JOHN BUTLER

"Pops", "Bud," from a 15 year old that thinks he knows everything. Oh dear.
From a 'person' that uses a black ghost to identify with. Interesting, from a supposed JW. 
Quote "There's one person in particular who is a special case whereas I made promise to meet with her at least 2-3 times a week. It is something that is both personal and private." 
Um, are you a young man meeting up with a female in private ? That is a disfellowshipping offence you know. No two witnesses needed to accuse you of fornication. GB rules. 
Quote 'Anti-pauline is a legitimate expression'. Yes so is homophobia. What point are you trying to prove ? 
I love and believe Paul's writings to the congregations. However my feelings are that Paul was talking to those of the Heavenly Class / the Anointed, not to any of the earthly class. More is expected of the Anointed because they have been given more responsibility and have a greater reward. (Being in heaven with God and Jesus Christ is surely a greater award, even though a pure life here on Earth will be wonderful ).
Quote "Can you give an example of non scriptural rules ? "  
The two witness rule concerning Child Abuse. 
The misuse of the scripture about the Superior Authorities, from 1929 to 1962  I believe. 
The accusation of fornication if a man and woman enters a place with no other Witnesses with them. 
( But no accusation about two men or two women, which could be seen by others are homosexuality ).
The Blood Issue rules that keep changing. 
The shunning rules, when a person 'resigns' from the JW Org. 
Reasons the GB use for disfellowshipping. (This touches on other subjects but would make another topic).
So young person, I'm not your 'Pops' and I'm not your 'Bud'. 
You completely lost your side of this discussion by using those expressions, and yes, you showed yourself as Not having the Mind of Christ

What angers them is probably your attitude. 
 

"Pops", "Bud," from a 15 year old that thinks he knows everything. Oh dear.
From a 'person' that uses a black ghost to identify with. Interesting, from a supposed JW. 
Quote "There's one person in particular who is a special case whereas I made promise to meet with her at least 2-3 times a week. It is something that is both personal and private." 
Um, are you a young man meeting up with a female in private ? That is a disfellowshipping offence you know. No two witnesses needed to accuse you of fornication. GB rules. 
Quote 'Anti-pauline is a legitimate expression'. Yes so is homophobia. What point are you trying to prove ? 
I love and believe Paul's writings to the congregations. However my feelings are that Paul was talking to those of the Heavenly Class / the Anointed, not to any of the earthly class. More is expected of the Anointed because they have been given more responsibility and have a greater reward. (Being in heaven with God and Jesus Christ is surely a greater award, even though a pure life here on Earth will be wonderful ).
Quote "Can you give an example of non scriptural rules ? "  
The two witness rule concerning Child Abuse. 
The misuse of the scripture about the Superior Authorities, from 1929 to 1962  I believe. 
The accusation of fornication if a man and woman enters a place with no other Witnesses with them. 
( But no accusation about two men or two women, which could be seen by others are homosexuality ).
The Blood Issue rules that keep changing. 
The shunning rules, when a person 'resigns' from the JW Org. 
Reasons the GB use for disfellowshipping. (This touches on other subjects but would make another topic).
So young person, I'm not your 'Pops' and I'm not your 'Bud'. 
You completely lost your side of this discussion by using those expressions, and yes, you showed yourself as Not having the Mind of Christ

@JOHN BUTLER  All is ok with my name,  I got it before some years from our Librarian, as a very good   immunity!   I'm very glad about that.

Are but young person, do you say my comment is lies ? 
Queen Esther (is she a real queen or just putting herself on high ?) says "I don't want such of comments under my daily texts!!"
BUT she does not say it isn't TRUE. 
It's so funny that you call me Papa Bear. Because your GB are much older than me but you serve them. 
Just remember how Jesus showed up the Pharisees for what they truly were. Jesus didn't hold back from telling them the truth about themselves. Why should i hold back from telling the truth about the GB and the JW Org ? 

I never called you an apostate or think of you as one, Pops. Former JW, yes, apostate? Dunno, didn't see you try to set fire to a hall like someone out there or defame God while attempting to mock our faith. 
If I had to be honest......whelp, I just see you as lukewarm or misguided, and a teaspoon of paranoia raising off of your skin. You can agree or disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, but to be as  stale as chips in a bag..... Well, Pops, it fits the bill, and I just paid it and tipped it too.
Do you even know what an apostate is?
Seem? An accusation or an assumption? Here we see you trying to say we are all the same when we are not. Same faith doesn't mean we sre all the same person.
 
oh dios mío.....

