Srecko Sostar

I’m all for gaining insight. We should learn from one another. The primary issue I’ve raised regarding the letter to Galatia is that the then “governing body” (to borrow a term) was willing to tell the body of Christ when they should be held as accursed, and that doing so was fine as depicted. 

As things stand, right now and for decades there is misleading and patently false information plied by the society to prop up religious positions that, daily, have life and death consequences. This is all demonstrable. Only it’s not revealed by the society.
 
These things have to be found out otherwise, often from letters of correspondence from the society stating things that are never published for broader review and edification. In other cases it’s found in academic peer reviewed professional articles, which when questioned directly the content is confirmed privately by the society but with no broad publication. If it’s good for the goose it should be good for the gander.
 
When I learn of some of these things it is very disturbing, which is only exacerbated knowing if you question what you see happening you are subject to being branded. And, for what? Asking out loud about things that are demonstrably valid? Paul offered that the then “governing body” was subject to making sure they were being faithful in teaching and dealings with the brotherhood, and that it was fine to point to wrongness. Paul offered a litmus test to use of the then governing body. I’ve never read where our contemporary governing body could even possibly be held accursed for reason. It’s treated as a ridiculous notion. 

For whatever small contribution it might make toward informing about the governing body as it has represented in the last century up until today, I would engage such a discussion in a public forum. 
It tends to be a touchy subject because, as you cited Rotherham, there tends to be sentiment that it’s ridiculous to even think what we look to as a governing body could knowingly present false teaching (what Rotherham depicts as apostasy).
Not to be overlooked is the writer to Galatia (Paul) was himself a newer convert to the Christ, Jesus. He was an ex-Judaic with firsthand experience with an religion/organization run amuck, which organization had, the old fashioned way, disfellowshipped one among themselves named Jesus. Paul himself had been drawn into this wholly wrongheaded way even to the point of persecuting followers of Jesus. Hence the man had passion for holding leaders accountable, which comes across loud and clear in the letters opening statements.
Nonetheless, I’d engage the topic. 
 

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).
If the purpose, of the ban on not eating blood, is not to make the meat completely free of even a single drop of blood, then any insistence on a "total ban on the use of blood" is open to criticism. This is exactly what is happening today with JW. They eat the blood in the meat, because there is always blood in the meat, regardless of the fact that most of it came out during the slaughter. However, no one at WTJWorg insists that the meat be completely bloodless. From this, we could conclude that the only important thing is to slaughter the animal, during which the blood comes out of the body unhindered. Obviously, the "prohibition of eating blood" in that case was reduced to the process/method of taking the life of an animal, and not so much to the insistence on unconditional "abstinence from blood".
I remembered the everyday situation in which our gums bleed. How many times have we swallowed our own blood. And by that, everyone like that has broken the "commandment". All such JWs should be called before the JC and asked if they are repentant or unrepentant sinners and then exclude them. :))
I don't like blood as a medical issue only because of health dilemmas, because blood controls and storage are not done properly, and everyone donates blood who shouldn't.

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).
If the purpose, of the ban on not eating blood, is not to make the meat completely free of even a single drop of blood, then any insistence on a "total ban on the use of blood" is open to criticism. This is exactly what is happening today with JW. They eat the blood in the meat, because there is always blood in the meat, regardless of the fact that most of it came out during the slaughter. However, no one at WTJWorg insists that the meat be completely bloodless. From this, we could conclude that the only important thing is to slaughter the animal, during which the blood comes out of the body unhindered. Obviously, the "prohibition of eating blood" in that case was reduced to the process/method of taking the life of an animal, and not so much to the insistence on unconditional "abstinence from blood".
I remembered the everyday situation in which our gums bleed. How many times have we swallowed our own blood. And by that, everyone like that has broken the "commandment". All such JWs should be called before the JC and asked if they are repentant or unrepentant sinners and then exclude them. :))
I don't like blood as a medical issue only because of health dilemmas, because blood controls and storage are not done properly, and everyone donates blood who shouldn't.

Oh, “evidently”. That is such a terribly misused term. In presentation it’s a term used for persuasion; definitely should never be used as underpinning for a premise in a logical argument. Maybe to nudge thought on a theory. But it’s such a mercurial term. As persuasion the usage immediately conjures thoughts of a snake oil salesman. 

How about as a litmus test all commentary has to use standard definitions of words, and terms? And completely eliminate the word “evidently” when there is zero evidence?

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

I think I know how GB would respond to question about Gal 1:8.
The same way they interpreted Mat 24:45-51. There is only a faithful and wise servant and he gets everything. There is no evil servant because FDS aka GB can never be evil in any way.
So it's a complete joke. A complete disparagement of all readers of these words of Jesus. Another in a series of anomalies of a mind that is proud and does not admit its own defeat.

When I went to Israel last year, all their meat is kosher and man can you tell the difference in quality and taste. Even the double big mac I got from McDonalds taste better than here in the states.

We may be talking about different things.
My question relates to obedience of teachers taking the lead. Paul was a teacher taking the lead. The apostles were teachers taking the lead. In their time there were other teachers taking the lead. What Paul wrote could be applied to any and all teachers taking the lead, or any teacher at all for that matter. There is also biblical admonition to obey those taking the lead among us. But Paul pointed out a point at which teachers taking the lead should not be obeyed but, rather, rejected as accursed. Paul said this was okay, and he included himself. I don't find any instance where the society has ever given this instruction of itself, as though it were even possibly right to reject what they say when they say it.

