars,
    or perhaps took a cypress or oak.
He let it grow among the trees of the forest,
    or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow.
15 It is used as fuel for burning;
    some of it he takes and warms himself,
    he kindles a fire and bakes bread.
But he also fashions a god and worships it;
    he makes an idol and bows down to it.
16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
    over it he prepares his meal,
    he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
    “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.”
17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol;
    he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
    “Save me! You are my god!”
18 They know nothing, they understand nothing;
    their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
    and their minds closed so they cannot understand.
19 No one stops to think,
    no one has the knowledge or understanding to say,
“Half of it I used for fuel;
    I even baked bread over its coals,
    I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left?
    Shall I bow down to a block of wood?”
20 Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him;
    he cannot save himself, or say,
    “Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?”

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anna said:

Now if the direction proved wrong, then sure, we can blame the GB for the bad outcome, but it was STILL our choice and we have to get up and move on.

 

8 hours ago, Anna said:

It's a little bit more complex than that.

Yes Anna, it is always little bit more complex than we can say at a moment :))

If JW members dare to blame GB for wrong directions, they doing that in own head and thoughts perhaps shared with one or two trustful JW friends, not in comment at meetings.

On other hand, we all can testimony how GB not wish to take any blame for wrong instructions, but to spread "responsibility" on all who, supposedly, act in too much zeal for worship or how they misunderstand  some article and public talk. :)) 

It is complex, for sure. One of reason for that is Sort of Culture developed in Society/Organization (not unique problem in WT only but in other organizations too) how Higher Hierarchical Class is less "guilty" because God "appointed" them on/to position of lead and guide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Anna said:

It always seems to me that when people try to hold the GB responsible for their choices in life, its like they forget that no one actually MADE them do anything. That it was the persons personal conviction, that whatever the direction the GB gave was correct, and therefor they followed it. We have to make the choice whether to follow it or not. Now if the direction proved wrong, then sure, we can blame the GB for the bad outcome, but it was STILL our choice and we have to get up and move on.

It if was just that easy.  Experience by those who do so, will say that no one gets up and moves on without being shunned or disfellowshipped for doing so.  So, although no one actually made an individual do anything, it is stipulated that any who are independent of GB direction, are "apostate"; especially if it is expressed verbally.  

But you know these things already.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

we all can testimony how GB not wish to take any blame for wrong instructions, but to spread "responsibility" on all who, supposedly, act in too much zeal for worship or how they misunderstand  some article and public talk. :)) 

Yes, it does appear like that sometimes. Perhaps though it really IS due to misunderstanding 😀. It can happen so easily, especially with the written word. This is why it's always better to call someone, rather than text 🙂.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

One of reason for that is Sort of Culture developed in Society/Organization (not unique problem in WT only but in other organizations too) how Higher Hierarchical Class is less "guilty" because God "appointed" them on/to position of lead and guide. 

But if you know the Bible, then you believe the opposite: "Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him"   (Luke 12: 47-48) (This scripture is actually talking about the Faithful and discreet slave/GB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Witness said:

 Experience by those who do so, will say that no one gets up and moves on without being shunned or disfellowshipped for doing so.  

That's because they DON'T just get up and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Anna said:

That's because they DON'T just get up and move on.

In other words, you recognize that speaking up against the GB’s mistakes can cause one to be shunned; however, no one can walk away, not even quietly without being shunned.  I can count four individuals close by, who are not disfellowshipped but are treated as such, just for walking away.    You also know these things.

A true Christian who follows the path of Christ, would speak up for truth and expose error, right?  Isn’t that the emphasis the organization takes when it comes to “christendom”?  Why should upholding truth  stop just because eight uninspired men say they represent Christ?  

Matt 24:24  Even the anointed/"elect" are stumbled by the end time, "false christs".  John 16:2; Rev 13:11,15  

Christ was not a coward; following in his footsteps requires speaking out for his truth., not swallowing lies or just walking away.   Matt 5:10,11

Eph 6:12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anna said:

This is why it's always better to call someone, rather than text 🙂.

Perhaps it will be a little expensive to call few of you across the Ocean :)) .... and with my slow mind and weak English .... i think i will stay on text :)))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anna said:

(Luke 12: 47-48) (This scripture is actually talking about the Faithful and discreet slave/GB).

(Luke 12:41, 42) . . .Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time?

Interesting. So when Peter asked Jesus, "Are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?" Jesus should have answered, "NEITHER!" It's not to any of you apostles or disciples, because you'll be long dead by the time I return, and it's not to "everyone" either, because it's only going to apply to about two or three dozen people who are around between 1919 and, let's say, 100-and-some-odd years after that date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 4:11 PM, Ray Devereaux said:

You may wish to start with the understanding, Christ is the church. Is the Body of Christ a building? Did Jesus not use the temple? Perhaps by visiting JW.org, these questions can be made clear.

An illustration was given by Jesus on what kind of standard should be taken by those that decide to take the lead. The GB doesn’t overreach on its authority. I recall when Brother Jackson commented on how they, including the Elders, should not be seen like the Gentiles of Jesus at the time.  A better defense of contextual evidence than an irresponsible comment from outsiders about Luke. 1 Peter 5:3

Jesus himself stated, he was a servant and not to be served. Matthew 20:25-28

I have not found any evidence to suggest the GB has made it a practice to rule over others except by following Jehovah’s command. I don’t believe the GB has any illusions of being masters, especially task masters.

Maybe some brothers have forgotten. The GB has a greater responsibility as faithful servants and will receive a worse judgment of Jehovah if they deviate from God’s message.

In Brother Russell’s time, it was a given since each congregation was independent of each other. Perhaps the Bible Students felt the same way of understanding, Galatians 6:9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 6:58 PM, Ray Devereaux said:

While there was a difference between Charles Taze Russell’s understanding of the definition of the word “dedication” and “consecration” it does not diminish todays understanding by Jehovah’s witnesses that understand what an “acceptable” dedication really means.

Russell did see a difference between "consecration" and "dedication." But it did not become a big deal. In fact, the song "Consecration" as it was sung from 1928 under Rutherford's leadership, was not changed to "Dedication" until almost a decade into the leadership period of Knorr/Franz, in the 1950 to 1966 songbook (with hardly any other words changed in the song). After dropping that song for a while, most of the words were brought back into the latest song "My Prayer of Dedication" (now #50).

I should clarify that I see nothing wrong with buying a church/synagogue/mosque, or reusing or repurposing it for our own meetings. (With appropriate modifications.) And I see nothing wrong with selling a property to someone who wishes to use it however they want. The "dedication" was for a temporary purpose because it was a material object.

I also do not object to dedicating material objects for spiritual purposes. There is nothing wrong with dedicating Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, or even houses, cars and fields for such purposes.

I did want to make the point that because there will be more and more of this "turnover" and material transience in the times we live in, that we should be careful not to think of such material things as permanent. We are but alien residents passing through the world, and this world is passing away, not just in the future, but parts of it keep passing away before our eyes. (From human, economic, and even natural causes.)

To quote another of our songs: (#92) we do NOT attach any special significance to the material in the building or its location:

May we present this place to you,

And here may your name be known.

