ComfortMyPeople

Now I see that my sentence was ambiguous. I was trying to be ironic. When you said that you listened to Fred Franz speak like Yoda, I meant "higher studies"

???? only severely out of context!!!
There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.
However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).
A simple parallel can be drawn with Jehovah Himself. Jehovah is termed the King of Eternity. As such, He is not (never has been nor will be) subject to anything, not even the passing of time, despite His existence FROM eternity until the moment of creation when He acted on His decision to share His universe.
Since the moment He created an intelligent being in the form of his only-begotten Son, He has retained His position as King of Eternity. Despite the attack on His right to rule, and the rebellion of Satan, an unspecified number of powerful spirits, along with millions of mankind on earth, Jehovah has never relinquished His position as King of Eternity. His eternal Sovereignty was acknowledged by his faithful servants on earth, not as a future condition, but as a current state, recognised by faithful humans, spirits, and His only-begotten Son. Ps.47:2,7; Ps. 90:2; Ps.103:19-20; Lu.4:5-8. It was even forcibly impressed on pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, see Dan.4:34-35,37.
And yet we find statements such as that of David when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the City of David:
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!" 1 Chr.16:31 And the Sons of Korah, after stating that Jehovah "is the great King" (Ps.47:2,7) follow up with this:
"God has become King over the nations. God sits on his holy throne." Ps.47:8. And Isaiah, after referring 8 times to Jehovah as the existing Sovereign Lord, says prophetically in connection with the restoration of Jerusalem:
"For Jehovah of armies has become King in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," Is.24:23 Jesus himself, when providing his outline for prayer priorities, said:
"Let your kingdom come" Matt.6:10. And later, in his revelation, in describing " things that must shortly take place" (Rev.1:1), he points to a future time when:
“The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"  Rev 11:15. And also that faithful ones say: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king" Rev.11:17. So how is it that Jehovah could be "King of Eternity" (1Tim.1:17; Rev.15:2), have His throne "established long ago" (Ps.93:2), with a "kingship that is an eternal kingship" (Ps145:13) and at the same time become king on a number of occasions over the centuries?
Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 
 

1971 *** kj chap. 19 p. 357 par. 20 Defeat Awaits Attack by Nations under Gog ***
Gog of Magog would like to invade and get up as high among the restored people of Jehovah as he can, even “onto the mountains of Israel,” indeed onto “Mount Zion,” the seat of government, to assure himself of success. So he comes with the vast “congregation” of war-minded persons that he can muster, many “bands and many peoples.” “Like clouds to cover the land” with their shadow, so the multitudes of Gog’s army of aggression will swarm over the earth, bedarkening the ground with their presence. This is a warning to the remnant of spiritual Israel and their dedicated sheeplike associates. They should not be surprised that they will have the whole world of mankind under Satan the Devil against them. Not amazed should they be even if military dictatorship world wide came
 

When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power? Revisited
·       I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected ·       II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected ·       III How to harmonize both sets of verses ·       IV The Third way This is a follow up of the tread:
When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power?
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268
 
 
 
I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
JW Insider, who originated the post, quoted many verses that clearly say us that Christ was King ALREADY in first century. Some of them:
(Matthew 28:17, 18) When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
·        The authority was already given (Philippians 2:9, 10) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.
·        Exalted, in the past, not in the future (1 Timothy 6:14, 15) our Lord Jesus Christ, which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords
·        He was already king and lord (Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings,. . .
·        He was already Lord and King (Revelation 1:5) and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
·        He was already the Ruler (Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
·        He has already transferred us to this kingdom (completely agree there is no Biblical support for a special congregation-related kingdom)  
 
(Ephesians 1:19-22) . . .. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.  He also subjected all things under his feet. . .
 
·        God seated, and subjected to him, in the past, not in the future  
 
Well. No commentary needed. These and other similar verses seem to prove that when Jesus Christ went to heaven, he was already appointed as king, not having to wait for a future date, as 1914, for example.
 
 II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
(Daniel 2:44) “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever”
·        The kingdom would be set up in the days of those kings, the kings ruling in the time of the end, not in the first century. (Daniel 7:13, 14,27) “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed… “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’
·        Kingdom would be given to the Son of Man in the last days, at the same time that the holy ones, not being this possible when Christ was resurrected.  (Revelation 11:15-18) “The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
·        The exact moment when God and His Son start to rule match with the time nations become wrathful, not in first century.  
 
 
III How to harmonize both sets of verses
For His great power and prescience, to Jehovah apply these wonderful words:
·        (Romans 4:17) “who makes the dead alive and calls the things that are not as though they are” In this way, it seems that Bible talks about certain happenings, still in the future, as already fulfilled.
We also sometimes speak in this way when we wish convey security in our speech: our travel agent says us “you are flying to the Caribbean” after paying for the trip, but still on the ground, obviously.
Similarly, we found the next verses talking about a FUTURE promise, as realized, performed.
(Ephesians 1:3) “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ”
·        But they were still on earth, not on heaven. (Ephesians 2:6) “Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus”
·        The Christians were still alive, not raised to heaven.  
 
(Colossians 1:13) “He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son”
 
·        Accepting the view this verse is not talking (as evidently does not) about a special kingdom over the congregation, but about the Kingdom of Christ, Paul goes on to say that the Christians were already transferred to this kingdom, but his happening was still on the future. (Colossians 2:12) “For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead.”
·        When this was written, the Christians were still alive, no raised from dead. Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II.
 
IV The Third way
Apparently, the exposition above refutes the idea that Christ secured his kingdom at 33 C.E. when he was resurrected and went to heaven, in this way giving support to the idea Christ would secure his Kingdom in 1914.
Well, without enter in the 1914 arena, at this moment, the only two points I intended to show are, according my opinion:
·        When Christ went to heaven, received the appointment to be Lord, King and many other things. ·        The kingdom was secured, the king was crowned, the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future. As a consequence of the last idea, the next other:
·        I’m not saying this moment had to be 1914, only a future date from 33 C.E.  
 
 

Satan is ruling the world - we all know this - but we have not seen the full manifestation of it.  Democracy and these kind of governments has softened the plight of people.  I think we cannot now imagine the kind of oppression which may come when we see the full impact of Satan's rule in totalitarian governments which will oppress the people and not value their lives. In this time it will be possible for governments to oppress all religion and any form of recruitment (preaching).
 

