Anna

On 5/26/2020 at 12:16 AM, JW Insider said:

One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. You might have nailed it when you wondered just how he knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first.

I am wondering what he thinks he is going to achieve with his book. I think some of us have had similar ideas to him, but were we thinking of publishing a book about it? Who does he think his audience is going to be? As soon as any Witness gets an inkling of apostasy, no matter how highly thought of he is, or whether he was a circuit overseer or not,  they will likely not read it. The only people that will probably read it are apostates, those hovering on the edge, or scholars like you and me on here 😂. So a very limited audience. (Look at Tom, he writes good books, they are not controversial (only a little bit) but because of his limited audience he will never make a living with them). I mean does he think he will change anything? For that to happen, every Witness would have to write a letter, as somebody on here already suggested. That is the only way anyone at HQ will listen. Interestingly, a few weeks ago in service I was talking to new couple from our hall (it was before the pandemic). They are from up north, both having HQ connections. Anyway, the conversation turned to the recent restructuring and re-organizing and the selling of KH. Since they were close to all kinds of information I though I would ask them about all this merging and sell offs. I knew that "equalizing" was not the only  reason. They gave the usual reasons like some halls were not being used to full capacity, thereby money was being wasted etc. So I asked them how come halls were not at full capacity? The husband said that people move etc. however, the wife came out with something interesting, and I was surprised she even said it. She said that there are quite a lot who have left. I asked her to clarify and she said; left the truth. I told her that I was sure part of the reason was that people are finding out things they would have never learned before the days of the Internet. They both agreed and we left it there. I don't think any of us wanted to carry on the conversation....

Oh dear, things are so complicated....and yet there seems to be a pattern, and repetition of the same old, same old, wherever we are in the stream of time ....for centuries...... distant history and the more recent.

I will try to put my thoughts as concisely as possible. Bearing in mind they are nothing original I'm sure..

My hubby and I have started watching a period drama set in 9th century England. The whole series centers around a hero who is divided in his loyalties (to the crown and to the Danes). All the characters are based on some person in history, and I must say it is very well done (BBC) and depicts life as it probably was at that time pretty accurately.
Although people back then were much more savage, had no qualms about lopping someone's head off, they were also God fearing, albeit misguided.

The king, as many other kings before him and after him believes himself to be "God's king". Someone that God uses to carry out his will here on earth. Of course he is as imperfect as anyone, but on the whole he is very genuine, he really believes. There have been worse kings. But what struck me was how easy it is for someone....anyone.... to be deluded, especially when they take upon themselves the task of taking the lead as God's "chosen one", as someone through whom God works here on earth. But...and I've said this on here before, anyone like that depends wholly on the support of others. A king with no subjects, and no army is no king at all. He can wear his crown all day long and he is nothing. It only takes someone with a vision, intelligence, the ability of persuasive speech and a  band of usurpers to overthrow that person. Of course in practice its more complicated, but as we know,  all of history is made up of situations just like that. Empires have been built and have fallen not just due to battles, but mainly due to loyalties on which these battles are based.

Where I am going with this is that I can see a parallel with the FDS. I am not at all implying that the FDS are bad, or that they are not doing a good job as far as human imperfection allows, but what I am saying is that they are in a position of "God's king" (supposedly sanctioned by God himself) whereby they carry out God's will here on earth and administer God's subjects here on earth. So it seems absolutely nothing new at all. The only difference is the FDS are a group, a body of counsel, instead of one individual, and the "subjects" are also subjects of worldly governments, as "alien residents". As a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects".

In practical terms of course, it is necessary to have some kind of central body to organize the preaching work. But the pertinent question is, and also what is addressed by Furuli it seems (I haven't read the book yet) is: What did Jesus mean by the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was to feed his domestics? 

Or is the the same old again; the pattern of human governance, leadership, kingship, whatever you want to call it.... after all, people love to have a visible leader. People love to be advised, told what to do, guided.  The Israelites asked for a human king.

But is this what Jesus had in mind? Or is true Christianity supposed to be something else, something unique.

Again, there has to be organizational leadership in order for an organization to function, and there even has to be spiritual leadership, leading by example. But is it right for one man, or group of men, to have exclusive monopoly on the INTERPRETATION of scripture, but more importantly should this group have the right to insist that everyone accepts only their interpretation, and if not, they may be denied membership, or if they are already members it will be counted as "treason" and they will be ex-communicated (in our society we no longer chop peoples heads off) and ordered to live like outcasts, outlaws, banished and shunned by the whole community as they know it, including relatives. It sounds to me like something from my movie. Is this the model Jesus had in mind? I repeat, as a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects". Remove that support and they are "nothing". But didn't Jesus say we should support one another, and come to the aid of our brothers?