We dedicate this place to you;

Please accept it as your own.

2. And now may we honor you, Father,

By filling this place with your praise.

May glory ascend with the increase

Of those who are learning your ways.

Committing this place to your worship,

We give it our generous care.

And long may it stand as a witness,

Supporting the message we bear.

When I worked in the Art Dept at Bethel around 1980, a brother had drawn an Armageddon-like scene from the viewpoint of everyone attending a meeting and the typical destructive view as seen through the window of Kingdom Hall. This view was rejected by the Writing committee in favor of the more typical image of a stream of Witnesses walking away from a city being destroyed and up into the peaceful hills nearby with all eyes forward to a goal and no one looking back. More recently we have seen images of the Great Tribulation from the viewpoint of groups of Witnesses gathering wherever possible, but there is no special emphasis on Kingdom Hall buildings. 

I think that choice of imagery helps to avoid thinking of the buildings themselves as the "ark of salvation." It's much better to think of pure worship, including association with others, as that "ark of salvation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dotlizhihii Tlenaai said:

The GB doesn’t overreach on its authority. I recall when Brother Jackson commented on how they, including the Elders, should not be seen like the Gentiles of Jesus at the time.  A better defense of contextual evidence than an irresponsible comment from outsiders about Luke. 1 Pet 5:3

I believe that the illustration of the Faithful and Discreet Slave applies to the Governing Body. But I also believe that it is presumptuous for anyone to limit the meaning of the Faithful and Discreet Slave to the Governing Body. In fact, making such a claim of BEING the Faithful Slave before Jesus returns to confirm who has actually been "the faithful slave" is presumptuous, and is therefore a sign of being indiscreet. It is the very definition of being "discreet in one's own eyes."

(Isaiah 5:21) . . .Woe to those wise in their own eyes And discreet in their own sight!

1 Peter 5:3 was referenced by you and it says:

(1 Peter 5:3) 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, . . .

Referring to oneself as "governors" (i.e. a "Governing Body") is exactly what "lording it over" would be expected to look like. So it's not being faithful to this Bible verse, nor to the original illustration of the "faithful and unfaithful steward/slave" in Luke and Matthew. That same point is made in the NWT cross-referenced verse:

(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters [lords/governors] over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

When you mention not wanting to be seen like the Gentiles in Jesus time, you probably recall that this included the titles we might use to identify ourselves as the Gentiles and Jews of Jesus day liked to do:

(Matthew 20:25-27) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.

(Luke 22:27) 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? . . .

(Matthew 23:7-10) . . .. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.

The Governing Body members, through the publications and public conventions, continually point out that they are the ones taking the lead over the congregations, and that correct teaching only comes through the hands of a few, rather than just pointing to how well these teaching match the teachings of Jesus himself. We should consider whether this might actually be the very kind of "overreach" that Jesus warned about. 

I see nothing at all wrong with the idea of the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters for the collective congregations, just as there is nothing wrong with the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters that come up for local congregations. But it is our Christian duty to question the food served, especially to comment on any concerns with respect to how well it matches the teachings of Jesus, the congregations' true Leader and Teacher.

As servants (slaves) the ones preparing such meals should expect and desire to be questioned about the ingredients of the meals they distribute, they should humbly seek out the input of others with respect to the content and quality of the meals prepared and distributed by such stewards.

In reality, there is no parable of the "faithful and discreet slave." It's really a parable of the "faithful slave/steward vs. the unfaithful slave/steward," and it everyone's responsibility to act like the faithful one, and not the unfaithful one.  All of us need to be faithful rather than unfaithful stewards. In fact the parables are MORE about what it means to be the UNFAITHFUL steward. In the parable of "Who really is the [true] neighbor?" this is only a little bit about the untrue neighbor, and MORE about who really is the "TRUE neighbor," using the example of the good Samaritan. But in this parable about "who really is the true steward?" it's about faithfulness, but it's even MORE about examples of UNFAITHFUL stewards, and various levels of unfaithfulness.

That said, it's still true that overseers, including the Governing Body, take on a greater responsibility as stewards. And this also increases the responsibility to act even more faithfully, humbly and discreetly. A slave would never ask for obedience to themselves, only that we obey Christ's leadership. Therefore, as we see how the example of any overseer's faith works out, we obey the lead of those elders. (Hebrews 13:7)

While it's true that we are all stewards, every overseer, especially, is God's steward.

(Titus 1:7) . . .For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, . . .

There should be no stewards who set themselves up as a kind of human tribunal:

(1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) . . .In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .

Paul wrote to congregations in Corinth where certain persons were trying to be too influential in "governing" the faith of those in the congregation, going right back to 2 Cor 1:24 already quoted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As servants (slaves) the ones preparing such meals should expect and desire to be questioned about the ingredients of the meals they distribute, they should humbly seek out the input of others with respect to the content and quality of the meals prepared and distributed by such stewards.

This is very good observation. GB are full in pride and self confidence of idea how food they prepare and serve are so good for JW's and non JW's. With expectations that JW's have to trust them because they are worth of trust.

About served food. All of us experienced how, when we were guest in someones home at meal, we have been asked; do you like food, is everything tasty, do you need more salt, paper, etc? Even in restaurants waiter asking; is it all good, all right with served food?   

Self made conclusion by authors of articles (and pictures) how publications and program are "proper food in proper time", or to be more precisely, not by authors always, but by Publishing Company and GB who making last verification and giving "green light" for publishing, not giving that possibility to asking for more "salt" in food. :)) 

Of course, some people need less and some people need more "salt", so it is also good to notice how food is not possible to prepare, for all this various people, only in one "pot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dotlizhihii Tlenaai said:

I have not found any evidence to suggest the GB has made it a practice to rule over others except by following Jehovah’s command.

When someone forbids JW members to be critical on WT articles, or not to hear opposite view about JW Organization and GB, under treat of rebuke, shunning and dfd, than that can be understand as intention or reality of idea - "rule over others".   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 2:14 PM, Anna said:

This club is open to anyone. If you want to join a JW only club here it is:

Question. Is that JW only for Jehovah’s witnesses to discuss uplifting spiritual matters or is it the same as it is here where witnesses will come together to criticize doctrine, policy, and the governing body? I don’t want to be part of any unhelpful discussion if I join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe that the illustration of the Faithful and Discreet Slave applies to the Governing Body. But I also believe that it is presumptuous for anyone to limit the meaning of the Faithful and Discreet Slave to the Governing Body. In fact, making such a claim of BEING the Faithful Slave before Jesus returns to confirm who has actually been "the faithful slave" is presumptuous, and is therefore a sign of being indiscreet. It is the very definition of being "discreet in one's own eyes."

Question. Isn't that something that is being presented, by you, when the GB doesn't go around promoting themselves.  They are discreet. The reason they are not discreet here is the promotion of something they don't personally claim. 

