Errikos Tsiamis

…

One more thing is interesting. Some of that can be clearly seen in the comment from @Errikos Tsiamis.
Namely, since JWs agree that, of all the written things they have on paper or digitally, only the Bible is "inspired", I would link it to the sworn statement of the respected GB guardian of the doctrine
Geoffrey Jackson.
Quote: "Governing body realizes that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's Word, all of JWs worldwide who have Bible would notice that, and they would see that this wrong direction. If direction is given based on the Bible we would expect that they would follow that because of the respect of the Bible and the definitive interpretation of the Bible." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu6X1YU6YYI
From this it should be evident that every JW has the right to be "led, guide" (inspired) with the HS and make a conclusion about the doctrines that come from the GB. And they should be free to accept or reject them. But this is in theory. In practice, the WTJWorg Corporation declares those who do not want to believe every GB doctrine as "apostates".
So, the statement of this GB member is a performance for the outside world. The proof that this testimony was only for "unbelievers" is confirmed by the fact that this public testimony of a "Christian" was not shown on JWTV. Jesus said that His followers would be called before the rulers of this world to testify for Him. For whom did GJ testify? For Jesus or for WTJWorg? Why don't GB take positive pride in the "public testimony" of their member, and show to the entire international brotherhood how they should stand before the Court of this "satanic world".
 

Ultimately it is up to Holy Spirit as to wether a child or anyone is ready for baptism.
You’re wrong on this one ….your teaching an invisible dogma of our organization and no young person ….especially a child can ever understand the weight and the cost of loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah.
I speak from a lot of experience in the truth..and talking with some very sad cases.
What some of the elders and parents do to these young ones is nothing short of spiritual abuse. Their young shoulders cannot carry such a heavy yoke that even we adults struggle with….
 
From their own lips they admit they had no idea what they were really doing nor the cost of taking such a stand but the pressure of pleasing their parents and the congregation was a major part .
You are very wrong on this brother…and I’m am very heavy hearted that we have not learned from our past.
 

There is a popular saying; "A tree bends while it is young". Most children and young people like to be guided and taught by adults. So mostly time and persistence of adults is enough to guide children according to the "wisdom" of those adults. In good faith or because of tradition, the influence on young minds within the framework of ideology can perhaps be called by some other words.

FullSizeRender.MOV    
I fully agree but there is another aspect.
Humans iterate towards solutions.
Even Elon Musk tests rockets by taking off the shelf components, kludging them together, and see if it blows up!
Continuous error is part of every human progress.
Vocabulary: Recognize Reality … and it gets simpler and more accurate.
Ignore Reality and you have to change the meanings of what words REALLY mean.
This of course does NOTHING to change reality.
That’s why I recognize the essential 15% of “Core Truths” as the real “The Truth”, and the 85% imagination and wishful thinking as generally unavoidable drivel.
……. sigh ….,
…. It’s like at a State Fair when Fozzie Bear buys an ice cream cone for himself and Kermit the Frog. A cone of honey ice cream for himself, and a cone of dragonfly ice cream for Kermit, and the vendor (played by comedian Bob Hope) advises  “….. don’t get ‘em mixed up!”.

In the jargon of Jehovah's Witnesses, phrases like: "Being in the organization" or "Being in the truth" mean only one thing, that the person in question is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, that he is a baptized member of this "religious organization", that is, the JW Church.
The problem with this sort of JW thinking is in their concept of meaning of word "Truth" in JW community. For them, the meaning of the word "truth" is equated with religious knowledge, which is a body of doctrines and interpretations derived from the study and research of the Bible by leading individuals within their Main Ecclesiastical* Body ( body called the Governing Body). Because GB dictates how the Bible can and should be understood, and they alone have the right to interpret the biblical text.
(Although JWs never say their organization is the Church. They do not use the term "Church" for their congregations or whole Organization. The term "Society" is also not in common use. And at least the members of JW congregations do not see themselves as a "non-profit corporations", which they actually are because they are legally registered as such and that's also not used in JW jargon.)
* ecclesia noun
ec·cle·sia 
1: a political assembly of citizens of ancient Greek states
especially : the periodic meeting of the Athenian citizens for conducting public business and for considering affairs proposed by the council
2: CHURCH sense 4d
3: one of the local organizations of the Christadelphians
 