Thank you for organizing this discussion. In the next few days I would love to delve into this subject again.
My first take on it is as follows:
I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected Agree that this is the primary starting point, and that these and several other scriptures make up the bulk of the instances to work from. These scriptures do put it in the past tense, as if Jesus was already king, and as if the focus of the entire first-century preaching work was that Christians were already claiming that "there is another king, Jesus."   II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected In my opinion there really are a couple of verses that give us pause about whether the above (Point #1) tells the whole story. However, I don't believe that these particular verses from Daniel chap 2, chap 7 and Revelation chap 11 make "Point #1" difficult to accept. In context, I believe they even add extra support to "Point #1." For example, (Daniel 2:34, 35) ". . .You looked on until a stone was cut out, not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of clay and crushed them. . . . But the stone that struck the image became a large mountain, and it filled the whole earth." The idea of a kingdom that begins in a way that can fill the entire earth over time is perfectly aligned with a kingdom that takes power "in the midst of its enemies." It also fits many of Jesus illustrations about the Kingdom that for example: (Matthew 13:31-33) . . .“The Kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain that a man took and planted in his field. 32 It is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds, but when it has grown, it is the largest of the vegetable plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and find lodging among its branches.” Daniel 7 also provides a scenario of what will occur with the Kingdom over time. The Kingdom is given to someone like a son of man in verse 13, and 14. The holy ones will also receive the kingdom, but only after the horn makes war on them and, quoting, Daniel 7:22, ". . . the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom." Clearly Christ receives the kingdom before the holy ones receive it. Revelation 11 matches the same time-based scenario perfectly: (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . . you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward . . . the holy ones . . . III How to harmonize both sets of verses Because there is no contradiction between "Point #1" and "Point #2" there is nothing to harmonize, and it does not become necessary to invoke a time shift through the idea that it is OK for Jehovah to call something prematurely just because it is so sure to happen. In this case it is still OK to accept all the verses for what they actually say. No twisting or stretching required. It would not make a lot of sense to try to override the idea given in about 50 verses with an idea imposed upon it from unrelated verses anyway. In every case, in the verses you utilized to claim that these things Paul spoke of were not yet true, they actually were in fact true, and Paul explained why in the context of each of those verses. Paul explained the ways in this was already occurring for Christians who had already brought into the Kingdom of God's beloved Son during the first-century system of things, but that Jesus had already been seated in heavenly places in a better way: (Ephesians 1:21) ". . . not only in this system of things but also in that to come." IV The Third way The idea based on your take of the above points was that Christ only received an appointment to be Lord and King at the time he went to heaven. Based on your idea, "The kingdom was secured" and "the king was crowned" yet "the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future." But, again, we should be careful not to dismiss what 50 verses say, and claim they might mean something else, just because of a verse that apparently had nothing to do with the chronology of the Kingdom, but was really about how Jehovah can 'call things into existence that do not yet exist.' [See NWT, footnote]  The context was dealing with resurrection, a promise made to Abraham about his offspring, and the idea that Jehovah could declare Abraham righteous through undeserved kindness based on his faith. There are a few other issues with this idea that the Kingdom had not yet had a start when Jesus was crowned, and "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." (Hebrews 8:1) There is a minor theme about Psalm 110 that runs through most of the books of the Greek Scriptures, sometimes quoted explicitly and sometimes referenced in more subtle ways. Christians were already giving allegiance to Christ and only acted as "alien residents" in this system. A king commands his followers and Jesus is shown sending out his disciples to do all the things he has commanded, along with the words "all authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:19,20) We would be denying the scriptures if we said that he would obtain more authority at some future time. Just because he had not yet acted on it, does not mean he didn't have it. Other verses, you already quoted, show that this authority was already (Ephesians 1:21) "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named" at the time that Jesus sat at God's right hand. So if Jesus was already given authority far above every king on earth, then who are we to say that he was not yet a king himself? It smacks of blasphemy, or at least a real lack of appreciation of his authority.
Of course, the most important point, I think, is the Psalm 110 theme itself. The Psalm speaks of a king sitting at God's right hand. That king would have the power of his scepter extended by Jehovah himself (v.2), so that he would go on subduing in the midst of his enemies. That phrase covers the point made above about the kingdom starting out as something that would begin to show up the weaknesses of the world powers. World powers that could not conquer the holy ones, but which would grow until a time was reached when it would put an end to those world powers and kingdoms. Anyone who claimed that the king in Psalm 110 was not really a king just because he was only sitting on a throne at God's right hand is missing the entire idea of the Psalm. It's true that the Watchtower has taught that "sitting on a throne at God's right hand" means he is only waiting to become king, but the apostle Paul has ruined that teaching forever. Paul knew that a king could sit on a throne and still be a king. A king sitting on a throne is actually a perfect symbol of rulership, not simply someone "waiting" to be king. This is why Paul paraphrases the term "sitting at God's right hand" in a way that crushes the traditional teaching:
(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing
Notice how Paul thinks that "sit at God's right hand" means the same thing as "rule as king." I've included verse 26 because it too crushes the traditional idea we have been taught that Jesus is not king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Clearly, Jesus doesn't completely crush the last enemy until the end of the thousand years. So, do we claim that Jesus is not really king until the end of the thousand years? Obviously not.
He has been king all along from the time he began to "rule as king" when he sat at God's right hand. When did he sit at God's right hand?
(Acts 2:32, 33) . . .God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God . . .

"Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II." -- ComfortMyPeople
====
In addition to what you suggest above, note the use of the past tense as well as the future tense in this passage.
"(Revelation 21:1-27) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” 5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O•meʹga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will  give from the spring of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son."
What God said here about the future was reported in past tense, as John saw it in a vision. Secondly, his word and purpose are unchangeable. It is impossible for him to lie, so he can say “They have come to pass”. Good promise is given, then signed and sealed and delivered like a will. His word is as good as if it was already fulfilled. So although He uses the future tense, He also reinforces it by using the past tense.
For that it is worth ...

When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power? Revisited
·       I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected ·       II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected ·       III How to harmonize both sets of verses ·       IV The Third way This is a follow up of the tread:
When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power?
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268
 
 
 
I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
JW Insider, who originated the post, quoted many verses that clearly say us that Christ was King ALREADY in first century. Some of them:
(Matthew 28:17, 18) When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
·        The authority was already given (Philippians 2:9, 10) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.
·        Exalted, in the past, not in the future (1 Timothy 6:14, 15) our Lord Jesus Christ, which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords
·        He was already king and lord (Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings,. . .
·        He was already Lord and King (Revelation 1:5) and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
·        He was already the Ruler (Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
·        He has already transferred us to this kingdom (completely agree there is no Biblical support for a special congregation-related kingdom)  
 
(Ephesians 1:19-22) . . .. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.  He also subjected all things under his feet. . .
 
·        God seated, and subjected to him, in the past, not in the future  
 
Well. No commentary needed. These and other similar verses seem to prove that when Jesus Christ went to heaven, he was already appointed as king, not having to wait for a future date, as 1914, for example.
 
 II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
(Daniel 2:44) “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever”
·        The kingdom would be set up in the days of those kings, the kings ruling in the time of the end, not in the first century. (Daniel 7:13, 14,27) “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed… “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’
·        Kingdom would be given to the Son of Man in the last days, at the same time that the holy ones, not being this possible when Christ was resurrected.  (Revelation 11:15-18) “The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
·        The exact moment when God and His Son start to rule match with the time nations become wrathful, not in first century.  
 
 
III How to harmonize both sets of verses
For His great power and prescience, to Jehovah apply these wonderful words:
·        (Romans 4:17) “who makes the dead alive and calls the things that are not as though they are” In this way, it seems that Bible talks about certain happenings, still in the future, as already fulfilled.
We also sometimes speak in this way when we wish convey security in our speech: our travel agent says us “you are flying to the Caribbean” after paying for the trip, but still on the ground, obviously.
Similarly, we found the next verses talking about a FUTURE promise, as realized, performed.
(Ephesians 1:3) “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ”
·        But they were still on earth, not on heaven. (Ephesians 2:6) “Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus”
·        The Christians were still alive, not raised to heaven.  
 
(Colossians 1:13) “He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son”
 
·        Accepting the view this verse is not talking (as evidently does not) about a special kingdom over the congregation, but about the Kingdom of Christ, Paul goes on to say that the Christians were already transferred to this kingdom, but his happening was still on the future. (Colossians 2:12) “For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead.”
·        When this was written, the Christians were still alive, no raised from dead. Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II.
 