How would you separate that truth from fiction, here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Self made conclusion by authors of articles (and pictures) how publications and program are "proper food in proper time"

The theory is that the GB gets weekly feedback from each congregation through the circuit overseer’s report. That’s pretty good feedback, actually, and compares well with even many democratic lands, where the wealthy people in power have virtually no clue as to how their poorer subjects live. More than “no clue,” they often have no interest. That is not true with the GB. If they cannot literally put themselves in the shoes of those that they shepherd, they certainly come a lot closer than any form of human government.

The theory is also that “the people will be taught by Jehovah,” not by a popularity contest of the people.

Besides, each time there is a change in wording or practice, your side is wont to claim that it is done for legal reasons. Thus, your own assumption is that they do listen to “the people.”

The old Russian proverb says: “Ask the children what they want for dinner, and they say: ‘ice cream.’ They get beetroot soup because they live under communist rule, and not a democracy.” What is democracy, H.L. Mencken says, but “the pathetic notion that individual ignorance adds up to collective wisdom?” 

If that is true with one brand of human government, it will certainly be true with a government where “the people will be taught by Jehovah.” You just want them to be taught by yourself and your friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Question. Isn't that something that is being presented, by you, when the GB doesn't go around promoting themselves.

It's good to question. And it's a good question: Are they promoting themselves?

A small group of men, a committee of elders, claim themselves to be the very group of men that Jesus had in mind when he gave a parable about how a faithful slave would act, as opposed to how an unfaithful slave would act. 

Did that claim arise from outside this group of men, or did they promote it about themselves? I'm guessing that you already know the answer.

8 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

The reason they are not discreet here is the promotion of something they don't personally claim. 

Do they personally claim to be the only currently living persons that Jesus was talking about when he spoke of the one who would prove himself to be "the faithful and discreet slave"? Is this not the same as saying "we are faithful" and "we are discreet/wise" and "we are that selected/appointed slave that Jesus was referring to?"

*** ws17 February p. 21,22 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
And how can we “remember those who are taking the lead” among us, especially “the faithful and discreet slave”?—Hebrews 13:7; Matthew 24:45.
JESUS LEADS THE GOVERNING BODY

...

In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” . . . Even during those early years, a small group of anointed brothers at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, provided spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. The expression “governing body” began appearing in our publications after 1940. At that time, the governing body was closely connected with directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. However, in 1971, it was made clear that the Governing Body was different from the Watch Tower Society, which was responsible for legal matters only. From then on, anointed brothers could become part of the Governing Body without being Society directors. . . .  The July 15, 2013, issue of The Watchtower explained that “the faithful and discreet slave” is a small group of anointed brothers who make up the Governing Body.

*** ws17 February pp. 24-26 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
“WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?”
12 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor perfect. It can make mistakes when explaining the Bible or directing the organization. . . .  What evidence is there that the Governing Body is the faithful slave? Let us consider the same three things that helped the governing body in the apostles’ time.
13 Holy spirit helps the Governing Body. . . .
14 Angels help the Governing Body. . . .
15 God’s Word guides the Governing Body. . . .
“REMEMBER THOSE WHO ARE TAKING THE LEAD”
16 Read Hebrews 13:7. The Bible says to “remember those who are taking the lead.” One way we can do this is by mentioning the Governing Body in our prayers. . . .17 We can also remember the Governing Body by following its instructions and direction.

This is quite different from saying that the Governing Body strives to be faithful and discreet. That is proper.

*** w18 January p. 19 par. 12 Why Give to the One Who Has Everything? ***
With prayerful consideration, the Governing Body strives to be faithful and discreet with regard to how the organization’s funds are used.

It's slightly different when the same claim is reworded to directly claim that the Governing Body IS faithful and discreet.

*** ws18 January p. 18 par. 12 Why Give to the One Who Has Everything? ***
The Governing Body is faithful and discreet in the way the contributions are used.

But at least that is an understandable statement in the context of an article requesting that we give money and resources for various uses to further the preaching work worldwide, etc.

But it is another thing altogether to claim that they (a handful of men) are the only "faithful and discreet slave" on earth today, that Jesus appointed as a small class in 1919, and that they must be obeyed, and that they are the only source of true spiritual food.

*** w18 April p. 31 par. 1 Questions From Readers ***
Jehovah has entrusted the responsibility of providing spiritual food to “the faithful and discreet slave” alone.

*** ws11 7/15 p. 25 par. 11 Have You Entered Into God’s Rest? ***
What do you do when the faithful and discreet slave tells you to try a way of preaching that you never tried before? Do you obey . . . ?

*** ws11 7/15 p. 24 Have You Entered Into God’s Rest? ***
We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

How would you separate that truth from fiction, here?

So it's pretty easy to separate truth from fiction just by accepting what the Governing Body has claimed about themselves in print. We don't have to make anything up. If they claim a certain thing about themselves, they put it in print, and there is no problem separating truth from fiction, here.

But this does not mean that we shouldn't "obey" them. They are elders, they are desirous of a fine work. We don't obey them because they have claimed to be prophesied about in a parable that Jesus made, however. We "obey" their faithful lead, as we contemplate how their conduct turns out. We obey by imitating their faithful conduct.

(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

If we are humble, we will submit to the instruction given by those who are faithful and discreet. This should be true of all elders, who are all faithful stewards.

(2 Thessalonians 3:9) . . .Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate.

1 Peter makes it clear, that to a certain extent being a faithful steward applies not just the elders, but also to every one of us:

(1 Peter 4:10, 11) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God; if anyone ministers, let him do so as depending on the strength that God supplies;. . .

But, none of us, who is really a faithful and discreet steward, will ever recommend ourselves as someone who is approved, and who must therefore be obeyed. We obey in the sense of following faithful examples and Christian instruction.

(2 Corinthians 10:18) 18 For it is not the one who recommends himself who is approved, but the one whom Jehovah recommends.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The theory is that the GB gets weekly feedback from each congregation through the circuit overseer’s report.

Circuit overseers gets reports from elders, in theory. Elders gets information from congregants, in theory. Congregants are not ready to talk against organizational preparations and doctrines, in theory.

Well, does this "feedback" is based on assumptions, personal impressions and conclusions or even gossips?

43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The old Russian proverb says: “Ask the children what they want for dinner, and they say: ‘ice cream.’ They get beetroot soup because they live under communist rule, and not a democracy.”

If proverb is so old, i doubt that children of those time had knowledge what the ice cream is :)))))

43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You just want them to be taught by yourself and your friends

You give me more importance than i really have. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the "Truth" ONLY the GB are supposed to have any, and effort to find out anything of importance that is NOT on the agenda can get you called into the famous and dreaded "little back room, 101" for some friendly interrogation of why do you want to know ... and possible charges of disrupting the peace of the Congregation, for which you can be disfellowshipped.

There is a great and pervasive chill in the "Truth", now where people are afraid to speak about anything, for fear that they may use unapproved words, in unapproved phrases, to tip of the "hall monitors" that they may not be orgasmically happy about everything that is being said, and is going on.

I think JW Insider made an important point recently when he quoted the scripture about Elders (and the GB, presumably) should be free from accusation.

It's a REQUIREMENT ... not an optional extra.

To be free from accusation means you have to CHANGE ... not double-down and prepare for a siege.