The term that figures most when any such things are discussed within Jehovah's Witnesses is UNITY. But what kind of unity did Jesus have in mind? Did he mean a people united in purpose, or did he mean a people united in thought against their will? Can unity allow for differing opinion and still be called unity. Or is it like a big body, a mass made up of individuals, but who are one. Like a giant Trinity, except not three separate entities but millions.

Is the GB like Moses? No, the greater Moses was Jesus. Jesus fulfilled everything. Jesus began a totally new era of people for God with the first Christian congregation, which lasted practically only a few 100 years. The GB or so called FDS cannot  be modeled on anything or anyone but the Christian congregation. But not even that, because the Bible was still being written. Now we have everything, now we just have to listen and obey Jesus and God as outlined therein (the Bible).

I think most thinking people will question what gives someone the right to claim they are God's spokesman, or the mouthpiece of God, or as Geoffrey Jackson put it; "guardians of THE doctrine".
Certainly you need to have some credentials under your belt, and some history behind you to even be halfway believable.
Modern day witnesses have had a 100 years or so of history. Yes, there have been ups and downs, doctrinal disappointments, wrong expectations, wrong interpretations and yes people have been stumbled, discouraged, chased away. But on the whole Jehovah's Witnesses have managed to remain as close to the 1st Century Christian congregation as humanly possible. I know, I can compare.

Have to go, got the second return visit on on ZOOM, whooho!

21 hours ago, Kosonen said:

On an other forum one wrote that WT organization has been bringing up this story in recent times and that person could not understand the point of that.

Well its been part of the weekly Bible reading for May. We started over again in January (Genesis) All you have to do is look at the midweek workbook....no mystery there. 

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Goodby

Where are you going?

On 5/20/2020 at 1:37 PM, JW Insider said:

That scared me again, immediately, and I almost said it as a response to her. But it would not have been understood as a serious concern in a context where I was still expressing the same opinion on that topic. It would have seemed disingenuous, or manipulating. Still, I worry about where a discussion with her husband might end up. What about her children? What about her reputation in the congregation?

Let me put your mind at ease, I, like you, know when to keep my mouth shut. There are doctrinal interpretations that I have considered incorrect, and some which are pointed out to me and I now consider incorrect, but who am I to start making waves about it? 607, 1914, peace and security, the generation....and so on, do not nullify, or undermine, the fundamental core of what it means to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and do not, actually should not,  undermine ones relationship with God. At least not for me. Heck, if I can read Ray's books and still be o.k, that says it all I think. 

If I discern something really WRONG then I will speak, but so far, this has not happened....

On 5/14/2020 at 3:53 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

But Malenfant stated how this relationship is of personal relationship and very private matter. Well, who we are to interfere if god want few "crazy" people to go to heaven??!! 

You obviously mean that he could chose them while they are crazy on earth, but they would get cured and not be crazy in heaven. This could be the case, but it is difficult to imagine why Jehovah would pick someone who is crazy.

Mental illness takes many shapes and forms there is, just to mention a few:

• Bipolar disorder. ...
• Persistent depressive disorder. ...
• Generalized anxiety disorder. ...
• Major depressive disorder. ...
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder. ...
• Post-traumatic stress disorder ...
• Schizophrenia. ...
• Aspergers

With those disorders people act in a way that is not normal and one cannot rely on them to make sound decisions or act in a reliable way. And yes, it is true that it is Jehovah that picks the people, and since it is a private matter we cannot know. BUT logic AND the Bible tells me that that a Christian who is taking the lead must posses certain qualifications, and one of those is being sound in mind.

Titus 2:2 : Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance. 

Titus 2:6-9 Likewise, keep on urging the younger men to be sound in mind, showing yourself to be an example of fine works in every way. Teach what is pure* with all seriousness, using wholesome* speech that cannot be criticized.

So in view of that, I am sure you would agree that many who have mental issues would have a problem with being sound in mind. We would expect elders, such as the GB to be sound in mind. We also expect the faithful slave to be of the anointed. So put those two together and we could understand why Malefant concluded that we can trust that the GB are of the anointed.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

and i might also add at this point. Even though we don't know about that personal relationship that comes about, we don't experience it ourselves, but we are convinced, for example, that the members of the GB have the heavenly calling." 