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

Yes, you remember well about that. However, I did not think of that when I listed those 5 points. It is in connection with Gal 1:8.
He spoke to the thesis that JWs are so independent that they can on the basis of the Bible itself, the Bible alone, "notice" (his word) whether the directive/instruction/doctrine that the GB publishes is correct or incorrect.
It is significant that he stopped there, giving no indication that the followers would be allowed to be disobedient. He continues with the thesis that if the directive is in accordance with the Bible, then how can GB expect JWs to accept it.

Notice: to see or become conscious of something or someone
Video- from 3:20
 
 

Only four things?
How about “… don’t go swimming until an hour after you eat”?

Maybe I didn't know how to explain better. Uniformity is visible through, for example, the same magazine (content) which is published almost simultaneously or at the same time and is studied in all congregations all over the world at the same time, so a conclusion is made about the existence/visibility of the unity of the international brotherhood. Or conversely, unity is seen through uniformity when all JWs study the same Watchtower on the same day. 
That's why I combined the two concepts in a perhaps clumsy way, especially since I think in my native language, and I'm trying to convey it in another language.

I've not isolated the above comments to have them suggest something other than what you wrote in context. I isolated the above to speak to two notions they contain.

First, the phrases "unity of uniformity" and "uniform unity" are, I think, self-contradictory. Uniformity is a state of being the same in all things all the time without differences. Unity is a state of being united or joined as a whole, despite differences.

All people are different from the next person, including the things they believe and why they believe those things. Because of difference, trying to achieve uniformity is, ultimately, impossible. It’s going to grind people down rather than build them up.

But there are many historical instances of humans who, though not uniform in belief, come together as a group to unify for common cause. Because a common cause draws these people (with all their difference) together for that common cause, the effect is to raise up the people that are unified.

Second, whatever tools are employed to compel people to be uniform will, I agree, lose their power because the overall effect grinds people down rather than raising them up.

 
 

I am guilty of that myself.
Since the 1960s I have known that the Biblical coincidences in the Bible about celebrating birthdays was based on faulty reasoning, and prohibiting birthday celebrations was unscriptural, but I reasoned that it was good for isolating JWs from the worldly influences … like the Jews dressing in what must have to seemed to the pagan world like ceremonial clowns, what with pomegranates and bells and a box that hit them in the forehead when they walked along. It served as a protection for the Jews back then, and served as a protection for JWs in this century.
So, I went along with it, with enthusiasm. 
I still do!
… but to impose what I still find is a good discipline on other people’s consciences invoking Scriptural Authority for what are two Biblical coincidences is sloppy thinking, bad reasoning, morally reprehensible, and just flat wrong.
It’s a reasonable argument … and MIGHT be true … and I think not celebrating birthdays is a good idea …. think of the harm caused for 80 and more years by removing a simple joy from peoples’ lives, and telling them it is God’s will!
… and disfellowshipping them for celebrating the day of their childrens’ birth.
The logic is the same as:
1.) Women prostitutes often wear high heel shoes.
2.) Nancy and Lois were seen wearing high heel shoes.
3.) Therefore, Nancy and Lois are prostitutes.
I think high heel shoes are obscene, but then again I am sitting in my living room with combat boots on.

Paul (and presumably his cohorts agreed) told Christians the point at which they should not obey (follow, accept, chose your verb) what he was telling them. He put it in writing.
So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?
Where has today's governing body put in writing the point at which we should not obey something they tell us, that they should be accursed? In the super abundance of written words they have published have they provided this litmus test of themselves? I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Also, given their penchant for "organization", in all of their layers upon layers of organizational policies have they clarified how to employ that litmus test of themselves?
To me this is a conspicuous absence of something fundamental about what leaders think of themselves, and how they would expect to be treated by those who look to them as teachers.

That is like saying that the 1791 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “… the right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” means you are prohibited from selling rifles to bears. 
What part of “abstain from blood” is unclear?

Of the biblical decree of record to Noah, since he had no means of removing every trace of blood from an animal slaughtered as food, I think it most reasonable to conclude it was sufficient to make an effort to bleed out an animal before eating of that animal. Also, Noah was not to eat the blood he let drain out. Other than this, Noah was not prohibited from using the blood for other purposes, and neither was he required to use blood for anything in particular (e.g., sacrifice). The act of bleeding out an animal (and animals are souls) appears to be intended as an act of respect for the taking of a life when killing an animal to eat it as food. On the other hand, and unlike killing animals, to kill a human was depicted as a capital offense worthy of life forfeiture of the offender.
As for eating blood being equated with IV administration of blood, transfusion of products like red cells is demonstrated to offer no nutritional support when administered intravenously. Oddly enough, the products from blood proven to have efficacy as parenteral nutrition are products JWs can accept as much of as they want, as a personal decision. Those parts would be, primarily cryosupernatant but also cryoprecipitate.

Actual Control Hierarchy :
1.) Accountants  ⬇️
2.) Lawyers  ⬇️
3.) Governing Body  ⬇️
4.) Helpers  ⬇️
5.) WTB&TS  ⬇️
6.) Branch Offices  ⬇️
7.) Elders  ⬇️
8.) Ministerial Servants  ⬇️
9. Congregants-at-Large
 
 

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?
What is the litmus test today?
 

They control it.

OK  OK OK …..
So it doesn’t take much to get me started.
Let’s compare the Apostle Paul to the very earliest  Governing Body ….
 

Sure you can .….
….. and should!
Paul wasn’t dragging around 15 billion dollars in Real Estate.
The GB cannot do “magic tricks”.