"Make sure of all things ... hold fast to what is fine"

It's like eating fish ... it's best to throw the head, bones, and scales away ... but if you do it here, you become an apostate.

... and everyone know we live under that sword .... held up by a small, tenuous thread.

We are NOT free from legitimate accusation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The theory is that the GB gets weekly feedback from each congregation through the circuit overseer’s report. That’s pretty good feedback, actually, and compares well with even many democratic lands, where the wealthy people in power have virtually no clue as to how their poorer subjects live.

This is true. My uncle was retired from Circuit work due to his age. (And he just visited two weeks ago.) His reports for many years were only statistical, as he was expected to handle locally any "disciplinary/doctrinal/"political"/spiritual/judicial/appeal" matters, based on his training and good deal of trust. A big part of his week was organizing visits to the inactive list to get them reporting (and attending) again, and then dealing with issues among the elders themselves.  District overseers would ask them periodically what they had found most helpful in bringing up the numbers, and we can assume that many of those ideas were fed back to the Service Department. All assignments about what to talk about, and even many "local needs" still came from the top down. In the last few years before retiring, however, he said that there was much more communication about what he felt the congregations needed spiritually, for morale, for encouragement.

Also, they are encouraged to write into the Service Department for answers to difficult questions when in previous years they were expected to handle more issues on their own.

The article I quoted from above gives the impression that this is mostly a one-way, top down direction from the GB, but this doesn't tell the whole story:

*** ws17 February p. 26 par. 17 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
We can also remember the Governing Body by following its instructions and direction. The Governing Body gives us direction through our publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions. It also appoints circuit overseers, who then appoint elders. By carefully following the directions given to them, the circuit overseers and the elders show that they remember the Governing Body.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The theory is also that “the people will be taught by Jehovah,” not by a popularity contest of the people.

I expect that you were thinking of this same article, just quoted from:

*** ws17 February p. 25 par. 15 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Consider what happened in 1973. The June 1 issue of The Watchtower asked whether “persons who have not broken their addiction to tobacco qualify for baptism.” The answer it gave to that question was based on Bible principles, and it was no! The Watchtower cited several scriptures and explained why a person who will not stop smoking should be disfellowshipped. (1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 7:1) It said that this strict standard does not come from humans but comes “from God, who expresses himself through his written Word.” No other religious organization has been willing to rely so completely on God’s Word even when doing so may be very difficult for some of its members. A recent book on religion in the United States says: “Christian leaders have regularly revised their teachings to match the beliefs and opinions gaining support among their members and in the larger society.” The Governing Body, however, is not guided by what most people like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Question. Is that JW only for Jehovah’s witnesses to discuss uplifting spiritual matters or is it the same as it is here where witnesses will come together to criticize doctrine, policy, and the governing body? I don’t want to be part of any unhelpful discussion if I join.

Read the club guidelines and that might give you an idea. It is up to you what you want to discuss, and the tone you want to set, especially when you create your own topic. No one is going to make you be part of any discussion, helpful or unhelpful. It is up to you what discussion you join. And the good thing is, if you don't like the club, then there is a button at the top right hand corner which says "leave club" and that will delete your membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If proverb is so old, i doubt that children of those time had knowledge what the ice cream is :)))))

If proverb is so new, i doubt that children of those time had knowledge what the communism is :)))))

I threw in “old” to place the proverb in Soviet times, where it belongs.  Surely they knew what ice cream was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But, none of us, who is really a faithful and discreet steward, will ever recommend ourselves as someone who is approved, and who must therefore be obeyed. We obey in the sense of following faithful examples and Christian instruction.

Thank you for your response. I will continue to hold the Governing Body as seen through the eyes of Jesus, not in reverence but deserving of respect for their hard work and dedication to Jehovah.

I can see the difference with the Holy Spirit that Jehovah lays out for each of us.

1 Corinthians 12:8-10 American Standard Version (ASV)

8 For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: 9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; 10 and to another workings of [a]miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits: to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues:

While the Governing Body is a servant that feeds Jehovah’s domestic flock, I don’t believe as you stated that Elders receive the same level of the Holy Spirit as they do.

All baptized and dedicated persons receive God’s Holy Spirit. But I just don’t see where it would be, in particular to suggest the inheritance of that spirit is the same.

Do you think that “women” can be elders?

Romans 12:6-8 American Standard Version (ASV)

6 And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; 7 or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; 8 or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with [a]liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.

I will agree in one point you made. All baptized witnesses should “obey” those that take the lead in order for Jehovah to see the harmony within the organization.

Hebrews 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch over your souls as those who must give an account. To this end, allow them to lead with joy and not with grief, for that would be of no advantage to you.

I have no inclination to disrespect God for the choices he makes in man, and whom he chooses to receive God's instructions.

Can I ask? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Do you believe, as the Bible students did, to have each congregation run independent of each other?

Given your response, I cannot support that kind of man's logic. I will instead support scripture as divine truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anna said:

Read the club guidelines and that might give you an idea. It is up to you what you want to discuss, and the tone you want to set, especially when you create your own topic. No one is going to make you be part of any discussion, helpful or unhelpful. It is up to you what discussion you join. And the good thing is, if you don't like the club, then there is a button at the top right hand corner which says "leave club" and that will delete your membership

Thank you. Given the preview, here. I will stay out of that club. I don't see anything spiritually uplifting if that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

44 minutes ago, Sean Migos said:

Thank you for your response. I will continue to hold the Governing Body as seen through the eyes of Jesus, not in reverence but deserving of respect for their hard work and dedication to Jehovah.

 

45 minutes ago, Sean Migos said:

I have no inclination to disrespect God for the choices he makes in man, and whom he chooses to receive God's instructions.

 

That is pretty impossible for the GB, isn't it?  They admit they are not inspired by Holy Spirit, which is the only way they could receive God's instructions.  If they were to work as one with the an entire anointed Body, then yes; they would receive instructions of truth through Christ.  Col 2:19;  1 Cor 12:21-26; Eph 4:4-6

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.  1 John 2:27

Holy Spirit, the source of inspiration comes from the vine - Jesus Christ.  If these men say they are not inspired, (which they have) they have not 'remained' on the vine.  

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."  John 15:5-8

So, whose "instructions" are they carrying out?  2 Cor 11:4,13,14    How does Jesus truly see these men who claim they are not inspired with his truth?  

 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."  John 14:15-17 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Witness said:

hat is pretty impossible for the GB, isn't it?  They admit they are not inspired by Holy Spirit, which is the only way they could receive God's instructions.  If they were to work as one with the an entire anointed Body, then yes; they would receive instructions of truth through Christ.

I won’t dignify a response when the opposition believe they have inherited some kind of truth by the God of this world.

Not being inspired or infallible then becomes a different position from the one given by this dedicated opposition. The GB actions seem to prevail on not accepting anything “inspired” by evil works. Can the same be said about the opposition? 1 John 5:19

Can anyone claim infallibility aside from Christ? Weren’t all of the first century Christians infallible? Were they not chosen by Jesus to continue his fine work? I don’t see where this argument can be applied.