Mr Malenfant is person who can control his curiosity about things no one knows, not even he, but it seems how he knows all about that personal relationship and very private matter  that supposedly exist between GB members and JHVH.

:)))  and he try to manipulate audience with this "confidential information".

I think you may have misunderstood what Malefant was saying. I don't think he was saying that he knows of some confidential information or details about the personal relationship of the GB with Jehovah, and the anointing, as opposed to any other anointed. I think what he was saying is that we cannot be sure if someone has been called to heaven, we have to take their word for it, and that might be a little difficult if for example someone who has obvious mental problems claims to be anointed. However, it should be a lot easier if that person is of sound mind. And then he quoted the example of the GB, we can see they are of sound mind, therefore there is no reason to doubt their anointing. 

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's easy to exaggerate quotes about obedience and think they mean something they don't.

I like that.

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sister Talks-To-Herself-During-Meetings 

Yes, we had one of those in our hall. I think I mentioned it on this forum somewhere before. But then people get upset and acuse us of labeling anointed ones as having mental issues in order to be able to discard them as having no significance....the truth is though that it is difficult to see someone who walks around during the meeting flicking a lighter, telling people she is "working" and talking to herself, among other things, as someone who has been called to rule with Christ in heaven.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I looked it up, and it is supposed to be a Science Fiction movie, but it appears to actually be a vulgar, violent, gory horror movie. (.?)

Did Douglas survive the movie? I suspect many did nor, but I do not watch deliberate horror

I thought it was supposed to be science fiction of sorts, like Aliens, that type. I only decided to watch it because it had some good actors in it, like Malkowitch and Sandra Bullock. And no, Douglas did not survive. He dies because he wasn't wrong about the person who he suspected was dangerous. 

@James Thomas Rook Jr.

I don't quite know why, but you remind me of the character Douglas in the movie Bird Box, (played by John Malkowitch). He's an ornery son of a b... thinks he knows it all. In fact he does tell the group who are hiding from the monsters and doubt his rationale that: "I am NEVER wrong". The audience is thereby further convinced of Douglas' cynical but self aggradizing attitude and to stop him killing who he suspects has been "infected" the others tie him up. However, soon enough it becomes clear that Douglas was right after all....

But it's only a movie.

59 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Ah, understand...21 aminio acids combined in different DNA combinations to make different kinds of flesh/tissue.

Yes! And that is why I think the chart with the ham sandwich that JTR posted is not comparable with the chart showing fractions of blood. Because the ham sandwich is made up of ham, bread and the vegetables, so that is like the blood made up of red cells, white cells platelets and plasma. But each of those four components of blood are then fractioned into even smaller parts. So in the same way the ham, wheat/rye and tomato/lettuce should be broken down into smaller parts, like for example the ham into protein molecules, same for the other ingredients....and then it really would be unidentifiable as a ham sandwich, just like fractions of the 4 components of blood are no longer identifiable as blood.

I am not a scientist, but I know similar material is made up of the same building blocks, so it figures that all meat, in other words muscle fibre is made up of the same types of building blocks (protein molecules) to a lesser or greater degree. So my point was, both pork and beef, or any other meat, when broken down to its simplest form, will be the same....

56 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

...or at least until the end of June, 2020.

Is that just a random date pulled out of a hat for kicks and giggles or did I miss something?

22 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Ham is made from things that used to go "oink."

 

Well yes I know that! 😂 But the question is: is pork protein different from beef protein? I mean the actual protein molecules.

This thread was started 3 years ago. Just saying ☺️. We will forever be hanging on the edge of our seats 🙂

5 minutes ago, Witness said:

I am hearing from other sources that this account is true.  If it is definitely fact, apparently the rider on the "pale horse" (Rev 6:7,8) is not partial.  Even Bethel - meaning "God's House" -  appears to be on his delivery list.  Has God removed His "protective spirit" or "shield" provided through the organization?  Or, was it ever there to begin with?

 

 

https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/07/sodom.html

 

 

 

I have not heard any reports of anyone actually at Bethel being infected. I am not saying it's not possible of course. In any case, Jehovah's main concern is the spiritual safety, not necessarily physical safety of his people. If someone dies, he will live again.

7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

From your GB's viewpoint of scripture. 

