All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[Anna]

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I would have thought you could figure that out from comments like, "I dun gradjiated 6th grade in 1963".

I had. Apparently you lack humour too 🙂

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    13 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Watchtower writers are past masters at manipulating the JW community with smooth words that are deliberately ambiguous, or say one thing but mean another. Again you're far too naive.

If naive means taking things at face value, so be it.

 

Not a good strategy for life. It means being unable to understand what is really going on.

Quote

As for ambiguous wording, then my motto is "if the cap fits, then wear it" .

Which means What? in deciphering deliberate ambiguity?

Here's a good example for you to decipher. Then answer my questions below.

<< As for the time of Christ’s second presence, Daniel’s prophecy is again the one that gives the chronology for it. (Dan. 4:16) It was figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914, and The Watchtower called notice to the significance of 1914 in the year 1879. >> -- w52 11/1 p. 658

Exactly when was "Daniel's prophecy" "figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914"? And by whom? And what evidence can you cite for your answer?

Did The Watchtower really call to notice "the significance of 1914 in the year 1879"? What exactly did it say, and what evidence can you cite for your answer?

Here's another example.

<< There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site presents accurate information for any who want it. >> -- Kingdom Ministry, Nov. 1997, p. 3

Would you view this as clear direction that JWs ought not make websites about JW stuff? It can be viewed as just a suggestion, but most JWs view it as a prohibition. That's proved by the fact that many JW websites and mailing lists were quickly shut down after this KM 'suggestion' came out.

Quote

I do admit though that especially in the past, some wording was, shall we say, rather noncommittal.

Noncommittal is one thing. Deliberate deception is what I'm complaining about.

Quote

This had to annoy any who wanted to be taken by the hand, led to a specific spot, and told exactly what to do. Sometimes though it's better if people work things out themselves. The Bible is available to everyone, and the Bible is the measuring stick.

Except that in many cases, the Society specifically says to avoid "personal interpretations". Since such warnings are never clearly explained, many JWs err on the side of caution and simply refuse to think about the Bible itself, but strictly stick to Watchtower tradition. Much like how my experience with GB member Albert Schroeder 25 years ago, when his response to my challenge about Luke 21:7-8 was essentially, "The Bible does not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses."
     

Quote

 

    13 hours ago, AlanF said:

    You forget the most important thing: since out of one side of its mouth the GB claims to admit that it is fallible, then its Bible interpretations are open to questioning. If a dissenting JW has figured out the truth of some Bible teaching, finds it at odds with Watchtower teaching, and lets it be known to others, then who is "causing division"? The one teaching the Bible, or the one teaching the commands of men?

Yes, the GB's Bible interpretations are open to questioning.

 

Only in one's head. Remember that the April 1, 1986 Watchtower was quite clear that expressing dissent from Watchtower teachings is grounds for disfellowshipping. And more recent literature has expressly stated that "private interpretations" are going against God's will.

Quote

The Bible says we should question.

Yes, it does. But the Society says not to question it, on pain of disfellowshipping.

Yet another instance where JW teaching is diametrically opposed to Bible teaching.

Quote

It also says many things about how true Christians should behave. In my experience, those who insist "their" interpretation is "more correct" than that of somebody else, do it is such a way as to cause upset. Divisions cause tension and hostility. Not something Jesus had in mind for the Christian congregation. If that person truly believes that their interpretation is correct, and that of the GB is wrong, and if it is of utmost importance to them, then the right thing is to state their grievance and  peacefully leave. If it is not of the utmost importance, then the right thing is to stay and wait.

People do that all the time. In the meantime, those who time proves were right all along have to shut up and defer to the Society's false teachings. Do you really think that's good?

What the Society really should do is become more tolerant of dissent. That would make being a JW much more pleasant for intelligent, knowledgeable people.Of course, in my experience the majority of JWs are just sheep who want to be told by some authority--any authority--where to put their feet at each step.
     

Quote

 

    13 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Remember that God is not directing these fallible men of the GB.

In your opinion who is God directing then? Those dissident JWs? No one in your opinion of course, since you don't believe in God.

 

Precisely.

But I would say exactly the same thing even if I believed in the Bible God. In fact, I would argue that God is not directing anyone, because every group claiming to teach "Bible truths" or religious truth has serious problems in its teaching. Those teachings always contain demonstrable falsehoods.

Quote

Just a recommendation: it might be a good idea to put scientific discussions in another topic.

I am not usually the one to bring up scientific topics. Rather, arrogant ignoramuses like Arauna and TrueTomHarley bring up their pseudoscientific nonsense, and I respond with real science.

You're not being particularly honest here, because when I brought up the Albert Schroeder / Luke 21:7-8 topic, you suggested making a new topic -- which I did -- and you ignored.

Apparently you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    I would have thought you could figure that out from comments like, "I dun gradjiated 6th grade in 1963".

I had. Apparently you lack humour too 🙂

 

Apparently your humor is not very good.

[Srecko Sostar]

7 minutes ago, Witness said:

Until around a hundred years ago, how do you believe the anointed ones gathered and encouraged one another? Matt 18:20  Through some sort of organization? 

This is an extraordinary argumentation! 

Here we have few different subjects that came to focus. Although some of them are far away from Jack Ryan Topic, i would say how this one, where we involved questions about anointed and certain relationships within all of them that call themselves "anointed" and structural questions what anointed role is inside them and in relation to people who haven't such call. Does "anointed" need some "body" that will and have to represent them all? Does this "body" have  legality and legitimacy from those whom they, as GB claim, represents? Published claims how Spirit, God and Jesus, appointed them (now WT Society's GB) in 1919 have to be questioned and challenged. How and why?

First, WT publications explaining periodically how no one can prove that he/she is anointed. And how some people who claims that call, are people who, in fact, are not appointed.   

Second, all such sort of appointments, supposedly, have to be by Spirit, for purpose to have legality and legitimacy. In fact, less important sort of appointments, for ministerial servants, elders, Circuit Overseers and others inside hierarchical structure of Organization involving human acts, interventions, influence.

Brothers inside congregation giving their voice for recommendations. Then some other who are in position of leading giving their voice and further recommendations ....all to the top of Structure that resides in Warwick. Let me to conclude, how this same "theocratic" steps have to be used in appointing anointed who put themselves on position to be Top Management not only to JW members but also to all other individuals who belong to the "same kind" as they. As in first century Christianity examples:Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.  

But today we have problem with GB, elders and even JW anointed. They claims how they are not inspired. If that is true than they can't receive spirit" from another JW and can't give "spirit" to another JW. With such deficiency of spirit, task of making appointments can't be fulfilled in very core prerequisite for all sorts of spiritual activity that need to be guided not by humans but by Spirit.   

About hands! WHO have been putting hands on Russell, Rutherford, Franz, Knorr, Henschel, Gangas, Jackson, Sydlick, Lett, Morris etc? Has HE been inspired while doing this?  

What does this have to 8 members in Topic? If they haven't legality to be sitting "on Moses chair" and no legitimacy because they not fulfilling their task and obligation, according to position they claimed was made by Jesus and God, another Court will also call them to Trial.

[Witness]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What does this have to 8 members in Topic? If they haven't legality to be sitting "on Moses chair" and no legitimacy because they not fulfilling their task and obligation, according to position they claimed was made by Jesus and God, another Court will also call them to Trial.

!!!  Awesome.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Oh really? You mean because they would protest outside HQ? Or they would write articles on the internet, like Pearl? Please, get real. Obviously, the GB are not afraid that some united body of anointed would pose a threat to them.

If they are not a threat, if the GB are not afraid of what the anointed may do behind their back,  then there would be no reason for two articles  (1/2016, 1/2020) explaining that they must not bond or gather together.   There would be no reason to spread doubt in a JW mind of who is, and who isn't anointed.  

Do those of the other sheep need to know the names of all those who are anointed today? The short answer is no. Why not? Because even if someone has received the heavenly calling, that person has received only an invitation, not a final confirmation of the reward. That is why Satan raises up “false prophets . . . to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.” (Matt. 24:24) Wt 1/2016  "We Want to Go With You"

Dare you apply this paragraph to the GB?  Of course not!  Who would question their authenticity but another anointed one!

[Top Cat O’Malihan]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Bugger off, Tom.

Top of the day to you sir.

I confess that I am dumbfounded by this answer. I only meant to congratulate you on a job well done. Surely when you refer to Tom, you are not referring to TrueTomHarley. He’s even more stupid than Arauna.

[AlanF]

8 minutes ago, Top Cat O’Malihan said:

Top of the day to you sir.

I confess that I am dumbfounded by this answer. I only meant to congratulate you on a job well done. Surely when you refer to Tom, you are not referring to TrueTomHarley. He’s even more stupid than Arauna.

Bugger off, TrueTomHarley.

[Top Cat O’Malihan]

21 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Bugger off, TrueTomHarley.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Top Cat O’Malihan said:

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I find your insanity amusing.

[TrueTomHarley]

I would like to state for the record that I disagree with all the deviousness going on here! Stop it, @Top Cat O’Malihan!!

I know what you are doing. You ostensibly appear to give Alan a compliment, but then you use it as a wedge to introduce what is your REAL purpose—to highlight his unbelievably unpleasant personality— a personality so ugly that, in the event he actually does make a good point, it doesn’t register with ones who resent how just plain unnecessarily nasty he is. I know what you are doing. Stop it!

Or at least stop doing it in a way so that he thinks you are me. I don’t need this kind of nonsense!

I know what you are doing, Top Cat (aka AllenSmth) Look, I get it that you are steamed about being banned by the old hen. I get it, too, that you are far from the only abusive person here, and that they are ones every bit as unpleasant as you were, and on the wrong side of the issue, besides. I also get it that while you showered contempt on people in the heat of disagreement, that contempt did not manifest itself the moment you rolled out of bed, nor was it interwoven with every other line. 

I get all these things, Allen. I am sorry that you got the boot. But don’t take it out on me. It is enough for Alan to be pounding me with insult as it is—don’t make it so he is also showering insult on Top Cat, thinking he is me.

Sheesh!

[AlanF]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I would like to state for the record that I disagree with all the deviousness going on here! Stop it, @Top Cat O’Malihan!!

I know what you are doing. You ostensibly appear to give Alan a compliment, but then you use it as a wedge to introduce what is you REAL purpose—to highlight his unbelievably unpleasant personality— a personality so ugly that, in the event he actually does make a good point, it does register with ones who resent how just plain unnecessarily nasty he is. I know what you are doing. Stop it!

Or at least stop doing it in a way so that he thinks you are me. I don’t need this kind of nonsense!

I know what you are doing, Top Cat (aka AllenSmth) Look, I get it that you are steamed about being banned by the old hen. I get it, too, that you are far from the only abusive person here, and that they are ones every bit as unpleasant as you were, and on the wrong side of the issue, besides. I also get it that while you showered contempt on people in the heat of disagreement, that contempt did not manifest itself the moment you rolled out of bed, nor was it interwoven with every other line. 

I get all these things, Allen. I am sorry that you got the boot. But don’t take it out on me. It is enough for Alan to be pounding me with insult as it is—don’t make it so he is also showering insult on Top Cat, thinking he is me.

Sheesh!

I submit that TrueTomHarley and his multiple personalities are prima facie evidence of what long years in the JW cult can do to a person.

[TrueTomHarley]

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I submit that TrueTomHarley and his multiple personalities are prima facie evidence of what long years in the JW cult can do to a person.

Nonsense. Personality matters.

There is not one topic you have raised here that has not been raised elsewhere by persons far less nasty. I have discussed those topics with them, and will intermittently continue to do so.

But not with you. Sorry. I just can’t abide the ugliness. Crow victory if you like. You will in any event. You always do.

[AlanF]

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nonsense. Personality matters.

There is not one topic you have raised here that has not been raised elsewhere by persons far less nasty. I have discussed those topics with them, and will intermittently continue to do so.

And you never learned a thing. No surprise.