IV The Third way
Apparently, the exposition above refutes the idea that Christ secured his kingdom at 33 C.E. when he was resurrected and went to heaven, in this way giving support to the idea Christ would secure his Kingdom in 1914.
Well, without enter in the 1914 arena, at this moment, the only two points I intended to show are, according my opinion:
·        When Christ went to heaven, received the appointment to be Lord, King and many other things. ·        The kingdom was secured, the king was crowned, the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future. As a consequence of the last idea, the next other:
·        I’m not saying this moment had to be 1914, only a future date from 33 C.E.  
 
 

The article that changed everything
In my opinion, it was the Watchtower 10/1/2005, “Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children?” A close friend of me working in Brooklyn Bethel at those days mention that the brother (I think he was from the GB) presiding the Monday Family Worship said regarding the article under study: “well, this is the same point of view as always”, but not everyone nodded. Let’s review why.
Summarizing the advises from 1990-2005, this quote could be a typical example:
·        *** g94 8/22 p. 5 Additional Schooling or not? *** Supplementary Education. The Watchtower of November 1, 1992, noted concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses and the full-time ministry: “The general trend in many lands is that the level of schooling required to earn decent wages is now higher than it was a few years ago. . . . It is difficult to find jobs with decent wages after completing simply the minimum schooling required by law . . .  “What is meant by ‘decent wages’? . . . Their wages might be termed ‘adequate,’ or ‘satisfactory,’ if what they earn allows them to live decently while leaving them sufficient time and strength to accomplish their Christian ministry.”   So The Watchtower said: “No hard-and-fast rules should be made either for or against extra education. In spite of the above reference, in general, advanced education was always presented in a way not recommended, for its dangers, as immorality, materialism, proud and so.
But, when this 2005 article was studied in the congregation, we couldn’t find any possibility do chose going to University and to be an exemplar brother. And this position was forced in several schools of elders and additional instructions regarding choosing speakers for assemblies and other exemplar Christians.
But there was this small sentence in the article:
·        *** w05 10/1 p. 30 par. 13 Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children? *** “Of course, immorality, bad behavior, and pressures are by no means limited to the college or university campus” Of course! Every JW is well aware of this reality. A young Christian of 16 years must face also to temptations and pressures in his secular job, if he chooses leave studies and start to work. And, this is the reality in my country, the immorality in Professional Schools (not sure the translation in English, I mean places where you learn some skill), are WORST, and the atmosphere is WORST than in Universities. Why? Because in my country, in general only good students go to University, and most of them concentrate on studying. On the other hand, a lot of unmotivated youth assist to these other schools only to passing the time.
To whom correspond the decision? All those involved, not the elders, not the congregation. When should react the congregation? (Gal 6:1) “Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness” In other words, if we see the brother takes a dangerous path, the loving way is to advise him. For example:
·        The young must leave the home and go to another city, staying with worldly people ·        The debts are so high that will force to the Christian to spend all his time work hard to cancel Love and spiritual motivates us to give advice. Perhaps the lack of judgment could lead to losing the privileges. But not (is my opinion) as a general rule. But let’s consider next situations:
·        What (as in my city) there are several universities, avoiding the necessity to leave home? ·        What if my son eats at home, sleeps at home? ·        What if, for these reasons, I have the opportunity to talk with my son every day, and see the different situations he’s coping in his daily life? ·        What if the workload in his studies are quite similar to those that would have working? ·        What if I can move to the city where the University is located, to oversee my son? ·        What if I can delay the finalization of the career, in the interest that my son would have less workload, and, in this way, more freedom for his spiritual activities? ·        What if I can take over the debts ·        What if…? The 2005 article did not consider these possibilities at all. Simply, if you go to University, you’ll face all these dangers.
What has happened since then?
I have a good friend. He’s a very known elder. His three sons have gone to University (living at home). The outcome:
·        The three are -at this time- in full time ministry. One of them was several years in Bethel. ·        One of them is a very humble and nice elder (because before he went to University he already was so) ·        Two of them are not so humble (because before they went to University they already were this way) I’ve seen a lot of other youth not going to University. The outcome
·        The humble ones, still are. ·        The proud ones, still are. Yes, I’ve heard a lot of times the experience of someone going to University and leaving the truth, or becoming more proud, or more materialist. But I’ve seen the same in many brothers without superior studies. For me, the relevant factor is:
Has contributed the superior studies to this spiritual outcome?
My personal experience.
I learnt the truth in the 1975 generation. Imagine. I start as pioneer the same day when I was baptized, when I was 16. In spite my parents pressure (I’m alone as JW) and my love for Science and Chemistry, I started the regular at 17 accepting any kind o partial time job, and when I was 18 was sent as special pioneer to another region. Later, I got married and about 30 had to leave full time service.
My situation was anything but easy. My only skill with 30 years was to preach. I struggled a lot studying for myself computer sciences after exhausting workdays. As I gained skills I could get better jobs. Over time I founded my own company related with software development. All my employees have University degree but, invariably, I had to teach them a lot of skills.
Do I think I lost my time when I was pioneer? I’m about 60, Do I think I could have attended University and, later, start as pioneer? What if, instead of doing well things, economically, at this moment I had a poor paid job, with no good holidays, no good car, do I still think it was a bad decision, not going to Chemistry University?
I would never exchange those wonderful years serving as pioneer and helping humble people to learn the truth, helping to establish new congregations, depending of God’s hand… No car, no big house, no holidays is better than serving in this special way.
So, what I think about these persons that now realized they wasted part of their life not attending superior studies?
As several of you have mention, if we hold the kingdom first, no sacrifice we could have done is perceived as such. But this does not mean that our position regarding superior studies are, at some degree, an imposition, not a personal decision.
 
 
 
 

