11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such. 

Phew!!!

16 hours ago, Anna said:

 

(Don't know why this Anna field is here???

Shameful!

"Costly in the eyes of Jehovah is the death of his loyal ones" Ps 116:15

"Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat" Luke 22:31

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I also have no doubt that this particular claim of the Governing Body is improper.

Presumably you are referring to the view that the Governing Body are the "faithful and discreet slave" referenced at Matt.24:45?

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

To me, it's exactly as simple as having a group of very respected and authoritative elders in the congregation claiming that we should celebrate Christmas, for example

No need to hypothesize on this. You are describing the apostasy that took place within the Christian congregation (Acts 20:29-31) And as for the savage treatment meted out to those brave individuals who disagreed with such "superfine apostles"....well it makes Jehovah's treatment of Korah & Co. appear positively humane. So, are you really suggesting that todays governing body are some how synonymous with the aforementioned apostasy from true Christianity because they identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt.24:45?

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's why I refer directly to the words of Jesus and Paul that address this exact kind of situation.

I cannot see any words or actions of Jesus and Paul to contradict the idea of an arrangement to govern the activities of the ChrIstian congregation. Of course, in no uncertain terms, they severely castigated the Pharisees and scribes and any who would follow their pattern: Jesus: " Serpents, offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33); Paul: "I wish the men who are trying to unsettle you would emasculate themselves" Gal.5:12.

But as for the idea of a sole channel of communication?

Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6. And as for the delegation of sole authority in matters relating to the kingdom, he himself set up an earthly channel when he said to Peter "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of the heavens," Matt. 16:19. By saying that whatever Peter 'would loosen would already be that loosened in the heavens', he showed that in no way would his own position be usurped by those who represented his authority on earth, but in this case it was sole authority in the most literal sense that was delegated to Peter, despite it's being relative to heavenly direction. The later descriptions of Jesus holding the stars of various congegations in his right hand support the view that responsibility for earthly matters is still in the hand of the Christ, despite the delegation.

Paul's recognition of a lead body consisting of the apostles and some older men in Jerusalem is indisputably seen in the account of Acts 15. His words in Gal.Ch. 2 in no way contradict this, but merely lend weight to the argument that Paul himself likely became a member of that lead body. His public rebuke of Peter's shameful fear of man (Gal.2:11-15) add to this understanding. Additionally, his words to the Thessalonians at 2 Thess. 2:1-2 support the idea of a right and wrong channel of communication. (regardless of the subject matter, a topic for separate discussion).

So for me, the concept of the "faithful and discreet slave" being an arrangement for spiritual nourishment as a part of the sign of these last days now in progress is quite acceptable. There was absolutely no need for such a question in the 1stC preceding the apostasy, in the same way that the term "Christian" was unambiguous, so no need to ask "who really is" at that stage.

However, the presence of apostate Christendom in all it's manifestations renders that question highly relevant in these "last days". The activity of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout this period since 1914 leave no doubt in my mind that they are indeed Jehovah's faithful and discreet slave at this time. The dispensing of spiritual information provided under their direction as accountable to Christ,  is without parallel in the world today in any aspect one cares to consider. None of us would be serving the true God Jehovah in the manner that we do (Col.3:23), with the knowledge that we have (Jo.8:32), with full confidence in the things hoped for (Heb.3:14), and knowing how to maintain the full assurance that we are doing the will of God (Heb.6:11) if it was not for their diligent and courageous work.

So. Where does that leave us? Still trying on caps? I sincerely hope not!

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I was thinking that someone would ask this very question, which is why I responded to it in the two previous posts with the answer that Jesus gave about leadership, and the answer Paul gave to the Galatians about the respect given to the Jerusalem council.

With respect (still), these references to the words of Jesus and Paul are there to substantiate your viewpoint NOT to show why this viewpoint differs substantively from that expressed at Numbers 16:3.

I include your later post in this comment. Obviously no one can even attempt to sit in the seat of (greater) Moses as he has not vacated it!

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Can you provide scriptures that show this is God's arrangement - that the appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" is a principal aspect?

I have no time to reinvent the wheel at the moment so I will refer you to the appropriate Watchtower Article on this matter:

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013533

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I believe that the Bible clearly proves that this slave is made up of the entire body of Christians.

Numbers 16:1-3

"Then Korʹah the son of Izʹhar, the son of Koʹhath, the son of Leʹvi, got up together with Daʹthan and A·biʹram the sons of E·liʹab, and On the son of Peʹleth, of the sons of Reuʹben. 2 They rose up against Moses along with 250 Israelite men, chieftains of the assembly, chosen ones of the congregation, prominent men. 3 So they gathered together against Moses and Aaron and said to them: “We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?”"

How does your statement differ from what was expressed here about Moses? (With respect).

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

The point is that "the whole world is lying in the power of the Wicked one" (1 John 5:19)  so no matter what we, or anybody else does, we will not succeed completely until  Satan is removed....

But we won't stop trying ....will we??

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So you are saying that he is happy with the way the wt handles child abuse?

He is/was happy with those people who died from not having organ transplants? 

