Anna

Oh really? You mean because they would protest outside HQ? Or they would write articles on the internet, like Pearl? Please, get real. Obviously, the GB are not afraid that some united body of anointed would pose a threat to them. The most they could do is form their own religion. If they were to act in an un-Christ like way, they would pose a threat to the peace and unity of the congregation, that is true. And if any anointed acted that way, then most Witnesses would very much doubt their anointing. I knew a few anointed in my life. A beautiful elderly couple in England, long passed now. They were our good friends. I do not remember them ever making extra effort to meet other anointed from other cities, (or even speaking about other anointed). In fact, the brother was our book study conductor for years, and he took good care of the group. That’s where his concentration was. To take care of the sheep assigned to him. He also had responsibilities as an elder, and he and his sweet wife, Gladys, had a number of Bible studies. They were far too busy caring for the spiritual needs of others to be concerned about meeting up with other anointed, who were probably just as busy doing the same. I do not understand your concern about the necessity of a physical unity. Isn’t a spiritual unity what Jesus had in mind? The anointed do not have to be physically together for them to be bonded. They are bonded in their mutual destiny. Besides, it would be rather impractical for them to get together, since most of them live far apart. I suppose you would like to see them get together at some kind of conventions only for the anointed? Keep the other sheep, the earthly class out? How segregatory and un-Biblical. There you go judging for others again. I read it. Oh wait, I get it, it was just tit for tat. Are you a very young person? (Or am I just lacking humour?)

Lets just call it differing viewpoints. You can't see it my way, and I don't see it yours. Nothing Orwellian about that. It's bed time here. More tomorrow.

I repeat again, you are reading into things that aren't there. Of course. Those of anointed who consider themselves the faithful and discreet slave, as I am sure you are referring to them, do not wield authority over their fellow anointed, nor are they masters over anyone's faith for that matter. We are all fully cognizant that all the anointed are to answer to Jesus. And we are all cognizant of the fact that no one is better than anyone else. So what is your problem?

You're welcome! It seems that John Butler 4jah2me is keeping up with the spiritual food faster than you! Oh really, Mr. know it all Why don't you just take what is written at face value? That's how they are meant. I find it curious how you need things explained by a prominent elder. Pity he didn't take things at face value either. Reading more into things is never a good idea. Working against the holy spirit in this case is not rocket science. If the Bible's admonition is not to cause divisions, and promote unity, then if one does things contrary to that, then one would be working against the holy spirit. Obviously. You guys get too hung up about what the GB says, and forget what the Bible says. Again, you are reading into things that aren't there. Everyone and anyone can get together and discuss spiritual things. This is talking about exclusivity. That is the point.

I get the point: "anointed Christians do not view themselves as being part of an elite club". They do not see themselves in exclusive terms, as if the other sheep didn't belong among them. Therefor they mingle, and encourage the other sheep, not segregate themselves into special anointed camps. Jesus said the two flocks would become one. That is the point. There is no division in the body, where do you get that idea?

No, he is just an example of how a large % of those who leave (still believing in God) turn out.The leftover % might still believe in God, but have no regard for him in their day to day life. I don't think you or anyone would expect me to write an extensive list of individuals, and what they did and believe since they left the JWS. There are plenty of real life examples on the internet and in real life. I was illustrating this because Srecko said that disfellowshipping does not automatically disqualify a person as individual to continue to be a Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses describing a person living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. I said it wasn't automatic, but reality shows that it is a general rule: most do not live according to JHVH's will, nor Jesus' teachings. What nonsense. We are all brothers and sisters and anyone can contact anyone else. Are you purposefully missing the point? Jan 2020 study edition WT p. 28 "Anointed Christians do not feel that they should spend time only with other anointed ones, as if they were members of an exclusive club. They do not search out other anointed ones, hoping to discuss their anointing with them or to form private groups for Bible study. (Gal. 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did those things. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Rom. 16:17, 18". I suppose those are just rhetorical questions you don't really expect me to answer.