The article that changed everything
In my opinion, it was the Watchtower 10/1/2005, “Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children?” A close friend of me working in Brooklyn Bethel at those days mention that the brother (I think he was from the GB) presiding the Monday Family Worship said regarding the article under study: “well, this is the same point of view as always”, but not everyone nodded. Let’s review why.
Summarizing the advises from 1990-2005, this quote could be a typical example:
·        *** g94 8/22 p. 5 Additional Schooling or not? *** Supplementary Education. The Watchtower of November 1, 1992, noted concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses and the full-time ministry: “The general trend in many lands is that the level of schooling required to earn decent wages is now higher than it was a few years ago. . . . It is difficult to find jobs with decent wages after completing simply the minimum schooling required by law . . .  “What is meant by ‘decent wages’? . . . Their wages might be termed ‘adequate,’ or ‘satisfactory,’ if what they earn allows them to live decently while leaving them sufficient time and strength to accomplish their Christian ministry.”   So The Watchtower said: “No hard-and-fast rules should be made either for or against extra education. In spite of the above reference, in general, advanced education was always presented in a way not recommended, for its dangers, as immorality, materialism, proud and so.
But, when this 2005 article was studied in the congregation, we couldn’t find any possibility do chose going to University and to be an exemplar brother. And this position was forced in several schools of elders and additional instructions regarding choosing speakers for assemblies and other exemplar Christians.
But there was this small sentence in the article:
·        *** w05 10/1 p. 30 par. 13 Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children? *** “Of course, immorality, bad behavior, and pressures are by no means limited to the college or university campus” Of course! Every JW is well aware of this reality. A young Christian of 16 years must face also to temptations and pressures in his secular job, if he chooses leave studies and start to work. And, this is the reality in my country, the immorality in Professional Schools (not sure the translation in English, I mean places where you learn some skill), are WORST, and the atmosphere is WORST than in Universities. Why? Because in my country, in general only good students go to University, and most of them concentrate on studying. On the other hand, a lot of unmotivated youth assist to these other schools only to passing the time.
To whom correspond the decision? All those involved, not the elders, not the congregation. When should react the congregation? (Gal 6:1) “Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness” In other words, if we see the brother takes a dangerous path, the loving way is to advise him. For example:
·        The young must leave the home and go to another city, staying with worldly people ·        The debts are so high that will force to the Christian to spend all his time work hard to cancel Love and spiritual motivates us to give advice. Perhaps the lack of judgment could lead to losing the privileges. But not (is my opinion) as a general rule. But let’s consider next situations:
·        What (as in my city) there are several universities, avoiding the necessity to leave home? ·        What if my son eats at home, sleeps at home? ·        What if, for these reasons, I have the opportunity to talk with my son every day, and see the different situations he’s coping in his daily life? ·        What if the workload in his studies are quite similar to those that would have working? ·        What if I can move to the city where the University is located, to oversee my son? ·        What if I can delay the finalization of the career, in the interest that my son would have less workload, and, in this way, more freedom for his spiritual activities? ·        What if I can take over the debts ·        What if…? The 2005 article did not consider these possibilities at all. Simply, if you go to University, you’ll face all these dangers.
What has happened since then?
I have a good friend. He’s a very known elder. His three sons have gone to University (living at home). The outcome:
·        The three are -at this time- in full time ministry. One of them was several years in Bethel. ·        One of them is a very humble and nice elder (because before he went to University he already was so) ·        Two of them are not so humble (because before they went to University they already were this way) I’ve seen a lot of other youth not going to University. The outcome
·        The humble ones, still are. ·        The proud ones, still are. Yes, I’ve heard a lot of times the experience of someone going to University and leaving the truth, or becoming more proud, or more materialist. But I’ve seen the same in many brothers without superior studies. For me, the relevant factor is:
Has contributed the superior studies to this spiritual outcome?
My personal experience.
I learnt the truth in the 1975 generation. Imagine. I start as pioneer the same day when I was baptized, when I was 16. In spite my parents pressure (I’m alone as JW) and my love for Science and Chemistry, I started the regular at 17 accepting any kind o partial time job, and when I was 18 was sent as special pioneer to another region. Later, I got married and about 30 had to leave full time service.
My situation was anything but easy. My only skill with 30 years was to preach. I struggled a lot studying for myself computer sciences after exhausting workdays. As I gained skills I could get better jobs. Over time I founded my own company related with software development. All my employees have University degree but, invariably, I had to teach them a lot of skills.
Do I think I lost my time when I was pioneer? I’m about 60, Do I think I could have attended University and, later, start as pioneer? What if, instead of doing well things, economically, at this moment I had a poor paid job, with no good holidays, no good car, do I still think it was a bad decision, not going to Chemistry University?
I would never exchange those wonderful years serving as pioneer and helping humble people to learn the truth, helping to establish new congregations, depending of God’s hand… No car, no big house, no holidays is better than serving in this special way.
So, what I think about these persons that now realized they wasted part of their life not attending superior studies?
As several of you have mention, if we hold the kingdom first, no sacrifice we could have done is perceived as such. But this does not mean that our position regarding superior studies are, at some degree, an imposition, not a personal decision.
 
 
 
 

Well of course you are right. If it's something JTR has posted then you can be sure that at least half of the time it's something he got (directly or indirectly) from apostate Web sites. He really should stop that habit, he's not helping himself at all, just helping to feed his already negative experiences and cynical viewpoint...like pouring salt on a wound. And although it's meant in jest many times, and sometimes it IS actually funny, sadly, one day it could bring him down to the point of no return. 

Some good reasoning there Melinda. In a nutshell, the worldly way is all about ME. The Christian way is about others, and putting Kingdom interests first.

People who are successful in this life made sacrifices to get where they are now, and some continue to make sacrifices.
See quote below from a successful writer/journalist, Thuy Yau.
“We have to make the choice between our immediate desires and the needs that will propel our dreams forward.
Fact is, it’s not wrong of us to have these immediate desires, these temptations to choose the ‘easier’ option’. It’s normal to feel that way. However, when we sacrifice what we want right now, we are saving our time and energy for something more important. Something that will bring us one step closer to our real goals. Something we truly want, not just something we want right now.
Maybe we don’t want to sacrifice our time, stability, personal life, sleep, health, stillness and sanity. Maybe it just feels too difficult. But I’ll tell you right now, I’ve sacrificed every one of these things at one point or another. I wouldn’t have gone from writing on a personal blog to working as a freelance writer/journalist, if I had chosen the easier option. I wouldn’t have grown as a person if I hadn’t made those sacrifices either.
If you want to be successful and achieve what you really want in life, you’ll have to make sacrifices. But when you reach the end of that mountain, you’ll be so very glad that you never gave up the journey.”
==
Note the sacrifices it took to arrive at the success she attained as a writer.
If people can make sacrifices to attain transient goals and treasures, what is so wrong for true Christians to choose to make sacrifices and focus on the real life (everlasting life in perfect conditions) which is promised in the scriptures. Paul’s letter to Timothy encourages us to choose the real life and not the illusions of this system of things.
(1 Timothy 6:18, 19) . . .Tell them to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be generous, ready to share, 19 safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, so that they may get a firm hold on the real life.
 
Jesus Christ said to seek first the Kingdom of God not worldly things.
 (Matthew 6:33) “Keep on, then, seeking first the Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you.
 
 (1 Corinthians 15:19) If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone.
 
(Hebrews 6:9, 10) 9 But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way. 10 For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones.
 
We make decisions taking into consideration the real life promised in the Bible.
 
We talking about excellence in everything we do -  we are not talking about sloppiness, carelessness, leaving school without any qualifications or skills. We are talking about not using the world to the full so we may have more time to do God’s will.
 
(1 Cor 7: 29-35) 29 Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced. From now on, let those who have wives be as though they had none, 30 and those who weep as those who do not weep, and those who rejoice as those who do not rejoice, and those who buy as those who do not possess, 31 and those making use of the world as those not using it to the full; for the scene of this world is changing. 32 Indeed, I want you to be free from anxiety. The unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, how he may gain the Lord’s approval. 33 But the married man is anxious for the things of the world, how he may gain the approval of his wife, 34 and he is divided. Further, the unmarried woman, as well as the virgin, is anxious for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in her body and in her spirit. However, the married woman is anxious for the things of the world, how she may gain the approval of her husband. 35 But I am saying this for your personal advantage, not to restrict you, but to move you to what is appropriate and to constant devotion to the Lord without distraction.
 
People are not coerced to apply these scriptures.  Jehovah God has confidence that persons who understood the scriptures and the urgency to get on the side of His approval would do this willingly. He said prophetically on his Son’s coming to power as the King of God’s kingdom, people would offer themselves to do the King’s bidding.
 
 (Psalm 110:3) “Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In splendid holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops.”
 
The important work that they would buy out time for is the preaching of the good news of his Kingdom which would solve all the problems now plaguing the world. People need to hear the real solution. (See Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 28:19,20.)
 
Paul further showed that we should buy out time for this.
 
(Ephesians 5:15, 16) 15 So keep strict watch that how YOU walk is not as unwise but as wise [persons], 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
 
He warned also about materialism.  The more “successful” you are the more gadgets to care for, and service; more travelling, more appointments, parties, etc.  If you simplify your life there will be more time to get down to doing God’s business.
 
(1 Timothy 6:9, 10) But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.
 
It was true in the first century too that some had left the faith because of reaching out for things that the love of money brings. The precursor to getting more money is usually higher education.
 
People who discern what God’s will is will cut down on or avoid things that would prevent them from living a simple life where they will have time for God and his purposes.
 