Thus the GB's "digested" text of the Holy Scriptures gains significant status and is called "Truth" in JW jargon. This "truth" is also called "food at the proper time." Also, "spiritual food from YHVH's table."
How come that collection of doctrines and interpretations as taught by WTJWorg cannot be called "Truth"? Primarily because the variability (changes, clarifications) of doctrines and interpretations does not fit into the very content of the unique meaning of the word "Truth". "Truth" is a value that can and should last through all times and in all circumstances. Faced with various challenges and ideas, the "truth" should withstand every test and show that it is valid for everything and everywhere. If it is not universal, then either it is not "true", or we need to use other terminology to denote the current value or rule or interpretation that governs our reality or our foreseen, imagined relationships with people and God, and also our understanding of the world. .
 
the truth noun
1.the real facts about a situation, event, or person 
2.the body of real things, events, and facts 
3.a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
 
Now we come to the frequently used words in WTJWorg.
The phrase "food in proper time" is used from one of Jesus' many illustrations. The illustration is talking about literal human food. Can it also be applied to "spiritual" food? You can, if you want to. But then it changes the purpose of the illustration and creates a new dynamic for the characters in another reality. Keep in mind that the servant who distributes the food is not the source of the food. Neither literally nor figuratively.
The term "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink" occurs only in 1 Corinthians 10:3,4. It is related to the events in the Desert during the journey to the Promised Land and Moses as the leader. What fed them in the desert? Manna. This is the "spiritual food" that fell from the sky. And the water that flowed from the rock in the desert. This "spiritual" (thing, matter, cause) fed and watered the physical, human stomachs of children, women, men, and livestock.
The role GB ascribes to itself is to share "spiritual food". But what and where is "spiritual food". The only one that all Christians in this world know and acknowledge is found in/as the book, Bible. And nowhere else. This, they believe, is the only "inspired Word" from God for humans.
Ask yourself, can the "uninspired word" be a worthy substitute for the "inspired Word"? Can the "uninspired word" accurately interpret the "inspired Word"?
Can people who claim not to be "inspired by the Spirit" correctly interpret the "inspired Word"? Well, it's clear that they can't.
Jesus claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. If He is the Truth, then there is no truth in our claim that we are "In the Truth" or that some organization, religion, faith is the "Truth". That's a nonsensical claim. Because it is contrary to Jesus' claim that He is the Truth.
People, including JWs, can only parade with the claim that they are "in the Truth" that they "know the Truth". The most they should dare to say is that they have a personal opinion and that they believe, that they hope that Jesus will accept them as his followers.
So what kind of "Truth" is it when it comes to WTJWorg? It is about human doctrines, interpretations and speculations. It is about human cognition and the processes that, among JWs, are called progressive processes of understanding.
This kind of JW logic reminds me of the JW counterargument for the theory of evolution. JWs would object to very long processes of organism development with a simple question. If the eyes of an organism developed over hundreds of thousands of years, this would mean that that form of life (human or animal, whatever) was deprived and could not see around itself, could not see food or danger, and this lack could be the reason for not survive.
If we apply the same way of summarizing, then it would mean that the GB cannot "see" the truth because it does not have developed "spiritual eyes" since in these 143 years the "approach to the Bible text" has constantly changed, important and less important doctrines and interpretations have changed. So, the idea of "a light that shines brighter and brighter", and so that nothing can be discerned well in the meantime, and the idea that real progress is achieved through deep and continuous study, while mistakes are made in the meantime, is just an attempt to justify one's own ignorance and tool for manipulate with the faith of believers.

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
So it's not change for the sake of changing. 
I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). 
Here's the issue I think we all have to face: 
If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources.  Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. 
I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 
The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right,  is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption.
On the other end of that same conversation: 
Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.)
But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it."
The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

.… I think disparaging an education where you can make a good living is counterproductive, as there comes a time when you get old (hopefully), and have to use all available funds for your own and your spouse’s survival.
Free money gets tight, and stops.
With 8 million active recruiters, the Governing Body manages to chase 77% of new recruits away with such ideas.
 

Recently, there was an instructional video for JW elders, leaked by a Bethel insider, that showed a meeting of JW elders of a congregation where the CO questioned the status of an elder.
Namely, the child of that elder is a student of higher education. And that is not appropriate to be in a family where the father is also the elder of the congregation. Everything was directed against this JW elder and showed once again how WTJWorg is against higher education for JW members.
Since that video no longer exists because the GB spies were able to hunt down this JW individual and shut down all the videos that came from this Bethel volunteer, I came across this YT video which is interesting because of its same ideological obtuseness in a different setting, outside of the JW world, but it shows the same stupidity.
 