That's how I understand it. Basically, I feel that this "method" applies to any true Christian, whether anointed or not, and no need to be a member of the FDS either. The holy spirit is there for anyone who asks for it. But I  believe someone, a body, has to have the job of dispensing Bible truths, or food at the proper time if you will. I know you feel a bit differently about it. But it makes logical sense to me. Do I think that this "body" might or should receive a little bit more direction from the holy spirit than anyone else? On account of the job they do, it would seem reasonable that they might/should. Of course if Jehovah could make the stones cry out, then he can easily use a a group of people to do the same. Do I think this has been the case? To the exclusion of bad mistakes, I would say, in certain circumstances, yes. I feel certain he has blessed the effort of those who promoted Bible truths.  But He has obviously allowed blunders to be made as well. The GB are convinced they are a tool in God's hands, and I honestly cannot see why they couldn't be. As for "feeling special" about a decision, I think I prefer to leave that to the Mormons or Born Again Christians

The earth is a big place, I would assume anointed members like to live in their place of choice. Or do you think they should all live in a compound?
That's utter nonsense. The anointed are free to do as they wish, like any other member of the congregation. Their identity is revealed, whether they like it or not, when they partake of the emblems at the memorial. 
More nonsense. They can dispense as much spiritual food as they like, to anyone they like.  Throw them out? What, where, how? Such nonsense....
 

@JW Insider  Quote "(Romans 13 could be invoked as "the sword" of the authorities -- paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, etc.)"
Are but problem there was, Romans 13 was being misused at the time, to mean God and Jesus Christ. 

@JW Insider  Quote " Surely if the Bible says be no part of the world, and love your enemy, etc., anyone could easily interpret this to mean that support of the military is support of the "enemy" which is Satan's world and it's machinations. "
I totally disagree with you on this, but as I've mentioned to @Anna that the Society / GB were misusing the Superior Authority scripture in Romans 13. 
If the Romans scripture had been used correctly then it would have meant they would have been submitting to those Superior Authorities that God had put in place. If it was 'orders from', then it was not showing 'support for', it was just being 'obedient to'. Big difference in my humble opinion. 

Great answer!

I would not go to war in the real sense of going prepared to kill people. But I would work on a farm producing food. 
I would not vote for a person or political party. I would not become part of a political party. I would not salute the flag. 
But :- 
Matthew 5 v 41 
"And if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles."
 
 

Here in England it seems people have become too relaxed. My own brother is an Elder in a congregation and he says it is difficult to get people to go on the ministry. Some will not work on busy roads, some will not work where it is too hilly, others dislike the countryside where houses are too spaced out. I do know that many of the brothers and sisters are too materialistic, and spend too much time thinking about earning money. I know it seems very bad to say these things, but I tell you truth. 
However I think a lot of them enjoy spending time on the carts / trolly. Older ones can sit when not too busy and they usually only do about an hour at one time, so it is a good way of serving Jehovah joyfully. 
As for the Elders, i think they have many problems here in England. A lot of people have personal problems and it keeps the Elders very busy, and maybe takes the joy out of serving God. It must be hard work being an Elder, especially if you have a young family too. 
 

That's one way to look at it. It would go against my own conscience. What might a nation or government ever ask you to do that might go against your conscience, if I may ask?

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

Of course, people have to change previous doctrinal nonsense. If doctrinal nonsense including some trivial ideas that not affect your life in important things then it can be possible for all JW to laugh together on that.
But when some doctrinal nonsense cause prison, death, personal and family problems ---- ???? what comfort and what kind of love will GB Teachers  give you as compensation and help?    
As we can see, from past to today, they give you another nonsense.

Now this is very wrong indeed. However I'm wondering if this fits in with the misuse of the Romans 13 scripture concerning the 'superior authorities'. 
The Society / GB were still misusing this scripture until 1962 I think. So JW's could not use that scripture correctly and say they had to obey the Superior Authorities' meaning the Government / Secular Authority..... Because the Society /GB were telling lies and pretending it meant God and Jesus Christ. 
From 1929 to 1962, the Superior Authorities became “the Most High God Jehovah and his exalted Son Jesus Christ.” (This Means Everlasting Life (1950) p.197)
Which is absolutely stupid as the scripture says :- 
 Let every person* be in subjection to the superior authorities,a for there is no authority except by God;b the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.c 2  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.
Note :  'stand placed in their relative positions by God'. So if you believed the Society /GB they were saying that the Most High God Jehovah, was 'placed in his relative positions by God'. It makes no sense at all. 
Now back to other stupid ideas.
1. that communal work was as bad as killing people. 
2. that it really mattered who gave the  orders. 
Which takes us back to Superior Authorities being placed in their position by GOD. And if the Armed Forces are part of the Superior Authority because they enforce that authority, then so be it. 
The fact that it was perceived being "the same as"   shows a complete lack of spiritual guidance. 
 