The apostle John also encourages us not to love the world and the things in it.
 
(1 John 2:15-17) Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
 
True Christians want to do God’s will and remain forever after the disobedient world passes away. (Rev 7: 14). Those who fall asleep in death look forward to a resurrection to life in heaven or on a paradise earth. (John 10:16; Luke 12:32; Ps 37:10,.11)
 
So some persons make sacrifices to obtain more money and prominence in this life, whereas true Christians make sacrifices in this life to attain the real life, everlasting life.

These kind of sad tales always bring to mind Paul's words at 1Cor.15:19.

Regarding this thorny issue I feel frankly better after the last changes regarding our policies. What has hinder a better and quicker approach to the problem is, in my opinion, as usual, pride.
·        We’ve seen the secular authorities as antagonist. Judges as enemies, police as intruders, psychologists as obtrusive, social services as snoopers. ·        We’ve seen ourselves as completely and fully trained to deal with these horrors by our means. ·        We’ve treated this sin in the congregation, this frightening sin, as any other sin to deal with. ·        We’ve given more importance to our reputation (God’s name) than the cry of the afflicted I wish we would have been more humble to recognize that:
·        Secular authorities are in a much better position to discover this kind of evil. They can register a home, confiscate a computer or cellular, interrogate neighbors and coworkers. We could not. ·        The vast majority of us aren’t trained to deal with children victims of abuse. Adults accustomed to cheating cheekily, ruthlessly. So, in spite of dozens of letters and schools the elders have attended. ·        This is not a normal sin. This is not as smoking. The child is terrified and ashamed. The wife is afraid to admit it. The two-witness rule cannot apply. We should not face the victim in front of the perpetrator and three other men (the judicial committee). ·        Soon or later everything arises. God’s name would have been cleaner reporting these facts to the authorities, not only allowing the victims to do this, but encouraging them to do this to better protect them. Well, as I’ve mention, our recent policies finally allow:
·        Don’t face victim and accused. ·        Allowing a third person (parents or a friend of the victim) stay with the victim to make her feel more comfortable. ·        At least, not discouraging to go to authorities or search for professional help. ·        The circuit overseer chooses a better qualified elder from outside the congregation to preside the committee. As Anna mention, hope these policies will improve with the blessing of Jehovah.
I’m trying, here in my congregation, to contact with an inactive sister. His father, still a witness in another region, never was disfellowshipped. The elders only had the testimony of one unique witness, the victim. Now many years later this sister is very resentful with the congregation because they “could not help her.” Do you know what will be my first words when I could reach her? “I ask you for forgiveness”.
Are not others also responsible?

Do you like to eat snails, or rabbits?
Disgusting, repulsive! But you know that in some countries these are delicacies. And the same could be said regarding eating snakes or dogs!
This comes up because these strong feelings reflect well the position of the GB about the kind of sexual behavior allowed or not between spouses. At least until recently.
If we review the statements (too long to post them completely) could perceive some evolution.
·        *** w69 3/15 p. 177 par. 14 Living Up to Your Decisions *** “A Christian husband should not be harsh or demanding in this matter […] , perhaps, even expect them to indulge in sexual perversions? […] Keeping busy in the ministry, personal Bible study, meeting preparation and participation, along with other congregational responsibilities, will contribute to self-control.” So, some sexual behavior is seen as perverted. The solution: more Bible study!
·        *** w69 12/15 pp. 765-766 Questions From Readers *** We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters […] These questions have dealt with conjugal acts […] We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so.  […] Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband’s organ fits into his wife’s birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction. […] Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. […] In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: “Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses.” […] ) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. […] However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go. Thus, there is an appropriate way to be good boy, even legal. If the wife agrees, it does not matter. And, as the general topic we’re considering here relates to humility, let’s ponder if the marked bold statements above reflect this quality: “to the extent that we feel authorized to do so…beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go.” I think it is obvious that the writer feels about himself as authorized to regulate completely the procedures, despite his affirmations.
·        *** w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From Readers *** That porneia can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. […] If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, […] Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing. There is unnatural sex between spouses. This was seen as deserving of biblical divorce and the elders should disfellowship them if both consent.
·        *** w76 2/15 p. 123 par. 15 You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy *** “Later, another issue needed attention. Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God’s people to become impure in his eyes.” More on the same line.
·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers *** Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters? […] A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. […] This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. [the elders] could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service Well, the things begin to change. There is no Scriptural instruction. No expulsion, but no privilege in the congregation. Now, what is important for our consideration about pride or humility, let’s note these statements: “a careful further weighing… refrain from taking a dogmatic stand.” In other words, “we, the writers, the GB, until now and concerning this matter, we have been dogmatic and we had not scriptural basis to sustain our view.” Would not we expect this from humble people?
·        *** w83 3/15 pp. 30-31 Honor Godly Marriage! *** […] As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion […] . A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. This is basically our (GB) present position. Some sexual activities between the matrimony are repulsive. No privileges for these persons. It could lead to expulsion it the brother advocates this kind of behavior.
·        *** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.” Could this be seen as “new light?” This recent article states (the truth) that the Bible does not provide specific rules nor limits.
Now the damages
About 50 years of statements have been presented. The evolution goes from direct expulsion to only be removed of privileges. And if there is a braze promotion of the practices the consequences could go beyond.
I’m personal witness of the suffering of these standards in a number of couples. For example, in one congregation I was serving both partners agreed in the fact they both find this conduct acceptable. They have been practicing oral sex for some time but one of them, only for the standards in our literature did not want to continue. The other partner confesses me time later that had to resist the temptation to look outside for what was denied within.
Another couple I started to study the Bible with them, have had in the past a sexual conduct far from the Bible principles. He was homosexual, she was a prostitute. When the “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony arose in the study, they BOTH mention about their necessities, completely different from the standards in our literature. They both told me that they didn’t find disgusting these practices. On time, they stopped studying for several reasons, but I always thought that, at some degree, they found our standards too restrictive.
Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then.
Now, the most important
What does the Bible teach us regarding this matter?
In the Hebrew Scriptures we found some precise regulations about the type of sexual behavior. The sex wasn’t allowed during menstruation. Matrimony between some relatives was forbidden, and so on. And what about the “sexual mechanism” between spouses? Nothing. This was so, despite the fact the Canaanites were a depraved people. They had orgies and male prostitutes, so we can suppose these persons practiced oral and anal sex in their lives. Why did not God specifically prohibit it? This was during an epoch where the conscience had a lesser role in the life of Jehovah’s worshippers and everything had to be more regulated.
In the first century the morality of Greeks and Romans was everything less moral. What advice did the first Christians found in the Greek Scriptures to avoid the depravation? Quite a number, for example, the husband needs to be tender and loving. But what happened if both spouses agreed in some kind of particular sexual conduct between them?
·        (1 Cor 7:2-5) “but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent […] in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control.” Man and woman are debtors about the sexual necessities of each other. The main factor to determine the sexual conduct is “mutual consent.” What if we wish to be less “tender” and more… you know, the opposite? What if we both agree we both want, we both need, we both find it satisfying some sexual activities? According the above verses, the only answer I can find is to consider this as debt, a necessity to satisfy. And, is not this better that leave my partner “hungry”, exposed to temptation?
 