True. It does not automatically disqualify him, but usually it does. I listened to a tape recording of an Irish bother in the 80's who was disfellowshipped for apostasy. I quote him: “ I will say to you brothers and sisters over there, don’t be afraid, serve Jehovah with all your heart, if some start to believe the Trinity, well, allow for that. Many godly men believed the trinity down through the ages of human history. I like what one of the Roman emperors said, if God is offended, he can handle it, actually he said if the gods are offended, let them handle it. But Jehovah is not offended at men’s ignorance or innocence, he understands our background, our sociological conditioning.......our educational standard, he can grasp all that, and allow for that......In fact my prayers are so much closer in speaking to Jesus, in fact I did ignore him over the years, but I have been speaking to him much more since, and I find that great.....” As you can see, most of what he says there, flies in the face of scripture.

It's not up to admin. It's the @The Librarian who is in charge of this club. And no, it's not me or JWI or TTH or JTR or anyone else in this club.

The Bible says that everything that God initially created was "good". Everything that Satan created was bad. The world then became a paradox of good and bad. The question arose whether the arbiter of what was good, was justified to decide what was bad. Obviously, since he was the supreme judge and arbiter of all things. On top of that, was he justified in destroying or removing what was bad. The answer has always been yes, because his love, together with justice dictates that this must be done. Creation; predators, eating other creatures is not bad, since the predator depends on the primary consumer for survival. My great grandmother kept rabbits for food. She loved them all and took good care of them, they all had names too. When it came time for Sunday dinner, she lovingly took one out of the pen and bopped it over the head. Benjamin had no idea what had hit him as he blacked out within a split second, was dead within a minute, and cooking in the pot within an hour. His buddies never even noticed he had gone missing. Was that an unloving thing my great grandma did? I suppose it depends on who you ask. But the one to decide whether this is unloving or not would be the creator. Humans have differing views, but the rightful arbiter is God.

To be fair to AlanF, I can understand how people can misinterpret (and feel duped, in AlanF's case) regarding how the holy spirit actually operates. There have been various insinuations in publications throughout the years, (mainly early years) and personal speculation to boot. There are still some friends who believe holy spirit went out and found them a mate.

You might be right to a certain extent, this may even have been created inadvertently. However now, I see a distinct move away from that. JWs are now going to have to assimilate that the GB (by their own admission) produces imperfect spiritual food.

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though. In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with. In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.

That's funny. I was very close at one time in calling the elders in his ex-congregation to alert them of a potential pedophile in the congregation because John Butler wouldn't do it. Then he kind of decided he would alert the police, which he said he did, so I let it go.

Obviously this is a rhetorical question Same thing, the GB are. Everything passes through the GB. That is not to say they ignore input from each other, and others in the various departments at Bethel. Third person writing style is more objective. Sometimes they, the GB get more personal and say "we, the GB have decided.....etc" But when it comes to publications, read by millions, they think it's more appropriate to use the third person so it's, like I said, more objective. Plus, the publications are not an autobiography. It wasn't that long ago when most JWS didn't even know who the members of the GB were. Or only had very slight knowledge. But there are autobiographical articles (life stories) about members of the GB in the publications written in the first person. (Call it theatrics, false modesty or whatever, but you can't please everyone. Now, opposers are complaining that the GB are in the limelight TOO much). oooh...now his quote disappeared...

I feel sorry for Allen Smith. I really do.

You will find it's not "people" in general who judge too quickly, but it is ex-JWs. People in general do understand the complexities. Even the ARC understands the complexities, and so do prosecuting lawyers. But of course neither are in the business to understand, but to hopefully help remedy the situation and to get justice (well in the case of the lawyers; to get lots of $$$$ too, lets be honest).

Isn’t saying that you can err the same as saying you don’t know? They have actuality said they don't know on a number of occasions, in written form as well as verbally. On the other occasions they believed they knew. As with the overlapping generation, they believe they know, and right now, we can't say categorically that they are wrong. They may be right. Only time will tell.

So are you saying the Wt/GB themselves has never said they were wrong?

@JW InsiderI am wondering whether you posed the same question, as was put to Schroeder, in a letter to the society, and if yes, what was their answer?