I think so. I think they are much better, and I think that discussions of doctrinal issues go beyond the GB circle now. That was true up until about 1978, when there were very open discussions of doctrinal issues, and any Bethel Elder might talk to a table of Bethelites with a new idea.  Then they cracked down on that from 1979 until F.Franz died, and then tightened those kinds of discussions into the GB "inner rooms" only, according to a brother from Writing (who had too many of his own ideas anyway). But in the last 10 years or so, even some of the helpers have researchers.
When I was at Bethel, I was in the Art Department but was also doing research. Brother Schroeder (GB) gave me my first of many research projects in early 1977 and it was to do a survey/report on all the Greek words and expressions that can translate the expression "house to house" and report on Bible dictionaries, Bible translations, and uses from the LXX, Josephus, Philo, etc. His own Greek was pretty good, much better than mine in fact, but at least I knew how to use a dictionary and could do some leg work for him. I don't know who else used researchers back then, because all the brothers in the Writing Department did their own research, as far as I could tell. (There were no sisters in Writing then as there are now.)
F. Franz died more than a quarter-century ago. I think it's much different now. I don't really know any of them personally but we can see a pattern in the types of talks and topics each of them gets assigned. I don't get the impression that any of them are trying to outdo one another these days. Politics was rampant when I was working at Bethel from 1976 to 1982.
I doubt that anyone can know, but there are a lot more talks at Gilead Graduations and Annual Meetings that give you a good idea what has been talked about in terms of updates to doctrines. Also, you can learn to listen in a certain way to how some doctrines are brought up to know if it's under discussion. The "Peace and Security" issue came up recently, for example. I was at a WT study about a month ago where a member of the GB was in the audience and I thought it odd that he brought up the scripture and then without any reason I could think of decided to defend the idea that the Peace and Security issue might be a bigger thing than just a general condition. Bringing it up in a defensive way would make one think that maybe it had needed defending recently. I made a note of it on my iPhone at the time, but didn't think much of it until I just noticed that it was under discussion at the annual meeting, which means that if a new doctrine were to come out of this, it was also very likely discussed in a GB meeting. 
Would be wonderful if it were recorded and made public. But that would probably change the whole tenor of the meeting if they knew outsiders might know what goes on. I have heard that things go very smoothly among the GB at their meetings, but that a lot of "we can hear you through the wall" arguing goes on among the GB Helpers. Again that was just one man's report, and he is not one of the Helpers, just a brother in Writing, who might even be jealous. (Just kidding!)

Is this some sort of defence of the Society /GB ? If it is it's a poor try. 
Yes to suffer for the reason of serving GOD is a good thing, BUT to suffer for the reason of serving MEN (the society /GB ) will never be a good thing.
'Put not your trust in earthling man, in whom no salvation belongs'.  Those men in charge misused their 'power' that is so obvious. 

@JW Insider Quote "If he answered, “Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the judge, and thus had broken his integrity. "
Broken his integrity to whom though ? The Society / GB obviously. Not his integrity to God. 
So the Society / GB were demanding that these men serve the Society /GB..
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
Quote " In England, there were 1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. "
As a side note. 
The 'big house' that i am 'caretaker' of, was known as Spicelands in the 1940's. It was run by Quakers and took in conscientious objectors. They were taught farming work and worked on the land around the house. 

Things may be done differently, but are they done any better ? 
If it seems that one member ruled over the others back then, is it any different now ?
Can anyone here know exactly what goes on in a GB meeting ? Is it recorded and made public ? 
I'm thinking about starting a new topic about " The times they are a changin' "  A line from a Bob Dylan song i think. 

@JW Insider Quote "If he answered, “Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the judge, and thus had broken his integrity. "
Broken his integrity to whom though ? The Society / GB obviously. Not his integrity to God. 
So the Society / GB were demanding that these men serve the Society /GB..
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
Quote " In England, there were 1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. "
As a side note. 
The 'big house' that i am 'caretaker' of, was known as Spicelands in the 1940's. It was run by Quakers and took in conscientious objectors. They were taught farming work and worked on the land around the house. 

Is this some sort of defence of the Society /GB ? If it is it's a poor try. 
Yes to suffer for the reason of serving GOD is a good thing, BUT to suffer for the reason of serving MEN (the society /GB ) will never be a good thing.
'Put not your trust in earthling man, in whom no salvation belongs'.  Those men in charge misused their 'power' that is so obvious. 

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire."
Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother.
Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote.
You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere.
That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version:
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the
fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove
itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance.
One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost
during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate
with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy
and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents
an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason
that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural
position, imposed by organizational authority.
Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely
doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience
of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that
intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even
reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and
contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position
enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation
as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon
for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing
so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may
now be operative in this area.”
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it
deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the
good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that
were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the
Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only
all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but
even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence.
They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect,
shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who
held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place.
In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom."
But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization
even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being
passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience
would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do
hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative
but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered,
“Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was
considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the
judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed,
approved response already quoted, and then the judge in
sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service,
he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the
apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1
Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and
the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh.
This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.
 

I quote you "Much of the evil that is done in this world is the work not of individuals but of organizations."
Yes I agree with you. And the JW Org is one of them 
Hiding Pedophiles within it. Allowing CHILD ABUSE in the JW congregations in lots of different countries. 
Such countries as : America, Canada, Australia, UK, The Netherlands, Spain. 
The GB / JW Organisation has allowed Child Abuse to carry on in all those countries, and probably many more. 
This is truth and has been proven by many investigations and many court cases now coming to light. 
If you deny this then you are only telling lies to yourself.