 
 
When they ask you and you do not know
·        (Mat 17:24-27) “After they arrived in Capernaum, the men collecting the two drachmas tax approached Peter and said: “Does your teacher not pay the two drachmas tax?” He said: “Yes.” However, when he entered the house, Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or head tax? From their sons or from the strangers?” When he said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free.” What characteristic did Peter show with this quick answer? Humility? Have you ever face this situation? Someone ask you something, and you are afraid that if you simple say “I don’t know” the consideration of others would decrease? It has happened to me a lot of times! I think it is pride. And this is exactly what I’ve seen in the statements (of the GB) when has tried to regulate this aspect in our life that God himself has not considered necessary to regulate. I sincerely believe these brothers have imposed their preferences about what is correct or wrong in my bedroom. And I’ve seen the hurt of this regulations in the life of people. I hope the path of humility will impose and, perhaps, I will see some apologize…

You always add very interesting historical background. By the way, any acknowledgment of error about this behavior in our publications? Or was it, as always, the brotherhood in general the responsible for this attitude? Remember the post's theme: humility

·       
 
I had precisely this exact fear. The same fear Elihu could have had when he replied to Job: (Job 33:12) “But you are not right in saying this.” The fear to be seen as an enemy, an opponent of the brothers leading the worldwide congregation, the GB (I’ve explain this before in this topic.)
Anna said this:
·       
 
Good point Anna. I trust in the GB (I think so). What I mean is that these are sincere brothers. Their errors aren’t deliberate, as if they were looking for some unspeakable selfish interests. By no means!
My ONLY point in this post is: I believe that, for several reasons, these brothers have behaved in a way which, APPARENTLY shows lack of humility.
First acknowledgment: Obviously, me, the person pointing this idea, I’m the perfect example of petulance and pride.
Second. If I am right, this attitude not only has caused, but STILL IS CAUSING problems and wounds to God’s people. You and I are witness of this.
Third. The situation presented as the above statement disturbs me, trouble me, disquiet me.
Four. My attitude, my approach I’ve already mention before {in this other topic from Anna}. I partly reproduce bellow:
·        Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation.  I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him! ·        Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey.  
 
 
Do I still think the GB is spirit directed?
It depends of the meaning of the “GB is spirit directed.” Anna quote is completely real, sadly real:
·       
.
This is a fact. I’ve heard, probably you also: “the GB has more information, but not reveals it because is not the time.” In fact, I use to say there are three states of communication: normal (you and me). Inspired (Bible writers) and spirit-directed (some kind of intermediate).
But, if that was the case, the brothers overseeing the teaching would not have taught about the pyramids, 1925, 1975, vaccines and many other things the way they have done.
Then, how do I think the GB and God’s people are being directed by God’s spirit?
In a way different from Bible times, because this special way would cease! (1 Cor.13:8) “But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with… if there is {miraculous} knowledge, it will be done away with.” So, in what way?
·        (Daniel 11:33) “And those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many” ·        (Daniel 12:9, 10) “Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end. Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. … but those having insight will understand” We can perceive:
·        There will be a people of persons who would be taught.
·        Some, between this people, would be in charge of teaching.
·        The mechanism! The way! Getting insight, acquiring knowledge.
·        Without error? No! it’ll be necessary to be refined, to be cleaned.
And, where fits into the painting God’s spirit?
Because God bless the study, to the degree that we let Him influence us. I explain this. Let’s supposed that one truth entrenched for God’s people is 1914. So entrenched that we try by all means to fit the rest of the scriptures to this idea. Will God force us to change our mind? Never, according the scriptures. Remember Daniel: “refined…insight”, not “flashes.”
Thus, God’s spirit directs us if we abandon any predefined, entrenched, favorite, beloved believing. If we try “by hook or by crook” to accommodate the scriptures to our “doctrinal corpus”, how can God give us “insight” without miraculously forcing us to this change?
God’s spirit guides His people to the extend His people allow this. And it is perfectly possible this people, inadvertently don’t allow Him to intervene. One more proof in this biography of brother Willi Diehl:
·        *** w91 11/1 p. 29  *** In May 1949, I informed headquarters in Bern that I planned to marry Marthe and that we desired to remain in full-time service. The reaction? No privileges other than regular pioneering. This we started in Biel, following our wedding in June 1949. I was not permitted to give talks, nor could we look for accommodations for delegates to a forthcoming assembly, even though we had been recommended by our circuit overseer for this privilege. Many no longer greeted us, treating us like disfellowshipped persons, even though we were pioneers. We knew, however, that getting married was not unscriptural, so we took refuge in prayer and put our trust in Jehovah. Actually, this treatment did not reflect the Society’s view. It was simply a result of the misapplication of organizational guidelines
Did God’s spirit guide the brothers in Switzerland? Yes, at which extend? To the extent that they allowed His influence.
What are some, in my opinion, harmful teachings we are holding?
Before, because the previous statement I see is “too strong”. Did the I Century GB cause some damage? Let’s take the counsel given to Paul about going to the temple (Acts 21)
·        *** w00 6/15 p. 14 par. 10 Honor the Ones Given Authority Over You *** […] Paul could have reasoned: ‘Those brothers previously instructed me to leave Jerusalem when my life was threatened. Now they want me to demonstrate in public that I respect the Mosaic Law. I’ve already written a letter to the Galatians advising them to keep free from observing the Law. If I go to the temple, others may misunderstand my action, thinking that I am compromising with those of the circumcised class.’ However, Paul evidently did not reason that way. […] The immediate result was that Paul had to be rescued from a Jewish mob, and he subsequently spent two years in prison. In the long term, God’s will was done. Paul witnessed before high officials in Caesarea and then was taken at government expense to Rome to witness before Caesar himself.
I think it’s evident that the immediate outcome was negative. Note the expression in the article: “in the long term.” Did Jesus direct the GB to take this decision, because in this way Paul would give so fine testimony? Or, rather, was it a mistake the GB made but, instead, Christ took advantage of this, in other words, modify the outcome? Let the Bible answer us:
·        (James 1:13) “When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God … nor does he himself try anyone”
As it’s very hard for me to write in English, I am only going to enumerate these harmful (in my opinion) teachings. Grant me some time and reflection to explain later. Perhaps some of you wish to point out the order to start explaining.
·        Our dealings with disfellowshipped close relatives
·        Our view about sexual behavior between spouses
·        Our policy about child abuse.
I’m close-up witness about the pain our “tradition” has caused. Will God’s spirit help us to modify, if necessary these views? Yes! To the extent that we allow Him to remove our trenched ideas.
Final: before you consider I’m one of the camouflaged apostates over there. In spite of all my doubts, in spite of my disagreements, I OBEY.