I will not hold an endless debate with those that oppose the org. I’m looking for meaningful and structured alliances with spiritually awake individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 11:37 PM, Sean Migos said:

Is that JW only for Jehovah’s witnesses to discuss uplifting spiritual matters or is it the same as it is here where witnesses will come together to criticize doctrine, policy, and the governing body? I don’t want to be part of any unhelpful discussion if I join.

The expectation of being spiritually uplifted here is zero. I recommend, all Jehovah witnesses that are not in conflict with themselves, not take part here. Being here only serves to rebuff those that have inherited conflict by their own initiative, or had past situations they were sanctioned for. 

Do not look favorably on that JW only club. It amounts to the same dissidence as it does here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is a great and pervasive chill in the "Truth", now where people are afraid to speak about anything, for fear that they may use unapproved words, in unapproved phrases, to tip of the "hall monitors" that they may not be orgasmically happy about everything that is being said, and is going on

What a paranoid nutcase, someone who has become a self-fulfilling prophesy! If I didn’t know better, I would say he is one of Jack Ryan’s IMF secret agents. How did he get to be this way? Did the fellow, probably always quirky but also idealistic, once require readjusting, per 2 Corinthians 13:9-11, and someone too heavy-handed used a sledge hammer instead of a chisel?

Surely the “people afraid” must be those found online, certainly not in the flesh at the Kingdom Hall, for this “fear” is not the spirit that exists at any Hall that I am aware of. If they are online, then they are murky. You don’t know who they are, regardless of what they may say. Yet if these are the ones you hang out with, you do nothing but feed into your confirmation bias, which seems well past the point of no return

Nurturing that bias from online, my guess is that you project it on ones who you actually meet in person, because they are simply not that way in reality. The complaining spirit is yours, not theirs.  The fear is yours, not theirs, that if you actually speak openly of your contempt for those taking the lead in the Christian Congregation, they will immediately apply to you the verse about gangrene—diseased tissue that is beyond the point of healing, and start thinking of how one must deal with gangrenous tissue. (2 Timothy 2:17)

And does newbie @Sean Migos think that he can find things “spiritually uplifting” here? Provocative, yes, newsworthy sometimes, even thoughtful in places (though not this one). But for what is truly spiritually uplifting, one must search within the context of the congregation, “a pillar and support of the truth.” (Not to discourage Sean, of course, who states his case well, but just to serve as a reality check)

There was that plea from JTR on what was to be found in the Love Never Fails convention. After attending, I thought of the discussion of what love is, per 1 Corinthians 13, specifically how it covers a “multitude of sins”—whether they be yours or those of others. But I also anticipated the reaction: “Yeah, I’ll start when they start.” I fear the heart has become too hardened for any of that counsel to sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And does newbie @Sean Migos think that he can find things “spiritually uplifting” here? Provocative, yes, newsworthy sometimes, even thoughtful in places (though not this one). But for what is truly spiritually uplifting, one must search within the context of the congregation, “a pillar and support of the truth.” (Not to discourage Sean, of course, who states his case well, but just to serve as a reality check)

Can this be acceptable when there is so much division within the brotherhood? It appears, certain opinions are promoted much more than people are willing to accept as fabricated truth by those causing those spiritually dead debates because some fear repercussion from the congregation. Is that not seen as Adam and Eve trying to hide from Jehovah? What fine Christian example can one receive? What spiritual testimony can those that have yet to know Jehovah be given by those individuals? Are any of you Jehovah’s witnesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Thank you for your response. I will continue to hold the Governing Body as seen through the eyes of Jesus, not in reverence but deserving of respect for their hard work and dedication to Jehovah.

I think you are exactly right. This is why I said the following:

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

. . . by accepting what the Governing Body has claimed about themselves in print. We don't have to make anything up. . .  But this does not mean that we shouldn't "obey" them. They are elders, they are desirous of a fine work. . . .  We "obey" their faithful lead, as we contemplate how their conduct turns out. We obey by imitating their faithful conduct.

That was based on Hebrews 13, of course, and also:

(1 Tim. 5:17) Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.

As Christians, we should question every one of our teachings, to make sure it is brought into obedience with Christ's teachings. We should never shirk our responsibility to "make sure of all things," "prove to yourselves," "test the inspired utterances," "pay close attention to your teaching," "see whether these things were so," etc., etc.

And since the Governing Body have become the most public of our elder committees, and have taken on a greater responsibility, it is vital that we question them just as we should question a local body of elders. More will be asked of those to whom more has been given. Teachers will receive heavier judgment. We don't just want to have our ears tickled.

In the NWT, the paragraph that starts out with 1 Tim  5:17, quoted above, ends with this phrase, after a discussion about reproving elders before all onlookers:

(1 Timothy 5:21) 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.

Remember that there was a group of men in the first century that, due to a set of circumstances, were being seen as a kind of "governing body" that was at least indirectly exerting an strong influence on the doctrines of distant congregations. Galatia was very far from Jerusalem; it was about as far from Antioch, as Antioch was from Jerusalem. So Paul wrote to Galatia about those men who were at least indirectly creating such an influence on them, and he said:

(Galatians 1:7-3:1) 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. . . . Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . . . 15 But when God, who separated me . . .  so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. . . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . .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. . . .  11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, . . . 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, . . . . 3 O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence. . . ?

So when Paul told Timothy not to show any partiality when it came to reproving elders before all onlookers, we see that Paul had already "walked the walk." If we are to be imitators of Paul's example, then we should be willing to look closely at all the doctrines and influences that we are taught, no matter who they come from. Even if from those who seem to be important, even if from the very pillars of the congregation, even if from James, Peter or John, or men sent from them. Would we be willing to resist such ones face to face? Or would we yield in submission because they were highly regarded?

Fortunately, of course, that matter in Jerusalem was cleared up with the help of the holy spirit. Fortunately for us, most matters of this magnitude have already been cleared up, too, and we have no problem always giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want us to submit to their lead. This probably causes no problems at all for 99 percent of us.

But we should still learn from the apostle Paul's words, that our teachings should not come from men, and that we should always be ready to resist any teachings that still need to be brought into harmony with the good news, no matter from whom or where we learned them.

We should be happy to have a committee of elders who are willing to take on the necessary responsibilities for the world-wide congregations. We should respect them, honor them, and follow their lead. However, the teaching that claims that the Governing Body is equal to the Faithful and Discreet Slave of Mt 24 is one of those teachings that we should question, specifically for the Biblical reasons that Jesus and Paul gave us. Also because it directly contradicts other Watchtower teachings from the March 15 2015 Watchtower. Also, it gives the impression that there are specific humans that we should always identify as Leaders, (even "Governors") instead of looking IMPARTIALLY to each particular example of conduct and faith, to contemplate how it turns out. It gives us the impression that, for doctrinal matters, a certain group of men should always have the FINAL say, and can therefore override the Christian-trained conscience of individuals, who will stand or fall before the judgment seat as individuals. 

As true and discreet slaves, we will each take the initiative (take the lead, see footnote on) in carrying each other's burdens. None of us, no matter how much we think of ourselves, will believe that more honor goes to us than we should give to others. This is what true obedience means:

(Galatians 6:2-5) . . .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.

