Srecko Sostar

Let's recap... 
"Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of Gods rest day come to an end? The year 1975. It means that within a relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end"." Awake! 1966 Oct 8 pp.19-20 
"It did not take the brothers very long to find the chart beginning on page 31, showing that 6,000 years of man's existence end in 1975. Discussion of 1975 overshadowed about everything else. "The new book compels us to realize that Armageddon is, in fact, very close indeed," said a conventioner. Surely it was one of the outstanding blessings to be carried home!" .. Brother Franz. 'Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah's witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that." Watchtower 1966 Oct 15 pp.629,631 
"Well now, as Jehovah's Witnesses, as runners, even though some of us have become a little weary, it almost seems as though Jehovah has provided meat in due season. Because he's held up before all of us, a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975. Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then. As one brother put it, "Stay alive to Seventy-Five"" - 1967 District Convention, Wisconsin Sheboygan District Overseer Brother Charles Sunutko
"The immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events, for this old system is nearing its complete end.Within a few years at most the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will undergo fulfillment." Watchtower 1968 May 1 p.272
"With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting-in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man's existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. ... Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility ." Watchtower 1980 Mar 15 p.17

Dear JW Insider,
reading your comments I understand that you are a reflective and intellectually honest person.
If the people of God had "learned something" from past mistakes, it would be normal to debate the doctrines and prophecies in the light of the Scriptures.
If the people of God had learned anything, it would be normal for public conversations now to be done and also questioning the one who is not yet "faithful and discreet slave" (as admit Watchtower of 2013).
If we had learned something we would understand that we should study the Bible personally and this includes the possibility of finding something that goes against the official intent.
Obviously, if we had learned something.
Instead, if you try to get something back, anything, you're an apostate.
You do not get into the merit.
It does not matter if the arguments support the Bible; you are an apostate and just because you are going to rediscover the intent of the "NOT faithful and discreet slave".
Do you believe, honestly, that past history is served to something?
The people of God, exactly like in the past, are destined to repeat the same mistakes because the words of GB are more important than the words of the Bible.
Pay attention to prophecies.
If you can not understand the Word of God, it means the Bible lie - Proverbs 2: 1-5
I urge you personally to be certain of these things - 2 Corinthians 13: 5

there is no evidence of that.
There Is No Evidence of That
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT !
There is only one reason the concept of the Governing Body was developed.  In the midst of many lawsuits for all sorts of reasons it was deemed necessary to separate the assets of the WTB&TS from it's spiritual direction ... for the same reasons that Mexico for over 50 years was a "Charity" where at the meetings they did not sing, or have Bibles, to pretend that they were not a religion.
REAL ESTATE!
 

That's a good topic. It's been discussed here before. Perhaps someone can point to the place.

True. I remember that this topic came up once before a couple of years ago and I stayed out of it. But that woman, Anna, she kept dragging my name into it, and so I bit into the subject this time.
I am not exactly staying on topic as narrowly as it seems defined here. I speculated about marriages broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. The term "homosexual behavior," you will remember, was being used (during that time period) as a stand-in phrase for aberrant sexual practices between heterosexual married partners that could include anal or oral sex (AOS). Perhaps, I will use this made-up term "AOS" rather than spell it out. So, on the topic of breaking up marriages, consider, for example, that a sister might wish to obtain a divorce against a husband (believing or unbelieving) who insisted on AOS, during a time when the Service Department (and Branch) was inconsistent. If the sister obtained a divorce and remarried, she could be subject to disfellowshipping, even if the congregation had approved of her divorce. (In some countries, especially in unstable or "failed" states, the congregation was a better record-keeper of marriage/divorce than the state itself.)
This topic evidently came up much more often within heterosexual marriages, especially marriages between a believer and non-believer, when either the husband or wife wished to engage in AOS, and their partner did not wish to engage. Or both wished to engage and one or both ended up disfellowshipped. I handled more than one of these cases myself, and at the time, my wife knew of even more cases than those which came to the elders. These situations were evidently common, and the stress of perceived intrusion by the congregation and/or unscriptural legalism resulted in broken marriages, divorce, and questions about freedom to remarry, injustice, anger, and even disfellowshipping for unscriptural remarriage.
While I was at Bethel, a brother in Writing -- I won't name him because he's still alive -- complained to me that more unmarried, young people than ever were taking some recent counsel as permission to engage in oral sex.** He was somewhere between "livid" and "flabbergasted." I remember he said: "How can even a married couple think of doing this?!?! They know the angels are watching!" The idea of angels in a couple's bedroom was an odd image that stuck with me. At any rate, I know that this brother was involved in the actual writing of one of the corrections or clarifications of a previous view.
**Although this might seem impossible, I heard it stated to me directly by one of these persons in 1977, who had once believed it, but had come to his senses. He said that since 1974 with Armageddon around the corner, no one really knew for sure what lay ahead, and even if the Society was promising eternal marriages in perfect paradise, that, for all they knew, this might be the last chance to know what sex is like. And that this was a way to experience it without sinning to the extent of becoming "one flesh" with the other person. I'm not sure it will mean much to go through the history of these issues. But I'm willing to see if I can add anything to the conversation if anyone thinks it could be useful.