Summarizing this topic.
What are the reasons, in my opinion, provoking this situation, that make the GB appear as not humble?
TO CONVEY CONFIDANCE
Anna quote is, in my opinion, unsurpassable:
·        “I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence”. TO PROVE THIS ORGANIZATION IS GUIDED BY GOD’S SPIRIT
I’ve mention in this post that God’s people, and therefore the GB, are guided by God’s spirit. But in this epoch not miraculously. The lack of miraculous wisdom or knowledge (1Co 13:8) would make necessary display of characteristics such as “power of reason” (Ro 12:1)); “accurate knowledge and full discernment” (Ph 1:9); “sound in mind” (1 Pe 4:7); “insight” (Da 11:32) and so on. And these qualities don’t would come through “flashes” of God’s spirit, but by means of study, pray, effort, mistakes and rectifications (Da 11:35).
But, our GB, I think, is afraid at some degree of showing themselves error prone because this could show we aren’t under Jehovah’s hand in the eyes of others. I remember when I was serving as special pioneer in 1981 I was assigned to a small congregation with only one elder and me as his helper. All the brothers were newly baptized. I had to direct one Watchtower study regarding some change regarding the meaning of “sacred service”. The elder gave me the advice: “don’t focus excessively in the idea that a change was necessary, this could disturb the congregation.” The idea these new brothers shared, to a greater or lesser extent, is that we’re the organization God is directing by His spirit, and consequently the necessity of changes only should be seen as improvements, not corrections.
In spite of this, many brothers opine the “slave class” is humble because they recognize their errors. But in this forum has been shown evidence, for example, that the “error” of 1975 was distributed, spread between all brotherhood. Even worse, the decrease in the number of publishers was attributed to the influence of “some apostates” rather than the disillusion caused for the excessive emphasis on dates (w86 12/15 p. 20 pars. 20-21). Even Allen Smith (thanks for this) quoted this:
·        *** yb12 pp. 142-143 Norway *** There was a steady increase in publishers from the mid-1960’s till the mid-1970’s. But expectations regarding the year 1975 proved to be a test of faith for some brothers. When the great tribulation did not come in 1975, a few left the organization; and between 1976 and 1980, there was a slight decrease in publishers. Others who felt disappointed slowed down in their Christian activity for a while. What statement about the main reason of decrease is more accurate? “apostate influence”, “self-generated expectations” or some statements in our literature.
·        (1 Sa 15:20,21) “However, Saul said to Samuel: […] But the people took sheep and cattle from the spoil, the best of what was devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God at Gilgal” Saul, in other words, said “the mistake wasn’t mine, but people’s”. In modern times, “we have not guilty to promote false expectations, some individuals here and there have misunderstood us.” Was Saul humble?
Also, recently we have read in the W that in 1918 the ZWT followed the petition for “pray for peace”. but the original sources show, instead, that ZWT asked the congregations to pray for United States victory (w67 2/15 pp. 111-112 pars. 27-28), “for the promised glorious outcome of the war.” In this way presenting a more favorable view of the error.
TO PROTECT THE BROTHERHOOD
·        (2 Co 11:2) “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” ·        (2 Co 11:18) “Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I too will boast.” ·        (2 Co 12:11) “I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you” As Paul with the Corinthians, the GB ‘is jealous over us’ because they want that the entire brotherhood be acceptable at God’s eyes. I think this is one of the reasons they are acting in a way with apparently lack of humility. Paul himself had to boast, be unreasonable, with lack of humility to reaffirm his authority. He made a display of credentials hoping the Corinthians would respect more and, consequently will follow his advice more confidently, for their own protection and spiritual well-being.
GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGH EVEN WITH CROOKED LINES
I’ve been personal witness of this situation: A body of elders had an obvious lack of judgment decision about a brother. This, humbly, didn’t protest. But his wife couldn’t endure the situation and talked with the elders. They recognized the error but replied to her: “in this way he’s receiving training from God” and the mistake was not corrected.
The attitude of the elders was: “well, God can act so that our errors turn out not to be such mistakes”.
Every one of us have read such things as “the brothers [some apparent mistake] but finally Jehovah [solved the situation].” And I believe this has been the case a lot of times, but this idea has led to us to think that the Organization, the GB, is in someway infallible. “What mistakes, if finally Jehovah turn out them in successes.”
ADULATION
I’ve attended three pioneer schools. The first one perhaps in 1979. In the first two of them the text book was given to the students at Sunday, the day before the beginning of the course. In such schools the normal situation for a lot of us is to remain awaken until well late at night to prepare all the information. During the classes many were sleepy, some of them anxious. This situation prevented us to fully enjoy.
Nevertheless, in my last school the book was provided a couple of months before! We all could prepare with sufficient time, only reviewing the lessons the day before each class. What a difference!
The intriguing is, how could happen that something so easy to perceive was not corrected until decades later? Did the instructors inform about what was evident? Did the branches inform to GB about the instructors complaints, if any? This real conversation perhaps gives some light.
A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.
And what was the reason for this kind of favorable report? Adulation. And I have more evidences. In my branch and in our headquarters. Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative. Only escalate favorable reactions. Yes, I’m sure not always is the situation. But I have evidence of too many.
Certainly all of us have seen good changes in the brothers leading the worldwide congregation. Let God bless the GB that this brothers with such enormous responsibility each day. Keep it that way!
You're right.
To avoid this post woud be marked as R-Rated, perhaps we should move to another more "spiritual" matter!

Anna, I have pending some commentaries regarding other quotes, but let’s start for this one.

The tp book declaration about the proper sexual conduct in matrimony is, simply, dogmatic. Reflects the point of view of the writer: “I dislike eating snails so the Bible verses talking about uncleanness, natural or not natural, etc. apply to my view. And this view the brotherhood will do well to follow”.

As I’ve mention, the verses (Rom 1:24-27) were CHARGED with an inexistent meaning.  Later, the w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 quoted above, discharged the verses regarding this meaning. But this was in a footnote. Who read footnotes? The damage was already done. Even Melinda quoted the tp book, not the posterior Watchtower correction. This, Anna, is the concern in this topic. Lack of humility. You know the media treatment about JW: “some JW dead for blood issue” TITULAR in bold type. Weeks later “JW died for another reason.” Page xx with small type.

The damage I’ve seen with my own eyes has to do with couples that would be very happy enjoying their intimacy, because BOTH of them agree in sex conduct. But due to our (GB) teaching, as you have mention, arise doubts that disturb them.

Steve Jobs style: “one more thing.”

·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly”.
I prefer our older translation, more literal.

·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly”.
Note the words “intoxicate” or “ecstasy”. Do these words reflect… how can I say, “a quiet behavior”? (here I’m quite lost with my English. In Spanish I could pick up some exact but prudent words that convey the meaning I wish to transmit, so I apologize if I say outrages). What if the couple wants a more “expressive” behavior?

The meaning of these words is well expressed in this quote in Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/5-19.htm

·        And be thou ravished always with her love; i.e. let it intoxicate thee. The teacher, by a bold figure, describes the entire fascination which the husband is to allow the wife to exercise over him. The verb shagah is "to reel under the influence of wine," and is so used in the succeeding vers. 20 and 23, and Proverbs 20:1 and Isaiah 28:7. The primary meaning, "to err from the way," scarcely applies here, and does not express the idea of the teacher, which is to describe "an intensity of love connected with the feeling of superabundant happiness" (Delitzsch).
So, according the Bible, it is perfectly correct, clean, normal, appropriate: to get intoxicate, to get “drunk”, to lose the mind… in the bedroom.

The counsel given to this couple was:

·        The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree.
·        No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience.
·        If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7)
·        Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges)
They thanked us the help, and obviously, I’ve not ask them about any decision. But I see them happy.