 

There are quite a few Gospel accounts, and in general, the more removed they are from the dates of actual events, the more ‘far out’ they are. The four in the the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). though there is squabbling over details, even to the point of who wrote them, are universally considered as closest to the actual events they depict.
There appear to be some apocryphal passages that have been inserted into the original four—the ending of Mark, for example, about handling snakes and drinking poison. Though included in the King James Version, almost all modern transactions have either removed them or footnoted them as found in only much-later manuscripts.
Another such passage, believe it or not, is the in which Jesus says, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ in the Gospel of John. It isn’t there in the oldest versions.
Not to be outdone with all these newly discovered gospels, I went down to the dessert and presently discovered my own, ‘The Gospel of Howard:’
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2006/05/the_gospel_of_j.html

Mothers who have children with at least nine multiple personalities let them name themselves, 

Who names their kid Shelton?

...  a little something about “overlapping generations” …..

Hint: It’ phonetic, not transliteral, and reads left to right, as you can see by which way the animals are facing.

oooh! a new clone!
… how quaint!

1.)   How do you define “progressiveness”? The general society seems to have an evolved definition that changes daily.
And does the truth of God REALLY coincide with the truth proclaimed by the Watchtower?
Let’s test that:
1.a)   Where in the Bible, does God or Christ teach “overlapping generations”?
1.b)   Where in the Bible do the Apostles indicate that is what they were taught?
A “Mission Statement” and what is reality often falls short in ALL corporations.
1.c)   Please provide hard evidence that your above statement is not just a liberal progressive fantasy.
2.)   These two things are obviously not even close to being the same thing.
It is an arrogant false comparison that is intended as a veiled threat, common to all religious leaders since a tribal Shamen claimed the majority of meat for himself “… because God said so!”  
It is blatantly false to anyone with basic common sense. Nice try, though. 
3.)    I fully agree with that.
 New evidence has come out showing the “Cross” Jesus died on may have PROBABLY been more likely to be a two piece construct. Unfortunately Christendom’s guesses are sometimes more accurate than the Society’s guesses. This applies to all areas of theocratic analysis. They do get SOME things right!
Russell’s article in the very first Watchtower “What is Truth?” is an excellent touchstone to support or collapse all of my, or your above points.
“What is Truth” is worthy of framing and hanging up in the bedroom.

GB constantly finds reasons to change its previous point of view, opinion. And so it happens that the previous "Light" has become the current "Darkness".
Every mind-unchained JW should be concerned about his role in believing and spreading today's "Truth", because tomorrow it will be declared "Darkness".
Some JWs will try to rationalize this theological/doctrinal middle ground with the idea that "it is not the truth that changes but our understanding of the truth". "Present Truth" is changing, the book Proclaimers says, because of "advances in the understanding of truth."
The book Proclaimers deals with the terms:

1-"light is progressive"
2-"progressive understanding"
3-"shining of light is progressive"
4-"study of God's Word is progressive"
5-"progressive Truth"
6-"recognizing the progressive character of the unfolding of Scriptural truths"
After this kind of terminology used to defend the changes in the doctrines of the WTJWorg, we may wonder what JWs actually believe. Do they believe in "The Bible"? Do they believe in "The Truth"? Do they believe in "The Progress"? Do they believe in "The Understanding"? Do they believe in all these separate elements, which can only be correctly connected and formed together giving the final product only within their Main Church Body aka GB?
Regardless of how JWs feel about this, it is significant that a large number of their "Truths" are being changed to such an extent and significance that they can no longer be called, or even should not be called "Truth", but become, rejected and forgotten over time, "The Interpretation" of some human minds.
 
 
 

… ever notice how much more responsible and polite people used to be when dueling was fashionable?
… jus’ thinking out loud …..

(…. glances at watch ..) Well, it’s about time for Eric, the doppelgänger sock puppet to make an appearance…

The above is merely solid documentation and proof that you are a compulsive and habitual liar… from your own words.

You are too dumb to realize that you just did EXACTLY as I predicted and also just proved with your own words that you are a compulsive, habitual liar.
 

Either you are LYING, wrapped up in your own delusions which you believe, or you can specify and enumerate my alleged fabrications and deceits.
Let’s see if you choke on this and once again prove with your own words you are a habitual, compulsive liar. 
HINTS:
Fabrications:
1.) 
2.)
3.)
Deceits:
1.)
2.)
3.)
 

Of the five sentences above, only the last one makes any sense at all. 
I actually agree with sentence No. 5.
The other four are delusional.
Sweeping generalities that have no basis in reality.
… think I am kidding?
Read them out loud to yourself.
 
 

The difference between my posts and your posts, Fausto, is that I have documented proof for my every statement, and you have only your delusional opinions.

Which have no facts whatsoever to back them up.

Your logical reasoning is so twisted when you die, they are going to have to screw you into the ground.