Not sure what is meant here. The topic is about homesexual behaviour providing grounds for divorce. Is that not about the breaking up a marriage?
This shortlived error of interpretation did nothing to impede an innocent party's separation if desired, but it did extend unecessarily the period of non-freedom to remarry. I am sure it generated considerable discussion at the time, given the attraction of such topics, and the eagle-eyed awareness of many to adjustments and change in such matters.
True, some innocent parties may have engaged in "normal" fornication themselves, maybe due to fleshly weakness, maybe even as scheme to secure a divorce by any means, and maybe the twerpish interpretation in the Aid book article contributed. The fringe frontier of sexual morality is a dangerous place to dwell.
However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.
Jesus sadly warned at Matt.18:7: "Of course, it is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the man through whom the stumbling block comes!". And James at 3:1-2 warned: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. For we all stumble many times. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able to bridle also his whole body."
Looks as if at least some of those named above experienced the outcome in these warnings.
Quite true. But it also indicates that Jehovah and Jesus take a special interest in those who suffer it, and who look to them:
"For he will rescue the poor who cry for help, Also the lowly one and whoever has no helper. ?He will have pity on the lowly and the poor, And the lives of the poor he will save. From oppression and from violence he will rescue them, And their blood will be precious in his eyes"
 Ps.72:12-14.
Not a happy topic.

Oh no, no , .... satan would corrupt me too as he has done with all other also :)))

Yes and no. (Mostly no.) It was not so simple. There were multiple issues that arose and two separate corrections.
I don't think R.Franz has ever claimed to have written more than a few specific articles in the Aid Book, only mentioning a couple of them where he discusses the questions and research that was necessary for them. He had responsibility for starting and completing the Aid Book, but much of this was done by assigning hundreds of small articles to various Branch personnel worldwide who had some writing experience writing talks, yearbook experiences, Awake correspondent articles, translating publications, and handling branch correspondence. Major Bible-based articles in the Aid Book were mostly handled by a team of only about 5 brothers in Brooklyn - in Writing plus one Gilead Instructor. R.Franz became more of a collator, editor and "project manager" for the Aid Book.
It's true that there was a procedure to get all Writing approved, but remember that there was no Governing Body while this book was written and approved. Only one person among the corporate directors (a kind of proto-GB) would have had the say to approve or not. This was Fred Franz, and his eyesight was already poor and he was dictating many of his own articles and having a lot read to him (instead of reading it himself). I don't know if Lyman Swingle was supposed to read it before publication, I have heard it implied that he did. When I was in research, a GB member named Schroeder had not read it, and even asked me if I would read through it, looking for certain points he had in mind. About a dozen sisters read through assigned portions of it both for proofreading and so that the 1966-1970 Index (out in 1971) could include all the topics and scripture references for the full 1971 Aid Book (A through Z). We did not have electronic storage of it at that time. So, up to a greater point than some realize, R.Franz really was responsible for errors he made, too.
 

The Aid Book was the primary Bible study reference for all JWs until 1988, 29 years ago, but I'm guessing that 90% of the original articles stayed the same even in the Insight Book that replaced it in 1988. I'm sure there are people still alive whose marriages were broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. And perhaps there are some who are still alive who were disfellowshipped and should not have been, and some that should have been disciplined and were not, resulting in injustice. The basic issues and definitions that were once wrong on this topic were fixed relatively quickly, but this alone does not resolve the stress and loss and injustice that some suffered due to the short-lived "gaffe" in the Watchtower. The Bible acknowledges that injustice can have a bad effect not only on the person but even on their children and grandchildren.
I can't speak for J.R.Ewing JR, but I'd say you might have misunderstood the reason he presented the material he presented. I think he's one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he was trying to defend the morality of JWs, both historically and currently. He was not, imo, trying to promote a non-Witness idea.

Wikipedia: "For instance, in the United Kingdom, adultery is not a criminal offense, but is a ground for divorce,  with the legal definition of adultery being "physical contact with an alien and unlawful organ"
That seems to cover everything quite well.  Even sex with Aliens.
However, true to the fact, as J.R posted,  apparently same sex infidelity is not adultery.
http://www.terry.co.uk/adultery.html
 
 

Because of the nature of scandals, they don't have to!