(Romans 12:9-16) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked; cling to what is good. 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead.[fn, initiative] 11 Be industrious, not lazy. Be aglow with the spirit. Slave for Jehovah. 12 Rejoice in the hope. Endure under tribulation. Persevere in prayer. 13 Share with the holy ones according to their needs. Follow the course of hospitality. 14 Keep on blessing those who persecute; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. 16 Have the same attitude toward others as toward yourselves; do not set your mind on lofty things, but be led along with the lowly things. Do not become wise in your own eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I chuckled when TTH called Sean Migos a "newbie."

I'm almost willing to put money on it, that the new 'trio' is you know who....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

I don’t believe as you stated that Elders receive the same level of the Holy Spirit as they do.

I never said they received the same, less, or more. Jesus said, about Jehovah:

(John 3:34) . . .He does not give the spirit [by measure].

Also, I think we cal all learn a lot about the spirit from these words:

(Romans 8:26, 27) 26 In like manner, the spirit also joins in with help for our weakness; for the problem is that we do not know what we should pray for as we need to, but the spirit itself pleads for us with unuttered groanings. 27 But the one who searches the hearts knows what the meaning of the spirit is, because it is pleading in harmony with God for the holy ones.

(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God except the spirit of God. 12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.

13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

All baptized and dedicated persons receive God’s Holy Spirit. But I just don’t see where it would be, in particular to suggest the inheritance of that spirit is the same.

I wouldn't suggest that.

*** w11 12/15 p. 25 par. 12 Guided by God’s Spirit in the First Century and Today ***
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons.” (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11) Yes, holy spirit can operate in different ways on different servants of God for a purpose. Indeed, the holy spirit is available both to Christ’s “little flock” and to his “other sheep.”

*** w09 6/15 pp. 23-24 par. 15 The Faithful Steward and Its Governing Body ***
However, Christians who have truly received this anointing do not demand special attention. They do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special insights beyond what even some experienced members of the “great crowd” may have. (Rev. 7:9) They do not believe that they necessarily have more holy spirit than their companions of the “other sheep” have. (John 10:16) They do not expect special treatment; nor do they claim that their partaking of the emblems places them above the appointed elders in the congregation.

Of course, that last Watchtower article was written just a year or so before the Governing Body did begin to ask for special attention, but the points made are still true.

13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Do you think that “women” can be elders?

It would be difficult to be a woman and also be a man, and the husband of one wife. (And, of course, those with two wives could not be elders!)

(1 Timothy 3:1, 2) . . .This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife . . .

13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Hebrews 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them,

As pointed out in a previous post, this "obedience" is really about imitating those who take the initiative as examples to follow. Translating it as leaders appears to be improper, and in conflict with Jesus and Paul's other words about Leaders. In fact the NWT shows how this phrase can actually be translated as "those taking the initiative"

(Romans 12:10) . . . In showing honor to one another, take the lead* [*take the initiative].

*** nwt Romans 12:10 ***
Or “initiative.”

In other words, one of the ways we can recognize the true types of persons (especially elders/shepherds) whom we should be following (imitating) would be if those persons are taking the lead in showing honor to persons like Sean Migos. As individuals, members of the Governing Body should not have any trouble showing honor to persons like you.

13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Can I ask? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Yes.

13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

Do you believe, as the Bible students did, to have each congregation run independent of each other?

No. As I said, it's a very good thing to have a committee of elders who are capable of handling issues for the congregations on a world-wide basis, whom we can respect. We live at a time when communications are such that this can work better than ever in the past.  I believe that various issues that come up with respect to unity and disunity in the congregations SHOULD be addressed by such a committee.

I think you know that the only time for concern is when this group of persons might take upon themselves the authority to create new doctrines/practices based on supposition and conjecture. There is nothing wrong with supposition and conjecture, and we should expect some of this, but it should never be accepted as anything more than supposition and conjecture. (And the Governing Body has admitted that much of what we have been taught has been conjecture.)

There is a loving way to present different conjectural ideas, and there is a way that "beats their fellow slaves." One could say, that this certain verse might mean this, and it might mean that so that they explain why they prefer (for certain explained reasons) to believe that it means this. That's fine because it doesn't get in the way of the leadership of Christ Jesus. But if that slave should say, we believe it means this, and if you believe it means something else then you should be kicked out of the congregation, then I think we know when a line has been crossed. It does not have to be the duty of a "Governing Body" to create conjectural teachings. In fact, per Galatians, if conjectural teachings exert an influence that is different from the good news taught in the Scriptures, then we should treat those particular conjectural teachings as "accursed." 

So if we have the idea that any man or group of men (elders, committees of elders, or "governors") are to be so respected and honored that we could never imagine treating their conjectural doctrines as "accursed" then we have too high an opinion of those we are following.

They might even be correct about everything at the moment. (And as you know, I don't think they are correct on at least two teachings, but that's my own opinion and conscience.) But all of us can at least check if our view about them is proper and scriptural, if we can at least imagine a scenario where we would not only question every doctrine, but even potentially realize that a directly or indirectly promoted teaching could be "accursed." 

13 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

I will instead support scripture as divine truth.

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

I won’t dignify a response when the opposition believe they have inherited some kind of truth by the God of this world.

Not being inspired or infallible then becomes a different position from the one given by this dedicated opposition. The GB actions seem to prevail on not accepting anything “inspired” by evil works. Can the same be said about the opposition? 1 John 5:19

Can anyone claim infallibility aside from Christ? Weren’t all of the first century Christians infallible? Were they not chosen by Jesus to continue his fine work? I don’t see where this argument can be applied.

I will not hold an endless debate with those that oppose the org. I’m looking for meaningful and structured alliances with spiritually awake individuals.

For the true "newbies" out there:

We are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”. 1 John 4:1  This is our responsibility as Christians.  Jesus gave us guidelines to know if an anointed one speaks from the Spirit of Christ or from another spirit.  He told us that by their fruits, their teachings, we would know if one is inspired by the Spirit of Truth.  Those who remain in Christ would produce fruit that “lasts”, that remains, just as the teachings of Christ have remained to this day. 

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.  John 15:16

This means one’s teachings would not rot away, or be changed out for new “truth”.  It’s a pretty simple guideline that we can either embrace, or blindly ignore.  If we choose to ignore it and eat “fruit”/teachings from an anointed one that has a history of producing failed, “rotten” teachings, then…we make Jesus out to be a liar.  Matt 7:17-19  We put more stock in what men say, than what Christ has told us. 

To receive “God’s instructions” would require inspiration from Holy Spirit.  Yet, this is what your GB stated, and how they lean on a fabrication called “beliefs clarified” to justify their rotten fruit.

 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. w17 February p. 26-27

Was God instructing your leaders in these failed doctrines?  Would Christ who is Truth, produce imperfection? Ps 18:30; John 14:6

This statement certainly demeans Jesus Christ’s teachings, since he did say a faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food that would last, as long as that one “remains” on the vine.  John 15:1-4; Luke 8:15

"Don't work for the food that perishes (that needs continual adjustment)  but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set his seal of approval on him."  John 6:27

So, the “opposition” would be making excuses for his failed teachings, and convincing the majority with false promises that no matter what, Jesus will give his approval.  We know from scripture that this isn’t the case.