??? I think I said that Jehovah is happy with the overall progress of His purpose and that will always govern in what He chooses to intervene. In other words, as He always has the successful outcome of His purpose in view, He is always happy with what He allows. Of course the negative aspects and consequences of human behaviour do not make Him happy (compare Ps.119:136). Surely you know that???

He will indeed intervene in the affairs of all mankind soon. The outcome of that intervention will make him happier still, although there are some who feel otherwise.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

which is why

The "why" is the answer

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Are you saying that Moses pictures the Governing Body

Not really going for the "picture" approach.  It's just too rigid a framework for me.

What I am saying is that, regardless of human opinion (and there is no shortage of that), Jehovah (through Jesus of course as the Head of the Congregation) has seen fit to provide a shepherding arrangement for those who wish to serve Him in these last days. This appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" is a principal aspect of this shepherding arrangement. And He will ensure that, despite human imperfection and/or human error on the part of that "slave", no lasting detriment will come to those who work within HIS arrangement. He allows humans to "work out their own salvation" on the basis of his word AND the application provided by the slave for the most part, only intervening or "directing" by means of His spirit when absolutely necessary.

However, it will not go well for those who choose to disrespect Jehovah's arrangement or way of doing things and that includes their attitude to those whom Jehovah assigns shepherding responsibility. He counts that as personal disrespect regardless of the undermining effect such disrespect might have on the trust of others. 

There are lessons we can draw from the series of incidents recorded in the account in Numbers 16. This is because of similarities we can see when comparing the situation then with now. The appropriate lessons relate to the position we take. which is why I say "if the cap fits".....

This is the question here.

As has been explained on many occasions, the GB/Slave is spirit-directed and not inspired. This means that guidance from Jehovah is provided whenever required. He keeps the the earthly part of His organisation on track....................when nececessary. In other words, if Jehovah has not intervened, then He is happy with the current progress.

In the past, Paul wrote more letters than those collected in the Bible canon as "inspired". References are made elsewhere in the inspired scriptures to "other" writings which are not inspired such as those utilised by Ezra and by Moses (in the compilation of Genesis). Even the quotations from the Septuagint translation (not inspired) become part of the inspired word despite them differing in wording from Hebrew copies. So if this is the case with inspired writings, (that Jehovah choses what He wants to be considered as having been produced under inspiration), then I have no problem with the concept of an information channel being guided or directed (though not inspired) by Him on occasion. Or that information provided by that channel on occasion could be in error.

I have illustrated this before as the difference between me following directions to drive a car and me being driven by someone else. I might chose a different road from an assigned driver, especially if unfamiliar with the route, but there is no need for intervention if I am heading in the right direction, unless I am going completely off course, e.g. I might take a wrong turning, but as long as I correct myself there is no need for intervention. Let's say my journey is being GPS tracked so my course can be seen at all times. There is no need for intervention unless those tracking feel it is absolutely necessary.

Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days. We all know the account about Korah, Dathan, Abiram and On and the 250 at Numbers 16. So, unfortunately, it is rather a case of "if the cap fits...........".

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Realistically, in this system, one will still be left with the "cure" and how to handle cases of child abuse focusing on helping the victim and protecting others from further abuse....

Sad reality....Eph 6:11-12

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Just a question. Who is going to wish to see it, if on the whole the friends are not really aware of such policies in the first place? Or are they in the UK?

All elders will have seen it.

Many ministerial servants will be aware of it and its availability.

Anyone with an interest in safeguarding children will be aware of the need for such a document as there is a considerable amount of information available on government and voluntary organisation websites relating to the need for such a policy.

Many pioneers have been confronted with the safeguarding of children issue in the ministry in view of extensive media coverage on this problem. Discussion around handling public views on the matter inevitably leads to organisation-specific issues and the existence of such a policy and its availability is a matter for free discussion if appropriate, although the content (other than specific instructions to elders in handling allegations and incidents of abuse), is freely available already in a number of publications.

The policy states that Jehovah's Witnesses  "believe that parents have the primary responsibility for the protection, safety, and instruction of their children. We do not separate children from their parents for the purpose of instruction. (Ephesians 6:4) Therefore, parents who are members of the congregation must be vigilant in exercising these responsibilities at all times and are expected to:

• have direct and active involvement in their children’s lives;
• appropriately educate themselves and their children about child abuse; and
• encourage, promote, and maintain regular communication with their children.

—Deuteronomy 6:6, 7; Proverbs 22:3."

Obviously, assistance and support in understanding and carrying out these responsibilities is provided through publications, congregational meetings and the assistance of qualified elders who will all be aware of the policy. They are at liberty to share it with anyone in the congregation wishing to view it's content.

Fascinating stuff. Do you have time for a real job?

This is a sad argument about the repercussions of the indefensible and despicable behaviour of people who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.

The monetary and reputational sanctions against all who are associated with the organisation is an additionally sad outcome for the extraordinary naivety displayed by all participants in this disgraceful scenario.