Actually no. Go and re-read those scriptures again, carefully.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

 

Hmmm....this chart isn't really comparing apples to apples. The bottom chart should have fractions from ham, fractions of wheat/rye, fractions of Swiss/Cheddar/ Havarti and fractions of tomato/lettuce. Don't ask me what those fractions would be in practice since ham and all the other ingredients are not usually centrifuged, but I suppose those ingredients  could be broken down into their molecular components so that the ham for example became protein molecules, lipid molecules and carbohydrate molecules. Is a ham (pork) protein molecule the same as a beef protein molecule? I don't know, I haven't researched it. What actually makes ham, ham?

@Kosonen an honest question: are you pulling our leg?

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

... sorta like my comment on a forum limited in size and scope, which would understand the reference?

I'm not going to argue with you about it. No matter how cringe worthy the videos were, they were no doubt delivered with all seriousness and good intentions. I don't think in all honesty you can say the same about your remark. You made a joke out of it. And no, I did not lose my sense of humour, I just didn't think this one was very good that's all.

@Joe Derrick

Dear brother, I do not understand what the problem is, and why we are discussing whether this information is correct or not and if we should wait for something "official" to be posted on our website. As far as I knew, and to the best of my knowledge, the information I posted here was correct at the time because it came from several reliable sources. I would have not posted it otherwise. Usually these kind of things are not made up. What I wasn't sure about, and someone asked asked me about it, was which Bethel this information was from. Regardless, it doesn't really matter. Also, the information from 14th April is old as well, as I already mentioned, the numbers will change probably every day. I suppose at the end of the pandemic the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses might post the final numbers.

Google translator:

Caro fratello, non capisco quale sia il problema, e perché stiamo discutendo se queste informazioni sono corrette o meno e se dovremmo aspettare che qualcosa di "ufficiale" sia pubblicato sul nostro sito web. Per quanto ne sapevo, e per quanto ne so, le informazioni che ho pubblicato erano corrette all'epoca perché provenivano da diverse fonti affidabili. Non l'avrei pubblicato diversamente. Di solito questo genere di cose non è inventato. Ciò di cui non ero sicuro, e qualcuno mi ha chiesto a riguardo, era da quale Betel provenivano queste informazioni. Indipendentemente da ciò, non importa davvero. Inoltre, anche le informazioni del 14 aprile sono vecchie, come ho già detto, i numeri cambieranno probabilmente ogni giorno. Suppongo che alla fine della pandemia il sito ufficiale dei Testimoni di Geova possa pubblicare i numeri finali.

@Joe Derrick

Dear brother, I do not understand what the problem is, and why we are discussing whether this information is correct or not and if we should wait for something "official" to be posted on our website. As far as I knew, and to the best of my knowledge, the information I posted (on Jehovah's Witnesses club) was correct at the time because it came from several reliable sources. I would have not posted it otherwise. Usually these kind of things are not made up. What I wasn't sure about, and someone asked asked me about it, was which Bethel this information was from. Regardless, it doesn't really matter. Also, the information from 14th April is old as well, as I already mentioned, the numbers will change probably every day. I suppose at the end of the pandemic the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses might post the final numbers.

Google translator:

Caro fratello, non capisco quale sia il problema, e perché stiamo discutendo se queste informazioni sono corrette o meno e se dovremmo aspettare che qualcosa di "ufficiale" sia pubblicato sul nostro sito web. Per quanto ne sapevo, e per quanto ne so, le informazioni che ho pubblicato (nel club dei Testimoni di Geova) erano corrette all'epoca perché provenivano da diverse fonti affidabili. Non l'avrei pubblicato diversamente. Di solito questo genere di cose non è inventato. Ciò di cui non ero sicuro, e qualcuno mi ha chiesto a riguardo, era da quale Betel provenivano queste informazioni. Indipendentemente da ciò, non importa davvero. Inoltre, anche le informazioni del 14 aprile sono vecchie, come ho già detto, i numeri cambieranno probabilmente ogni giorno. Suppongo che alla fine della pandemia il sito ufficiale dei Testimoni di Geova possa pubblicare i numeri finali.

55 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

... probably not nearly as much as the Bethel videos that inspired the recollection.

The thing is it was directed at a very narrow audience; new Bethelites. I am sure if it wasn't deemed necessary and applicable then it wouldn't have been done. And yes, it was cringe worthy for anyone else. 

23 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yikes .... restricted to a dorm room for several weeks!

Perhaps for "the duration".

... and no .. I am not going to mention pillows.

In bad taste JTR