It is interesting. They sued those apostates for using "spiritual food" without copyrights permission.
How about JHVH copyrights ownership on truth, love, justice, thoughts, feelings, words ....water, food, air...
Again, WT is Company and because this reason they sued people for using their printed and electronic material. But main reason for WT suing them is revealed facts that expose WT "wrongs" about Biblical subjects and every day  living. In fact disputable matters are in theological sphere in first place. And then comes other items in connection on corporative and structural functioning in hierarchy  of WT. Regarding using of this secular world, money, policy, politic ...  

I send my letter of dissociation to Zagreb Branch and they never published it. :))))
Elders said to bro and sis not to read if they receive something from me. And to destroy it :))))))))))

:))) Raymond is guilty as JW and as ex-JW. hahaha 
If it is approved it was done by whole GB body, no matter of number of votes that was pro et contra :))))

Just little reminder. According to ARC reports, problems with pedophilia within WT in Australia started 50 years back. Similarly, it may be with Great Britain and US. Western countries and western democracies. :))) (In Russia WT have no problem with paedophilia, yet.) And WT as "good steward or FDS" records all cases and have all files about this issue. Do we not expect exactly this from "good steward"? That he care about "household", and have all files and documents about everything, from your 15 minutes field service to ....  
1. Now, when ARC asked Australian WT Branch to produce documents/files about all cases, it seems that they obey secular government and they done this.
2. Now, when California Court ordered US WT Headquarter to produce documents/files about peadophilia and all involved in this scandal, WT refused to do it, and they are stubborn in this unlawful, injustice and bad decision until today.
3. Now, WHO protecting pedophiles inside WT, inside JWrg and inside all sister corporation entities that is under WT Headquarter and under Board of Directors and under Shareholders Assembly?  
We have two answers on that. But only one is true. Guess which is true :)))
At least Australian WT has been more cooperative than their brothers in USA WT. Does this smells on rebellion, disunity, different interpretation on Bible text, more fear of "worldly people"....?   
 

I think The "Cats" Watchtower Article Parody is VERY funny, and a very good parody of a very, VERY real problem, therefore valuable as an awareness teaching tool for those who are not clueless.
Someone I know here recently stated that she was interested in TRUTH, no matter what the source.
The Society has not uttered a single word in its publications about the JW global pedophile scandals, except for GB Member Stephen Lett declaring in 2015 that they [[ edited: the accusation that the Society protected pedophiles ]] were all "apostate lies", just before the Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse No. 29 Hearings disclosed a 50 year history of 1006 perpetrators on over 5,000 incidents, that were subpoenaed from the Australian  Branch Office and Kingdom Hall sealed and secret  files.
[[edited: By keeping everything secret, in sealed special blue envelopes at the Australian Branch, and in the Kingdom Hall files, neither the Brotherhood, or the community at large was protected, by protecting the Society's polished public image ... by protecting these pedophiles from criminal prosecution by civil authorities.]]

this is interesting. revised Bible text ? it can be, and it is very tricky when someone change text to adapt it to understanding in particular moment of time. 
WT made few revising on Bible text from first printing. How many problems will come in a future if some problem of past error on translation we can see now, today. And how many more problematic changes and interpretations that has been done according to bad translation are already here but we are not see it yet, maybe some other people saw before us :))  

This is real controversy. But just one among many that came from Watchtower GB spiritual food table. JW living in "spiritual paradise" under rules like this one. :(( 
Questions from readers - WT magazine January 1 1972
Do homosexual acts on the part of a married
person constitute a Scriptural ground for
divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?
—U.S.A.
Homosexuality is definitely condemned in the Bible as something that will prevent individuals from gaining God’s approval. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10)
However, whether an innocent mate would Scripturally be able to remarry after procuring a legal divorce from a mate guilty of homosexual
acts must be determined on the basis of what the Bible says respecting divorce and remarriage.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ said: “Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for
adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32) On a later occasion he told the Pharisees: “Whoever divorces
his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." —Matt. 19:9.
Thus “fornication" is seen to be the only ground for divorce that frees the innocent mate to remarry. The Greek word for fornication is porneia.
It can refer to illicit sexual relations between either married or unmarried persons. The ancient Greeks, in rare instances, may have understood
this term to denote acts other than illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. But the sense in which Jesus used the word porneia at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9
must be ascertained from the context.
It should be noted that in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 “fornication" is used in the restricted sense of marital unfaithfulness, or illicit relations with another person not one’s marriage mate. Just before bringing up the matter of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone [married] that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28)
Consequently, when he afterward alluded to a woman’s committing fornication, his listeners would have understood this in its relative sense, namely, as signifying a married woman’s prostitution or adultery.
The context of Matthew chapter 19 confirms this conclusion. On the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus pointed out that a man and his wife became “one flesh,” and then added: “What God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:5, 6) Now, in homosexual acts the sex organs are used in an unnatural way, in a way for which they were never purposed. Two persons of the same sex are not complements of each other, as Adam and Eve were. They could never become “one flesh”־ in order to procreate. It might be added, in the case of human copulation with a beast, two different kinds of flesh are involved.
Wrote the apostle Paul: “Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.1— ״ Cor. 15:39. While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.