Hopefully, instructions like this:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Interestingly, the latest revision of Watchtower's UK Child Safeguarding Policy stipulates that there is a 'duty to warn' in some circumstances.

"In some cases, the Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse." - January 2017, Child Safeguarding Policy, p. 5, par. 17.

and this:

"In all cases, the victim and her parents have the absolute right to report an allegation to the authorities.—Galatians 6:5."

and this: 

"If any congregation elder learns of a case of child abuse in which a child may still be at risk of significant harm two elders must contact the Legal Department at the branch office for legal advice on compliance. A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."

will be the start of a worldwide trend rather than an exception. (It is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.).

The outcome of action as instructed will have serious impact, especially where allegations are involved, but (in my opinion) this will be just recompense for any engaging in questionable conduct of this nature, and similarly for those who even skate close to the boundaries of propriety in this regard.

Romans 13:3-4 can be be applied appropriately here.

This is a welcome move in the right direction despite the fact that methods to be applied for the appropriate determination of risk appear vague, and there is little on supporting victims. However, the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses appears to be less encumbered in this area than than the current UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/636/636.pdf

The outcome of the Australian Royal Commission deliberations scheduled to start in March 2017 will be of great interest.

This debate continues.....sadly. 

On 1/18/2017 at 10:23 AM, Kurt said:

The main teaching of Pastor Russell was that Jesus died a “ransom for all.” (1 Timothy 2:5, 6) Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus died only for some. Pastor Russell taught a future probation because millions have died without hearing the Gospel. Even among many who hear it, uncertainty and confusion exist. (John 5:28-29; Acts 15:14-17; Revelation 22:17) Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses, like all fundamentalists, believe that if you reject their brand of the Gospel, you are lost eternally.

This may not be what "Kurt said" as you appear to be quoting information from kingdomherald.com.

Anyway, this statement of absolute garbage not only distorts the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, but more importantly those of Scripture as well. (John 3:16; Heb.10:26)

Whilst containing interesting information on the remarkable work of Charles T. Russell, this rubbish undermines it's usefulness.

Absolutely wonderful!

Incredible! The truth just can't be hid! 

He reminds me of the woman Paul helped at Acts 16:16-18

Certainly true, but don't forget that Jehovah can make an opportunity for any person seeking sincerely to learn the truth. And that is regardless of any wrong ideas or practices they may have or engage in through their ignorance.

Acts 17:22-31

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

"We estimate at about 100 billion the number of galaxies in the observable Universe

 

Probably scratching the surface..........

8 hours ago, Anna said:

The wild beast that kills the Witnesses in Revelation is not a punishment from Jehovah.

Good reasoning!

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

you must believe that the Catholic church, Islam, Hinduism and the Mormans are all also spirit directed?

They are indeed: 

"according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" Eph.2:2

Is there a letter containing this warning? Or any original documentation?

Reverting to the original question and ignoring the complex analysis of detail since, could we reword this as:

Did the demon influencing the teachings of the "Nation of Islam" plagiarise Watch Tower Teachings (erroneous or otherwise) from Rutherford's Time, to create confusion in the minds of the "ignorant and unstable"?

or is that going a "bridge too far"?

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Would you think that those who sexually prey on children, but still want to be a part of the organization, fall into the first category you mentioned

Which category is that?

There are all sorts of evil-doers who want to be a part of the organisation but who are excluded by their practices.

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

determine the validity of their dedication

I have known some get baptised without completing a Bible Study program and an assessment of progress made. Someone like that (at a later date) may feel they actually had not dedicated themselves to Jehovah at the time, do so on the basis of improved understanding, then resubmit for baptism. They determined the validity of their earlier dedication themselves. I would say that the incidence rate of this happening now would be comparatively rare.

I have known others who submitted for baptism having followed all procedures and have become a part of the congregation but were subsequently found to have ulterior motives and merely served as infiltrators, intent on some selfish objective. There may have been a relationship, sexual or otherwise, involved. I have heard of other instances in times of persecution or ban where informers have infiltrated. Truly determined evil-doers of this type may be difficult to detect, but I have confidence in Paul's words at 1Tim.5:24. In time, some of these ones remove themselves, or get removed, sadly, not without damage on occasion. It would be highly unlikely that any of the perpetrators in such scenarios made a dedication at all.

Another scenario was discussed recently in the Watchtower 15/2/2010 p23:

"At the time of baptism, for instance, an individual may secretly have been living in a situation or engaging in a practice that could have resulted in his being disfellowshipped if he had already been validly baptized. Could he make a dedication to God in such circumstances? Such an individual would have been in a position to make a valid dedication to Jehovah only if the unscriptural conduct had been discontinued." 

As for those who have engaged in serious wrongdoing prior to dedication, but who have repented and turned around, then 1Cor. 5:9-11 applies. And for those who lapse (or relapse) into such sin AFTER dedication, such a matter of itself would not render their dedication invalid. On the contrary, on the basis of their dedication, Jehovah will require an accounting. Rom.14:12.

So, the answer to your question "Are all who were/are baptized still bound to this vow?" is actually:

NO! Only those who have made an acceptible dedication to Jehovah are.