 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things36 But I say to you that for every idle word (“inactive,useless”) men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”  Matt 12:33-37

Good things from the heart of an anointed one, are “good fruit”, that remains.   “Evil things” are deceiving, “rotten fruit” that an “evil slave” would expect one to tolerate – with no questions asked.

We choose to uphold Christ’s teachings about testing each bit of “fruit” offered us by anointed ones, or we listen to men who can have a negative influence on our spirituality by failing to provide lasting fruit/teachings.  If 8 men, who have convinced you they are “faithful” and “discreet”, but are not faithful to these simple guidelines given us by Jesus Christ, then their “inspiration” is from another spirit. They have lost  God’s Spirit.  Matt 24:24; 2 Pet 3:17,18; 1 John 2:19  The apostles were led by Holy Spirit because they were “inspired”, and they acted upon it.   Holy Spirit cannot continue to “dwell” in an anointed one’s heart and not inspire them also…to speak truth, as defined by God, and not men.  1 Cor 3:16,17; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Thess 4:7,8; 2 Tim 1:14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Witness said:

For the true "newbies" out there:

We are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”. 1 John 4:1  This is our responsibility as Christians.  Jesus gave us guidelines to know if an anointed one speaks from the Spirit of Christ or from another spirit.  He told us that by their fruits, their teachings, we would know if one is inspired by the Spirit of Truth.  Those who remain in Christ would produce fruit that “lasts”, that remains, just as the teachings of Christ have remained to this day. 

I appreciate your intent of enlightenment. I see several areas of doctrinal error of your own. I can see where the conjecture as JWinsider frames it can easily be applied to you and him. I don’t believe Jesus’s words to be imperfect but the more understood application of Jesus had to deal with imperfect men. Then it becomes a difference of what you mean by your application.

In this case, I will agree with JWinsider, when you and he, state to test the spirit. Jesus meant the spirit of false prophets. Like those Pharisees who knew the law but refused to apply it properly. Those who change the spirit of what Christ taught us, can be summarized by exact knowledge and understanding. These are good areas to test the spirit.

The question I would ask both of you? How did God touch your heart personally to know when the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed or manipulated scripture in order to be accused of such?

Where would the scriptural understanding of “having nothing to do with them” be applied to such a tested spirit here? Ephesians 5:7-9

JWinsider earlier comment suggested that all of us are faithful and wise Stewart's with the same consideration of the faithful and discreet slave. I can expand that with suggesting the Elders have the same capability. That was the impression with the comment. 

I don’t know which Bible is being understood here, but Scripture itself has a different take on such understandings.

When I test the spirit within these comments, then I have to honestly remain in Jehovah’s Holy Spirit by not accepting such conjecture, using JWinsider's own words of determination of what is truth and what is made up to be seen as the truth.

Sometimes we tend to focus on one scripture rather than the entire Bible.

This is in effect the reason the Governing Body of Jehovah’s witnesses don’t submit to their own understanding but wait upon Jehovah’s Holy Spirit to guide them.

Given that understanding, people should submit themselves to the letter of Jesus' teachings without having to use conjecture as a format to implement a personal understanding that would change Christ's teachings. Romans 12:1-3

Now I can debate Titus 3:10, but it will not yield fine fruit. I did not enter this site to have endless debates on perception or conjecture as per JWinsider own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sean Migos you are not "newbie".  :)))

33 minutes ago, Sean Migos said:

How did God touch your heart personally to know when the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed or manipulated scripture in order to be accused of such?

Please go to G. Jackson testimony before  Australia Royal Commission. He said something that whole word was heard - you are free  to disobey GB instructions and doctrines, if you, as one of JW member, find in  your personal reading  of your own Bible something that your understanding and conscience  tell you is different than GB has said. 

Of course, you will be dfd because of that at the end of a day :))) 

BUT he, as Legal Representative of WT, JW  and GB said, you are NOT obligated to obey Them IF YOU THINKING DIFFERENTLY. In other word you are free to Think in Critical way of Thinking. In other words - to testing spirits -  this wording is for those who have issue or problem, if  hear words "Critical Thinking" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean Migos said:

The question I would ask both of you? How did God touch your heart personally to know when the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed or manipulated scripture in order to be accused of such?

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.

This actually turned out to refer to literally over ONE HUNDRED teachings that we were now admitting had no scriptural basis. All at once, we were DROPPING at least ONE HUNDRED TWENTY teachings.

image.pngimage.png

Then there were 80 more of these types of teachings, which were reviewed in a 1981 Watchtower

*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.

I knew that we had spent hundreds of hours studying these in Congregation Book Studies from the time I can remember my very first Tuesday night meetings. Then, at Bethel, in 1980, I became a study partner with a Gilead student who lived next door to me on the third floor of the 107 building. My own set of Gilead Notes (I have 2 full sets) contained MONTHS worth of study of these specific kinds of teachings, and some students fretted that they could not keep track of them all.

But what caught my attention in Brother Splane's talk is that they were being compared to the Pyramid doctrines under Russell and Rutherford. Brother Splane admitted that Brother Bert Schroeder (died 2006) had already come up with this change and had provided the current definition now being published in the 2015 Watchtower.

*** w15 3/15 p. 9 par. 7 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype.

*** w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.

The questionableness of such doctrines had already been discussed in a Watchtower from back in 1972, where even though it came very close to admitting just how questionable such teachings were, the decision was made to keep teaching them.

*** w72 8/15 pp. 502-503 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. For example,. . . .[long example skipped]
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No.

The real answer was obvious, but before that article was complete, the writers had found some twisted reasoning to be able to keep these dozens and dozens of false teachings that we had come to accept from old traditions. Brother Splane gave the example of the brother(s) who really loved the Pyramid doctrines and how they had to have the humility to suddenly change their viewpoint when Rutherford dropped it. (Rutherford said these teachings were ultimately from Satan.) It almost sounded as if Brother Splane was saying that these "antitype" doctrines could not be changed until certain people who still loved them had dropped off the scene. When he mentioned that this "new" way of looking at it had already been stated so well many years earlier by Brother Schroeder, this was another hint that this change had been in the works for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it should have been understood as doctrinal refinement. The organization makes critical refinements when something new is learned. Witnesses understand such logic. What is unacceptable is a concise view of doctrinal error when a revision is made as an error, much more than a new approach and understanding. 

Hebrews 6:1-4

“Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.  And this we will do if God permits.”

 

There are no detrimental changes other than a different approach to Bible understanding

 

*** w15 3/15 p. 9 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***

A SIMPLER, CLEARER APPROACH TO BIBLE NARRATIVES

7 If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible. How so? In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. Is there a Scriptural basis for prophetic pictures? Yes. For instance, Jesus spoke of “the sign of Jonah the prophet.” (Read Matthew 12:39, 40.) Jesus explained that Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish—which would have been Jonah’s grave had Jehovah not preserved him alive—was prophetic of Jesus’ own time in the grave.