The Bible needs to be studied at a personal level.
If in the study of the Bible I come to understand that some teachings are wrong, I must act according to conscience.
I have dedicated myself to Jehovah and not to GB.
The Bible is not "imperfect spiritual food", it does not lend itself to rewards, corrections or "new light".
The Bible is the truth.
Obviously, I can go wrong in good faith during my Bible study. However, the Bible encourages you to study personally and ask Jehovah for help.
If the GB says something that according to my Biblical knowledge is not in harmony with the Scriptures, I will listen to my conscience. If we believe that the "truth" is the Word of God (John 17:17) then we realize that sometimes this organization has adhered more to the truth while "at other times" has less adhered to the truth. This is the organization that has taught me many beautiful, true and just things.
This organization, in its time, was surely blessed by God.
It does not mean, however, that "this organization" can not become a "chopper machine" since brothers (in the majority) are not able to do a personal study, to challenge, to question any "truth" not to be labeled as apostates.
For this reason, it will be necessary to create a distinction between those who really love the Word of God (study and seek to understand it) and those who love tranquility (who does the research in our place and tells us what to believe and do not believe).
Israel was also God's people, but to understand the will of God, "read the law book day and night."
Not simply ask the priests or the High Priest.
The priests could deflect (and are often misguided) but the Word of God remains unchanged.
We have many Biblical teachings and examples.
Many of us have become "unconscious worshipers".
Worshipers of people, "circular", the personality, the overseer; Watch Tower, Videos, and Cartoons.
Jehovah considers us personally responsible.
Pay close attention to the prophecies.
 

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 think you are right. Fred Franz wrote a 1969 article that got much of these concerns started over the definition of "porneia," and this article started a number of judicial issues which were typically handled by the Service Department (Harley Miller, Merton Campbell, etc.) Believe it or not, Knorr and Fred Franz had very little input into congregational discipline issues from about 1968 to nearly 1980. Harley Miller was trusted to manage this through his team. He was the chief "executioner" in those days. Fred Franz was a prophecy specialist and the primary doctrines he took an interest in were related to fulfillment of prophecy. Nathan Knorr was a bureaucrat, whose work running a fast-growing organization left him with almost no time for anything else. With the only other active organizational officers like G.Suiter, L.Swingle, and M.Henschel, the g.b. only existed for corporate, bureaucratic functions like signing checks, buying presses, paper, property and ink, etc.
The governing body did not exist as a "body" or even a "committee" of any kind until 1971 when R.Franz, G.Gangas, L.Greenlees, and W.Jackson were added to the corporate-defined officers. But none of these men, not even Knorr, even in 1971 would have thought it possible to suggest a change in doctrine, which could have only fallen to F.Franz.
There became one exception to that rule, because one member of this new Governing Body was put there specifically because he had successfully completed the Aid Book, and a couple items from the Aid Book resulted in policy/doctrinal changes. One of those policy changes was the creation (in 1971) of the "elder arrangement" with committees, which by extension, resulted in the creation of the "Governing Body." But Franz, in his book, says that even then 1971-1974, he still would never had thought of suggesting a change in doctrine, and the initial meetings of the GB were not about spiritual matters, but just bureaucratic matters like rubber-stamping the sign-off on lists of names selected for full-time branch assignments and traveling overseers. But Knorr began bringing in some of the questionable disfellowshipping decisions (from Harley Miller and Merton Campbell, etc) and other Service Department issues. Most people didn't notice, but the Writing Department was still on a 20-year cycle (updating articles that had been printed approximately 20 years earlier, starting in the mid-1930's) with a lot more, new prophecy-related updates by F.Franz interspersed.
So the 1972 article was to be written as a defense of the current disfellowshippings by the Service Department, and R.Franz was given the assignment during a time when he still did not question the general doctrines. Remember that the Aid Book didn't even question our chronology even though R.Franz already should have known better based on all the contrary research they found while preparing that book. According to Franz it was not until between 1974 and 1976 when he realized that he disagreed with the rest of the Governing Body who voted that a sister was not free to get a divorce because her husband only had anal sex with another woman. The Governing Body's opinion was that oral or anal sex or bestiality on the part of the husband with other women (or animals) would not have freed her to remarry. At this point he was sure the other members had it wrong and when the policy finally changed, he says he was happy that he was also assigned to write the updated correction to the old ruling in 1976.  
 

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.

We'll probably have to stop a few people 'sodding pottage'!