Pudgy

... JUST A NOTE ALLEN SMITH:
... for what it is worth, and certainly worth the price of electricity of a few photons on a screen ... um ... when someone defends a view that is completely contradicted by actual real world facts, and they are intelligent people, normally prone to use their intellect, as you are ... they have a choice .... change their viewpoint to reflect what is real .... which will almost always involve a great deal of anguish ... and consequences from those who hold the same irrational viewpoints ... or begin that slippery slope that leads to a fractured, and fragile mind.
As the group The Eagles sang in their incredibly perceptive song from the late 1960s or so, (paraphrased) ...
" ... Take it easy, take it easy ... don't let the sound of your own wheels, MAKE YOU CRAZY ..."
I have to daily remind myself of these things ... as the Universe will decide what is true .. and it is without mercy.
" There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." " — Daniel Webster
.
 
 

Splendid quote

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. 

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.

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.

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.

It's not unclear at all to me. It means we should abstain from blood the same as Noah was to abstain from blood. If Noah wanted to use a living animal's flesh as food to eat he had to kill the animal and he was to abstain from eating the blood of the animal he killed to eat.
Arguably, the same phrase also means we should abstain from unjustifiable homicide, just like Noah was to do.

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

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.

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?

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
 
 

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”.
 

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

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 ….
 

Reality checks are best done by comparing theory with reality.
Were the Jehovah’s Witnesses marched out of Nazi concentration camps to cargo ships to be sunk and drowned rescued by God, or the American and Allied forces?
The “litmus test” is actually DOING the testing.

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?
 

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.
Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.
One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.
Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

I wouldn't look back at the 1st century so much in the context of one's beliefs (mine or yours) about events in the distant past.
Our reality today is to decide/discern whether we should accept or reject or more thoroughly consider, unencumbered with the influence of WTJWorg, GB's statements about their claims to be the only ones who correctly interpret the Bible the way they do, from their inception to the present day.
With the abundance of archival material available to us, authored/written by the people at WTJWorg, it is possible to see a chronology of doctrine. The text from the publications gives us a certain insight into the personality and condition of those behind the text. Also, by relating it to events inside and outside WTJWorg, we can see more clearly why some things (doctrines, instructions, interpretations) were written in one way (as irrefutable and the pinnacle of true knowledge) and later changed, more or less modified, adapted or completely rejected. And with some doctrines, it happened that they were thrown out for a while and then reintroduced as correct after a certain period of time (the so-called flip-flop).
It is unnecessary to question whether an individual believe or does not believe in God and his ability. That doesn't solve anything. The question must be asked whether we should believe in People who claim that God is speaking contradictory things through them, and that both are true.

—————————————————
You make my points even better than I can ….

Well … I have found in life that the more words a person uses to explain contested ideas, the less likely the premises of the arguments are valid.
Juan, you are very articulate and easily understood, and logical and coherent.
But I cannot bring myself to give fealty to anyone but God and Christ.
If I was a United States Marine, of reasonable intelligence, I would of course know that most Officers were petty, deeply flawed, arrogant, presumptuous and likely to view me and my fellow Marines as career building cannon fodder.
But even in the Marines you are not required to obey an illegal order.
So, who decides what is an illegal order?
You do.
You may be shot or hanged, (or disfellowshipped) but it is better than living an unexamined life in a pseudo- fantasy.

After all those words, and you cannot say …
I like my system better.

…
 

I don’t understand what you mean Pudgy😔 … sigh….