 

This is what Jehovah's witnesses should be familiar with. Just as Scripture stipulates to think like God, we should think like the Governing Body. Walk a mile. 

I will stick with the understanding provided by the GB. I cannot in good conscience submit to such conjecture from past understanding, with a modern view that removes the value of past generations.  Each generation is unique. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sean Migos said:

This is what Jehovah's witnesses should be familiar with. Just as Scripture stipulates to think like God, we should think like the Governing Body. Walk a mile. 

Oh my.  It would be life threatening to think like the GB; to walk in their shoes, taking their twisted path of continually seeking "new light", and prominence over their spiritual brothers.  Matt 24:48-51  That would be glorifying men; and you've taken it up another notch by suggesting our thinking should not only be like God, but like the GB.   Simply,  blasphemy.  

We should think like Christ.  We should walk only his path.  1 Cor 2:16; 1 Pet 2:21

 

A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
    the way for the Lord;
make straight in the desert
    a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be raised up,
    every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
    the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
    and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”  Isa 40:3-5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it should have been understood as doctrinal refinement.

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.

For example, there was a change that happened in 1943 that changed the time for Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914. In the long run that is just a minor adjustment of 40 years. But it doesn't mean that 1874 is still a true doctrine. 536 BCE for the destruction of Babylon was changed to 539 BCE, even a smaller change, but this doesn't mean that 536 BCE is still a true teaching. Yes it's a type of "refinement," but a "refinement" that must still admit that the previous teaching is false. 

For example, the Watch Tower publications once taught, under Russell, that the "superior authorities" were not the secular authorities, but were God and Christ. Then, in Rutherford's time, the WT changed the view to just the opposite. Then, in Knorr's/Franz' time, the WT changed the view to the opposite again, so that it was right back to what Russell had taught. The Watchtower treated this as an adjustment, a refinement, and even claimed that there were advantages to having been wrong (without using the word "wrong" of course). This is clearly a matter of just not wanting to admit that a false doctrine was ever "false." Haughty people don't like admitting they are wrong, so this gives the impression of haughtiness.

So was Naboth a prophetic type of Jesus or the anointed? Is it the case that this is true, and that the only reason we don't teach it that way is because it's too complicated to tell the whole truth? If it's still true, then someone should say that it's still true and we won't hold back from telling you "all the truth"? Of course, if it's actually a change in "understanding" then we are admitting that the former understanding is wrong, therefore it is no longer true. As you tacitly admitted, as Witnesses, we can never admit to having had a false doctrine. So we use different words. False doctrines must be re-worded as "refinements" "improvements" "clarifications" etc.

We see this type of explanation in the very articles that explained the changes to "types" and "antitypes" which had no Biblical basis to be treated as prophecies. The article appeared not to admit that these had ever been wrong. Only that the:

  • "faithful and discreet slave" was becoming steadily more discreet.
  • discretion was leading to "greater caution"
  • these older explanation were unduly difficult to grasp
  • the details can be hard to remember and apply
  • the former explanation tended to obscure more important moral lessons

None of those points actually admits that the former explanations were wrong, only that we were now being more careful, more cautious, more discreet, more simple and clear. Watch very carefully how this was done:

*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 pars. 10-11 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper.

Notice how even the idea that we no longer understand it the same way is worded in such a way as to be very ambiguous about whether the previous understanding was actually wrong. This is one of dozens of such ambiguous wordings, and I can show you cases where this exact kind of wording apparently "fooled" the translator into creating inconsistent (less ambiguous) results in Simplified English, French, German and Greek. And I'm sure there are several other examples I don't even know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To fully understand what has been going on, you need to read George Orwell's famous book "1984" and pay particular attention to the "new light" that the main character Winston Smith was charged with archiving.

It might even be a good idea to see the movie, also, which is not as good as the book, but it is a terrific movie.

The chilling conclusion to the book is a goal that most Witnesses have been taught to seek, to have peace in the Congregations, and harmonious unity of thought.

One of the most serious and heartbreaking paragraphs in all of human literature.

" He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

 

“Oh mother, tell your children

not to follooooo True Tom’s decorum.

Spend your life in sheer futility,

Battlin’ villains on the World News Forum”

@divergenceKO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.

A fine example of conjecture and not following scripture. Humility starts with each individual who obeys Jehovah. What kind of humility can be said about causing division among the brothers regardless if it’s out loud, in private or in secret? Since you are being frank about the opinion of dishonesty and false doctrine. I shall be frank as well. How can you be a true witness?

 Honesty determines how to follow Jehovah’s servants. Just like ancient Israel, just like Jesus. Especially when Christ left clear instructions about spiritual leaders.

 Anna and you mentioned an individual unknown to me. Anna mentioned something about a trio. Are you, Anna and ComfortMyPeople considered that Trio?

 

Galatians 6:6-10 American Standard Version (ASV)

 6 But let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10 So then, [a]as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith.

 When the Governing Body makes adjustments, that should be a good thing for all witnesses, it’s done in accordance with scripture. When the GB receives enlightenment by God’s Holy Spirit, they communicate it to those that are taught God’s word. Then Jehovah is the one that “teaches” his faith servant, not man as your conjecture implies. Romans 14:11-12, John 15:5-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

To fully understand what has been going on, you need to read George Orwell's famous book "1984" and pay particular attention to the "new light" that the main character Winston Smith was charged with archiving.

I found George Orwell to be an interesting, read. Have you read the clergyman’s daughter? How about Animal Farm, Burmese farm, coming up for air, Keep the Aspidistra Flying.

 Right now, I’m reading “the ministry of truth” in the biography of George Orwell’s 1984, by Dorian Lynskey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

I found George Orwell to be an interesting, read.

It is an interesting read. Can you find the parallel on how people debate error with prophesy about the Watchtower, and yet Mr. Orwell made a predication in 1946, that no one seems to debate.

It is of no value my brother to debate those that are inclined to see things their way. Jehovah's disapproval is upon them.

Take to heart Paul words.

Galatians 1:7-9 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

7 that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the good news of the Christ;

8 but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be!

9 as we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!

Romans 16:17 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

17 And I call upon you, brethren, to mark those who the divisions and the stumbling-blocks, contrary to the teaching that ye did learn, are causing, and turn ye away from them.

There is no reason to be disappointed for the things you read here. The purpose if you continue is to understand how the world thinks. Accept what you cannot control. Except those that oppose the Org. They have been placed by the God of this world. Their actions must take place in order to fulfill prophecy.

I recommend, you don’t antagonize the true owners of this forum. TrueTomHarley and JWinsider. They are the ones to decide if you stay or get removed for promoting the truth or give negative reviews. That’s been the experience of others I know to have taken place.

People here can’t see beyond what is logical. If you see a group of outsiders defending each other or supporting each other by the emoji, they can’t see when other groups of people can’t do the same. Then it becomes not one group but a single person. I call that hysteria. There can be no other groups of dedicated brothers to speak the truth. Only here is the truth spoken by the opposition.

Continue steadfast and strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites