Noble Berean

What's wrong with it? Bride wearing a white dress to her wedding is a relatively modern convention that does nothing but add cost to the wedding and in no way enhances the married life of the participants. 

The best gift Jehovah gives is free will. I was married in a blush pink gown 25 yrs ago. The talk was given by an elder (my father) at a local country club where we also had the reception. Since 3 different congregations were invited, having it at the Hall wasn't practical. We still managed to have an inexpensive happy occasion. Point is, Jehovah is the creator of marriage and does deserve to be involved, but no one should be stumbled if the bride doesn't wear a white pricy dress or they decide to move the venue to a larger location. 

@runtifus A couple who chooses a civil ceremony should also not be made to feel bad in any way. 
Elders are specifically told NOT to offer their personal opinions.  This would also qualify as an area of personal choice. 
The marriage of @James Thomas Rook Jr. Is as valid as someone who has 400 in attendance at an Assembly Hall or Branch. 
I once performed a wedding at a Branch office with about 300 attending. A very elegant wedding and reception.  
I first had to become licensed by the Staten to perform the wedding in the first place. 

Yes. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of fish got washed up on that beach.
I was there, but some sound thinking advice earlier meant that I didn't connive with 'seventy -five. However, there were some who actually borrowed money on the strength of it!! They were a bit miffed as well.

I also watched the ARC, and I found Br. Jackson's comments to be conflicting with GB endorsed statements by the WT. Now, I do have confidence in my fellow JWs, and I don't think JWs have such blind faith in the GB that they would do something way off-base from the Bible's message. But to suggest that JWs would never do something out of harmony with the Bible? The history of our organization verifies that JWs obediently follow the GB--even when their direction is wrong. Had I been at the ARC, my follow up question to Br. Jackson would have been: What do you suppose JWs should do if they hear incorrect direction from the GB? In the July 15, 2006 WT, it says, "What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders."
It's pretty clear that JWs are not to jump ahead of the GB and the org if we have doubts. This "wait on Jehovah" attitude is pretty much the standard view in the org. We can't take matters into our own hands; we have to wait for the org to change. Some are waiting for changes that may never happen. All the while, our conscience is conflict--do we follow our own Bible conscience or keep with the group?
But our interpretation is in constant flux, isn't it? If a major thinking changes after baptism--do we need rebaptized? I think the point is our heart condition. If we serve Jehovah out of a loving heart, we don't have to have all the right answers.
Yep, that's a basic truth we can all agree on, Br. Jackson . But after that, who decides what's a "basic thing" that should not change? Many things have changed, so much so that the landscape of the religion is pretty different from the start.
This just doesn't jive with our organization's teachings. The GB definitively claims it is the sole channel of communication from God. For Br. Jackson to vacillate and suggest that they aren't the sole composite spokesperson is IMO disingenuous. If you asked any JW, "Who are the spokespeople on earth for God?" the answer would not be the one Br. Jackson gave. With a statement like that, you might even get taken to the back of the KH!
Consider what it says in the November 2016 WT, "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?'" I don't see how much clearer the GB could make it that they are the sole composite spokesperson for God, and they should not be questioned on their direction.
Jumping back to the ARC, it seems apparent to me that Br. Jackson wanted to minimize the GB's controlling ways as much as possible. I've said already that they play two sides of the coin very well: a channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and a human group that errs. When it suits them, like this situation in Australia, they can appear weak to benefit the case. But it's not accurate to the way things are. And you can't have it both ways.

I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.

But isn't revision a good thing when it leads to clear understanding? We're constantly learning more about the Bible as we dig into it and research it.

I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.

I also watched the ARC, and I found Br. Jackson's comments to be conflicting with GB endorsed statements by the WT. Now, I do have confidence in my fellow JWs, and I don't think JWs have such blind faith in the GB that they would do something way off-base from the Bible's message. But to suggest that JWs would never do something out of harmony with the Bible? The history of our organization verifies that JWs obediently follow the GB--even when their direction is wrong. Had I been at the ARC, my follow up question to Br. Jackson would have been: What do you suppose JWs should do if they hear incorrect direction from the GB? In the July 15, 2006 WT, it says, "What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders."
It's pretty clear that JWs are not to jump ahead of the GB and the org if we have doubts. This "wait on Jehovah" attitude is pretty much the standard view in the org. We can't take matters into our own hands; we have to wait for the org to change. Some are waiting for changes that may never happen. All the while, our conscience is conflict--do we follow our own Bible conscience or keep with the group?
But our interpretation is in constant flux, isn't it? If a major thinking changes after baptism--do we need rebaptized? I think the point is our heart condition. If we serve Jehovah out of a loving heart, we don't have to have all the right answers.
Yep, that's a basic truth we can all agree on, Br. Jackson . But after that, who decides what's a "basic thing" that should not change? Many things have changed, so much so that the landscape of the religion is pretty different from the start.
This just doesn't jive with our organization's teachings. The GB definitively claims it is the sole channel of communication from God. For Br. Jackson to vacillate and suggest that they aren't the sole composite spokesperson is IMO disingenuous. If you asked any JW, "Who are the spokespeople on earth for God?" the answer would not be the one Br. Jackson gave. With a statement like that, you might even get taken to the back of the KH!
Consider what it says in the November 2016 WT, "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?'" I don't see how much clearer the GB could make it that they are the sole composite spokesperson for God, and they should not be questioned on their direction.
Jumping back to the ARC, it seems apparent to me that Br. Jackson wanted to minimize the GB's controlling ways as much as possible. I've said already that they play two sides of the coin very well: a channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and a human group that errs. When it suits them, like this situation in Australia, they can appear weak to benefit the case. But it's not accurate to the way things are. And you can't have it both ways.

This hasn't been the attitude in the org for a LONG time. They revised the Bible translation to make it crystal clear. Sexual immorality breaks the marriage bond.

They are going to heaven of course, but they aren't doing an irresponsible runner like those ones who slipped off to Tartarus all those years ago.
Oh dear..but you are right..so many questions....At least I can't see "Are we there yet? in among them................
Seriously, just because we are taking "firm hold of the robe of a Jew'" (Zech.8:23),  we must not get the idea we are going to get through Armageddon by "riding on  our parent's coat tails" as it were. This will be no "walk in the park", regardless of the admonition at 2Chr.20:17.
We need the determination of Habbakuk as recorded at Hab.3:16-19. That includes facing the possibility that "[the] flock may actually be severed from [the] pen" (NWT 1984). We may well have to rely solely on our informed relationship with Jehovah at times, but I am sure that not one of Jehovah's people will be "left in the lurch", (NWT1984), when the time comes.
It is not for now to tell the story of our salvation in detail, because it has not yet occurred. But rest assured, if we continue to follow the directions that have led us up until now, then we will echo in real time, (not only in prophecy), the words of Habbakuk who said: "Yet, as for me, I will exult in Jehovah himself; I will be joyful in the God of my salvation" Hab.3:18.

Acts 3:22,23 is referring to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is often called the "Greater Moses". We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him? This isn't meant as an attack on the GB, but I just wanted some clarification on this matter. Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf. He didn't go through a centralized body to see that work done.

Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth.
What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB.
Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one  group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid.
It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them.
And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.

I have noticed that as yet, nobody has attempted to answer any of the very valid questions and points you raise. Is this perhaps because there is no foolproof answer? I have heard many times Christendom say that certain unexplained matters are a matter of faith. That is why religion is a faith based organization. While I don't subscribe to the way they use this explanation (because it's more blind faith) we do have to have faith that Jehovah will surely not allow any lasting harm to come to anyone that serves him out of a complete heart.
I for one, appreciate your honesty.  I think we are all a work in progress in one way or another (including the GB). Always learning new things. This is why I posted this particular topic, because it is something that I wondered about, you may not be too bothered about it, you may have something else on your mind. I think most of us, if we are honest, have some topic that we do not see eye to eye. But rarely do we make a public fuss and tend to ride it out, wait on Jehovah and see what happens.
And also as @Gone Fishing pointed out Matthew 25: 34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably;   naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’  In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"  Jesus tells us that supporting his brothers, which applies to the anointed, so the GB included (and by extension to all of us) is very important. This of course does not mean we will support something we believe is scripturally wrong.  Br. Jackson also  alluded to the fact that it is each individual's responsibility to "make sure" when he made this statement at the ARC, I quote: ": “Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction”.  @JW Insider made some good points in his comment regarding producing versus sharing/distributing spiritual food. There is nothing the GB can add to the Bible all we can do is share its message effectively, which can include using Bible aids.
This brings us to the notorious question of interpretation, but by our baptism, didn’t we agree with the interpretation? But also I think it has definitely to do with faith. We had faith that what we were learning was the best interpretation we had heard.  Hebrews ch 11 gives examples of all those who followed Jehovah’s instructions because they had faith "in things not yet seen". Abraham didn't even witness some of the things he was promised.  
This is not strictly true according to Br. Jackson:
Q.   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?  
Br. Jackson.:  That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
also:
Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?
 Br. Jackson: Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own   uunilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.
also
Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the
scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about
scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?
 Br. Jackson:  That is correct.  But there are some basic things in
 the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings
 of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your
  time, obviously, going through those, but it is important
  to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For
  example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of
  us changing our viewpoint on that" end of quotes
 
It is those basic things that I think we can all agree on. They are the backbone of our faith/religion. As for those other things, we may have our opinion, without causing any upset, provided we don't go and harass other people about them or try and make them see it our way.
Sorry, I am going to have to continue this later....
 
 
 
 
 
 

If you downvote, you could at least contribute to our discussions

This is speculation. As if Jehovah can only save people when they are gathered in a specific spot?
They sure are, as far as I can tell.  John 17:3, John 20:31, John 8:12,  Matthew 7:21,  Romans 2:13, James 1:22, 1 John 2:17, 1 John 5:3, Jude 3:3-5, Romans 13:11-13, Heb 10:36,  3John 3,4,  Romans 8:6....etc. etc.

I also meant to mention @Melinda Mills who like me, finds  other poster's comments (not the rude ones) helpful and inspire her to do more research and "reason out a matter" .

For now 

I am glad that you put this as honored member of JW community here. If I have had done this i would received some comments how i twisted words :))))))))))) and have bad motives, ahahhaa. 

I really cannot believe this is your actual position. I am in awe, and not in the meaning of awesome. 
You mean to tell us that you prefer mindless adherence over critical thought?  After reading your post........yes, this is exactly what you want and prefer. 

If you downvote, you could at least contribute to our discussions

To be fair, this topic is not under controversial posts, but under Bible discussion, because that was what I was hoping it was going to be....

Regardless of the fact that I do not share much of the Governing Body's explanation, when did the time for Jerusalem's destruction approach them, they did not have to stand up and go? Did not they have to do something practical and immediately even if they were old and sick?
From what little I understood (little: I used the translator) would not it have been enough that they had faith in Jehovah?
Since Jehovah is Almighty and can protect His people in any circumstance, Christians of the first century could also decide not to leave Jerusalem, no?
Obviously there are many other things to say.
The instructions come from the Word of God (and will not come from a divine inspiration) so it is important to study the Bible to understand what we must do when approaching the Armageddon War.
But many of us believe they have understood everything and are not allowed to discuss or look.
They wait for instructions from others.

Thank you to the other contributors.
@Gone Fishing has presented excellent reasoning, @JW Insider counter reasoning, @TrueTomHarley realized all too soon this might me one of my "rants" that I don't raise anywhere else and that it could be the next topic for a letter to the GB that I never send, @Noble Berean went straight to the heart of the matter. Thankfully this post has been spared JTR's cartoons because maybe he has not discovered it yet, @Nana Fofana hit the bottle, Allen et al resorted to personal attacks and apportioning down votes left right and center.....so nothing new there, and last but not least Srecko with his obviously biased interpretation, and Bar Avaddhon with his complex interpretations and sometimes difficult to understand discourse but that is not his fault, Google translator needs to do a better job.
I don't have time right now, but when I do I would like to reply to individual posters in more detail...

Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth.
What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB.
Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one  group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid.
It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them.
And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.