Witness. I find that your views reflect an intense desire that God’s will were done. It is easily perceived from your comments you don’t find the GB is in good standing in the eyes of God.
I can understand your fear, because Jesus himself pointed out this very possibility when he mentions the evil slave, the foolish virgins, the wicked slave and others. So, the possibility exits, other way, why this waste of time talking about something hypothetical with no meaning.
In spite of this, if this would happen, this is not my job to punish these brothers, to reveal against them. It would be a matter between the Master and them. I’ve identified God’s people. I belong to this people. This people has, logically, persons with authority, local (elders) and worldwide (GB). And there is scriptural base to obey these persons with Christian authority:
·        (Hebrews 13:17) “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.” Please, witness, take note of these ideas:
·        Some persons would lead the congregations ·        We should be obedient to them ·        Do always the leaders would be right? No, because they “will render an account”. This expression implies the possibility of success and error, otherwise the verse only would say “they will receive a reward” ·        The result if we aren’t obedient: damage! I have it clear. Our “core doctrines” as I like to say are wonderful. I’ve learnt the proper condition of dead persons and the hope of the resurrection. My neighbors believe in soul immortality and hell fire. I’ve learnt the correct relationship between Jesus and his father. Mi neighbors believe in Trinity. I believe in the future paradise. My neighbors believe God will destroy the Earth.
In my country had military conscription, but the teachings of the GB (based in the Bible) helped me to be neutral. I’ve faced some surgical interventions, and based in what I’ve learnt from GB I could keep respect to God’s law regarding blood.
Well, I have no time to write down a lot more of spiritual gems these brothers have helped me to discover, appreciate and live them.
Now, you mention some other teachings about the time of the end, 1914, the signal and so. Well, I don’t consider these doctrines are “core” or fundamentals. Paul himself made a difference about basic or “milk” doctrines and other more “advanced.”
See Witness, all teachings about the time of the end, I grant you the possibility that we, the JW, or the GB are completely wrong. But this would not change the basic and principal doctrine: to keep alert!
The former Bible Students keep alert in spite of very different beliefs that we have nowadays. If, in the future, all the “time of the end” understanding is changed, perfect! I hope so! I want so! But, believe me Witness, it would not change my life in the slightest. I would continue serving God with this people, under the GB trying to keep me alert.
 
 
 

Melinda, as always, your commentaries are very welcome. Too, your words reflect good reasoning, scriptural and wise.

The only issue is, in my opinion, is when we apply uncleanness to certain practices or we refer to a particular conduct as “normal.” When I’ve dealt about these matters with other people, and they ask me about reasons, or proof that some particular behavior fits into “disgraceful”, I can’t answer with my personal views, nor our literature. I need to use the Bible, only the Bible.

The 1973 tp book paragraph you’ve quoted:

·        The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?
It is modified for this posterior explanation:

·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***[Footnotes] Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.
I see in the above quote three ideas.

First. Paul’s word regarding “natural” were about having sex between one man and one woman. This was the “natural.” We should not extrapolate to some practices between a married couple.
Second. A “simple” kiss between homosexuals is “unnatural”
Third. When the footnote mention the possibility-likelihood that some practices were originally practiced only by homosexuals, the writer is emitting an opinion. You see, no scripture sustains this affirmation.  Homosexuals also kiss and hug each other, and not for this reason should avoid the matrimonies kissing and hugging in our relationship.
I’m afraid regarding this matter of “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony is happening something similar when we refused the transplants as a form of cannibalism. We “charged” excessively the meaning of some verse, in this case, Gen 9:2-4. I reproduce next paragraphs:

·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers *** When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.
As we see, the writer of the article quotes Genesis with a basic idea: God allowed humans eating animal flesh. Now, the verse is “charged”: so, as no mention about eating human flesh in the verses, this is abhorrent and forbidden. But this idea, in spite all sane people agree with, is not scriptural.

Thus, years later was a “discharge” of the meaning of Genesis.

·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals [this was our former view, the “charged verse”] […] Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. […] It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
 

I love this kind of reasoning from the GB! I find it so humble! The Bible doesn’t directly mention this matter. The basic principle in Gen. is to eat animal flesh. Any derivation from the basic principle is up to each individual.

By the way, do you find horrible eating human flesh? Me too. But if someone allows be transplanted with an organ (eating this organ as we used to say) I respect his position. In the same way, perhaps you and I share the same view regarding the proper sexual behavior in our matrimonies, and we find disgusting some practices, right. But if other married couple opine in a different way I don’t see myself with the authority to “charge” some verses to make these persons view the matters as I see.

Melinda, I voted you favorably. We don’t share completely the same view, but your points are very valid and respectable!

This beats me!

So, If I understood, is the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll more recent than we taught? For some time I believed the Masoretic text was older than LXX (you know, Hebrew older than Greek) but I read some interesting books about Septuagint that provided evidence that some books of the LXX belongs to a different stream than the sources served as base for Masoretic.

Well, very interesting your input.

By the way, JWI, I’ve found an old post of you -- https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268 – and I wish to contribute some ideas. May I follow this old post or do I need to start a new one? Also, I’m sure many would appreciate some contribution in the post DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS

Unless your present concerns are limited to paleographic issues!!

Dear brother.
I share all you've mention about Islam. Years ago I was serving in congregation where an Arabic language group was attached. At these time I was the service overseer with no knowledge of this special field at all. What blessing when a very skilled matrimony was assigned from another country to our congregation! We learnt a lot from them. And your comments are in the line these brothers taught us, and what personally later we also learnt.
Previously, in this congregation, brothers with Arabic roots convinced us about the necessity to learn a lot of Mulim Culture and we spend more time reading the Koran than the Bible! Although was useful to some extent, as soon as we learnt new approaches things were better. For example, one simple thing this brother thought us: reading (Ge1:26) “Let us make man. . .” he uses to ask Muslim people “Allah was talking with someone important, later in the Holly Books we’ll see who was” And, in this way paving the way to accept the biggest prophet.
I tried to join this nice group, but imagine, I’m bad with my mother language, worst with English… let alone with Arabic!
As a curiosity, in my city there are a lot of small shops managed for Muslim people. In the windows that face the street they always put liquors, in spite they supposedly don’t drink alcohol. But many of these persons believe that as our religion permits us to drink, we are all alcoholics. Yes, seriously, many of them, influenced for centuries of stories and teachings full of prejudices have a sincerely sense of moral superiority
 
 

Given the choice, I prefer our little brother than the Indonesian child.

I see from your comments you’ve had really bad experiences as JW, mainly with elders. I confess you one personal secret: I’ve also had some bad experiences, mainly with other elders and C.O. I’m not a psychologist, but a computer developer, but I dare to say that these painful experiences, added to a very strong personality and a deep sense of justice have made you explode. I apologize if something I’ve said is offensive. Believe this wasn’t my intention.

I OFFER YOU A DEAL

You and me serving in the same congregation of Jehovah worshipers… but a little time ago, approximately 1500 before Christ. As you and I share some critical view about the “Organization” it’s easy our conversation resting any given day:

CMP. Have you noticed, JTR, our comrades are always making our live impossible. One day they mutter, the other they worship idols. What kind of people did Jehovah choose? Some Egyptians were much more cultivated and god-fearing!
JTR. Don’t forget the poor food we must to swallow, after 40 years!
CMP. And what’s your opinion about priesthood? They are a clan, a caste.
JTR. And why had Jehovah that forgive the High Priest? He was the direct responsible of a sin causing the dead of thousands of our brother! What lack of judgment! And now his sons are the new priesthood! Really, after so many errors I can’t understand God continues using this regrettable family.
CMP. Hey! Here he comes a messenger with news from the results from Balaam affair. Perhaps Jehovah is expressing via this foreign prophet a message revealing his opinion about this people. 
 
…and do you want to know, JTR, the opinion of Jehovah about that persons causing so much problems, erring so much, after almost 40 years?

·        (Nu 24:5, 6, 9) “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, Your tabernacles, O Israel!  Like the valleys they have extended a long way, Like gardens by the river, Like aloes that Jehovah has planted, Like cedars by the waters …. Those blessing you are blessed, And those cursing you are cursed     Dear JTR, I try to share the same opinion that Jehovah about His people. Yes, full of imperfections, sometimes needing correction and discipline. But, after all, God loves His people. I want to belong this people. In spite the errors I’m the first to point out, I love this people, they are my brothers.
 
Quoting Jehovah’s words, as for me, in spite a lot of errors I can see in these persons, I will never curse this people, my people!