Did Jehovah’s Witnesses Lie to the Montana Court About Confidentiality?

[Arauna]

15 hours ago, Anna said:

How else could they claim clergy privilege unless they applied the worldly definition (legal definition) to the elders?

It may seem like a double standard but it is not.  In our congregations we do not call our elders "father"  leader or such other titles /designations the clergy have traditionally called themselves.... we do not..... BUT we do confide in the elders and in this they have a similar FUNCTion regarding confessions - which the law is about.  So by their function, not title, they qualify as clergy under secular law.

Anna - this is not a comment on your comment. Just a general thought.

[the Sower of Seed]

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This formulation say how they had no "qualifications", but JUST had been GIVING opportunity to direct

This formulation is the same as most businesses on Earth. You start at the bottom and work your way up, with the difference being they are volunteers. The GB members all gained spiritual and mental experience in the many years they were full time publishers alone with no other responsibilities. They were trained by older men, the older men suggest to a body of older men that they be considered to help a congregation or branch office while the continue their volunteer service as door to door ministers.

You don't start in the mail office one week then become president the next. The structure of Jehovah's Witnesses leadership weeds out those who have no desire to serve God. Many pioneers have spent 120 hours a month going door to door with the magazines,this is the expressed will of God preaching the Good News of God's Kingdom in all the Earth. They keep records before God who and where they spoke with someone, that they may reach every door, every person.

Have you ever spent 120 hours a month as a volunteer, spending your own money for all expenses? Previously they paid for the literature they lovingly gave to those who would read them. The GB are lowly servants of Jehovah. They respect that Jesus is the true head of the congregation. Having a body lead the organization spiritually is much better than having one man with unpredictability.

If the Apostles Paul and Peter were members, there would be complainers inside and out of the organization.The world is full of nonconstructive complainers.What will be their outcome? We leave that to the one who peers into such conversations from the heavens!

The GB are lowly men who are humble before God, searching the Bible for truth and direction, no different than a father who tries to care for his families spiritual needs.  

[TrueTomHarley]

31 minutes ago, the Sower of Seed said:

The GB are lowly men who are humble before God, searching the Bible for truth and direction, no different than a father who tries to care for his families spiritual needs.  

Sometimes I point out that most have spent decades serving in areas and in ways more humble than of those whom they will later lead. How different from the typical business or political leader, most of whom were born into privilege 

[Anna]

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

20 hours ago, Anna said:

How else could they claim clergy privilege unless they applied the worldly definition (legal definition) to the elders?

It may seem like a double standard but it is not.  In our congregations we do not call our elders "father"  leader or such other titles /designations the clergy have traditionally called themselves.... we do not..... BUT we do confide in the elders and in this they have a similar FUNCTion regarding confessions - which the law is about.  So by their function, not title, they qualify as clergy under secular law.

Anna - this is not a comment on your comment. Just a general thought.

Yes, I agree. I think we may have got our lines crossed earlier. What I was trying to say before is that when it comes to secularism, we accept the designation "clergy" for our elders, because that is how the world sees the elders. But inside the congregation we do not view elders in that same way, in the same way as the world. (I don't know if I have explained what I meant it any better, but you explained it already). Sorry for the confusion.

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, the Sower of Seed said:

This formulation is the same as most businesses on Earth. You start at the bottom and work your way up,

Thanks for respond.

What you described is concised also in wording you offer: "is the same as most businesses on Earth".

Some examples from Bible give us another way how some individuals going to gain responsible positions.

Young David was walking with sheeps and other domestic animals. Living simple life with no preparation for ruling over nation Israel as a King. But his youth had some need to prove himself and to his brothers and father, as mature and strong and brave. In one moment Samuel anointed David to be KIng. Just in a second. Nothing about going from bottom and then work his way up. :)))))

Saul of Tarsus have some period about learning, but he didn't learned how to be apostle and member of Jerusalem GB. If GB in Jerusalem existed at all??!!  He was chosen by Jesus as 11 before him. :)))

Please, who had chosen GB in 1971? God? Jesus? Someone?

24 minutes ago, Anna said:

What I was trying to say before is that when it comes to secularism, we accept the designation "clergy" for our elders,

Dear Anna. 

Majority of  JW  members don't know nothing about such "designation" for their congregational elders. In fact i believe how such knowledge will stumble many of your people. Few of you who participate here and read Court documents knowing these things. Your bro/sis living in blessed ignorance about this.

It would be proper to say how few of you, few JW people here, "accepting" such terminology, but only for pro et contra conversations we making here. :)) Yours inner feelings for justice and ethic and truth NOT want, NOT wish, CAN'T accept this mixing of "holy things" and "secular (false religion) things" about leveling/equalization JW elders with Catholic clergy. But you are forced to do this because of loyalty to WTJWorg and "argumentation". 

[TrueTomHarley]

41 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Majority of  JW  members don't know nothing about such "designation" for their congregational elders

Everybody knows it. It’s nothing more than common sense. Regardless of what elders are called, they come closest to fitting the role lawmakers have in mind for ‘clergy.’

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Everybody knows it. It’s nothing more than common sense. Regardless of what elders are called, they come closest to fitting the role lawmakers have in mind for ‘clergy.’

Huh Tom!

Wife went to evening cong. meeting now. How about to asking her about this what all JW's know when she comes back? :)))

Oh ,no i can't expect she would tell me anything, because she are not allowed to talk with me about congregational, spiritual things. Ohh, what a pity!!

[JW Insider]

What would be wrong, then, with just admitting that elders also come closest to fitting the role that nearly everyone, including most JWs, have in mind for clergy? It's a little bit like the word rapture, where many people have a wrong connotation of what all is implied with the word, so that we don't use it specifically for the Greek word "harpazo." But we still, according to the latest WT on the subject, believe in the "rapture" part of the word "rapture." To most people, clergy, refers to those who teach and take the lead in religious services, including those who "shepherd" the flock, take confessions, etc. Nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned.

This doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't also distinguish our use of terms from wrong connotations that these terms imply to others.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

What would be wrong, then, with just admitting that elders also come closest to fitting the role that nearly everyone, including most JWs, have in mind for clergy? It's a little bit like the word rapture, where many people have a wrong connotation of what all is implied with the word, so that we don't use it specifically for the Greek word "harpazo." But we still, according to the latest WT on the subject, believe in the "rapture" part of the word "rapture." To most people, clergy, refers to those who teach and take the lead in religious services, including those who "shepherd" the flock, take confessions, etc. Nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned.

This doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't also distinguish our use of terms from wrong connotations that these terms imply to others.

Some religious people love their clergy. Some not so much.

Some non-religious people have same feelings.

JW people not loving any clergy but only own clergy.

Problem will be solved if WT publication start to teaching own members about "connotations".... wrong one and positive one. :)))

[Anna]

I can think of another word we don't use, but it is used regularly by those who are not JW, and that is the word church. In English speaking countries (especially the USA and Britain) our meeting places are called churches, and our organization is church. We don't argue with non JWs, we accept their terminology, and we understand it. (Sometimes we will explain to them our meeting places are called Kingdom Halls).

So it is the same with "clergy" and "rapture". As JWI implies, really, it is a non argument. It's just a case of semantics.

 

[Arauna]

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

would be wrong, then, with just admitting that elders also come closest to fitting the role that nearly

You seem to not ever have belonged to a church.  I went to catholic, protestant and evangelical churches in my childhood. My grandmother and mother was catholic, father protestant and I attended church with neighbours at evangelical. 

There is no way one can compare our elders with the hierarchy of the catholic church, the pomp and ceremony, the ritual, and most of all the ' costumes' and the liturgy.... as well as all the titles. One pays money for most services rendered.

In evangelical the priest often sang solo and then presided  over the "receiving of the holy spirit"...the speaking of tongues., healing etc.  I saw people falling over with "spirit"  as a youngster and after a few times did not ever go back. I loved the singing though. Choir singing and pageants, game nights etc at church.

Protestant - the Dutch reformed church is very stoic with a minister which is very stoic.  The church liturgy also has words that are repeated every week with the same minister leading the church members  in the service. While catholic confessions are weekly, in the protestant church the minister is there as a confidant and gives spiritual advice only when requested. He offers classes for catechism.

This the only common denominator JWs  have with all these churches:  the aspect of confidentiality  and advice albeit not in the same format. We cannot call JWs clergy except when referring to a law-  which refers to this single service when offered by a religious org.

[Anna]

25 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Problem will be solved if WT publication start to teaching own members about "connotations".... wrong one and positive one. :)))

This has already been done:

Awake, August 2009

Should There Be a Clergy-Laity Distinction?

Most Reverend, Right Reverend, Father, Most Holy Father, Rabbi, His Eminence, His Excellency, His Holiness, His All-Holiness—these are some of the titles that distinguish the clergy of various religions from the laity. The separation of the clergy from the laity is common to many religions, but is the arrangement from God, or is it a human tradition? More important, does it have God’s approval?

“IN THE New Testament and during the early apostolic times there is no mention of clergy or laity,” wrote professor of theology Cletus Wessels. The Encyclopedia of Christianity states: “There gradually arose a differentiation into clergy as the officeholders and the laity as the rest . . . ‘Ordinary’ church members now came to be seen as an unqualified mass.” That differentiation became prominent during the third century C.E.—more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ!

If, then, the clergy-laity distinction is not based on the model set by Jesus’ apostles and other early Christians, does that make it wrong? According to the Bible, yes. Consider why.

“All You Are Brothers”

God’s Word tells us that all Christians serve as God’s ministers and that none is above or beneath the other. (2 Corinthians 3:5, 6) “There was a very positive insistence on the absence of class” among early Christians, says religion writer Alexandre Faivre. That “absence of class” harmonizes with Jesus’ words to his followers: “All you are brothers.”—Matthew 23:8.

Spiritually older men did, of course, serve as overseers, which included being shepherds and teachers. (Acts 20:28) However, these men were not paid clerics. For the most part, they were ordinary working men—husbands and fathers. Moreover, they qualified to serve as overseers, not by attending religious seminaries, but by being diligent students of God’s Word and by cultivating the spiritual qualities required by God. These qualities include being “moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, . . . reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner.”—1 Timothy 3:1-7.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g200908/Should-There-Be-a-Clergy-Laity-Distinction/