Just because men may or may not apply scripture properly does not automatically mean all elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit. In any case, this is really a different matter altogether. No one can apply scripture perfectly, but they can do their best, however, in the case under discussion, the appointment of elders, men are limited through no fault of their own, because they can only act on what they see, they can't help that. They might be applying the scripture quite correctly, but it's contingent on the person they are considering appointing to actually qualify. But, and we are going round in circles, the elders can only see what is apparent. Therefore logically, if they really do not meet these qualifications, because they have deceptively hidden some pertinent details, or if it was assumed that past sins will no longer occur but they do, then holy spirit was not involved in the appointing, regardless whether men have appointed the person or not. So there are three scenarios, correct appointment, erroneous appointment, and appointment that is later withdrawn. In the second scenario, the erroneous appointment, it can happen that a prospective candidate, who is married, is very clever at hiding the fact that he has a lover on the side. Outwardly, he meets all the requirements, and he is appointed an elder. No holy spirit involved there, obviously. Then in the third case, there is the candidate who really meets all the requirements, he is appointed, and it can be said that holy spirit was involved. However, later, that same man acquires a lover on the side, and keeps it well hidden. It is then obvious that he no longer meets the requirements, and holy spirit is no longer involved. The third scenario illustrates that holy spirit, once given, doesn't mean it can't be withdrawn. Think Judas Iscariot. Similarly, once someone is appointed by holy spirit, doesn't mean that appointment can't be made obsolete, removed. So how would we know? We may not know. But the scriptures say "that which is carefully hidden WILL be exposed". I don't see how I've done that. What are they claiming that's false? Just because Greenlees was apparently not appointed by holy spirit, but by men, doesn't mean the same thing applies to all of them. JWS believe that the head of the congregation is Jesus, and that he knows who is who and what is going on, even though men may not know. So we trust that whatever corrections are needed, they will happen. Why? I know a great deal of what has been going on behind the scenes. You mean ex-JWs emailing Angus Stewart? I am not talking about a theoretical exercise, I am talking about an actual case. I read the whole transcript (all several hundred pages of it). I can’t comment on cases unless I am able to read all the court transcripts of the case. So you telling me about “sordid details” and “cover ups” is of no real help to me. Although I am not denying that cover ups have happened. Are you talking about victims BCG, and BCB? Because if you are, then I do not recall any attempts at covering up abuse. But I do recall there being inappropriate handling of the issue, for example for the victim to have to face her abuser. The ARC identified areas such as that, and others, where the policies of JWS could be improved, and then made recommendations. These recommendations were taken on board and are now implemented, and are part of the JW policy on Child Protection. I am sure you have read it. Furthermore as you know, the ARC was set up in recognition of CSA problems in various institutions, not just JWS. This sounds like a case of semantics to me. I could say that Julia Child did not direct me, but I allowed her instructions in the cook book to direct me. And if those instructions were detailed enough, then I probably turned out a good meal. However, if I started chopping the onion in quarters, instead of small pieces, as stated in the recipe, then Julia Child would not be there to personally correct me. So if my meal turned out less than perfect, then it was because I had not followed Julia’s instructions properly, regardless whether she was there in person or not. But really, this is what the Bible is. Christians try to follow it as best as they can. The idea of appointment by holy spirit is a scriptural idea and it is assumed that if one qualifies as per Timothy, then it can be said that one is working in harmony with God and his holy spirit in that appointment, therefore to put it another way: the appointment is by holy spirit. I guess you would prefer appointed in harmony with holy spirit, rather than appointed by it. But don’t think I don’t know the real reason why you are bringing all this up. Your point is that saying “appointed by”, somehow makes the rank and file imagine that this is something special, and under direct guidance of God. But we have already established that this cannot always be the case. (But also, that does not automatically mean that it is never the case). Regardless, Paul writes Christians should be obedient to those taking the lead. This does not mean we are going to obey indiscriminately. I guess because the apostle Paul assumed that he was talking to intelligent and reasonable people, he did not see the need to insert the proviso “unless they are asking you to do something bad” . Peter understood, when he said “we must obey God as ruler rather than man”. Which brings me to your next point: No, first and foremost God must be obeyed. So if the GB were to ask someone to do something that is not supported in scripture, or that goes against scripture, no JW should obey. As I said further above, you might have concluded that, but not me. Not only me, but most JWS see evidence of God's spirit not only in their lives, but in the way the organization operates, in spite of imperfections. Sorry to disappoint you.

Me neither actually. Too busy as well, doing some work outside of my home and I am sure my client wouldn't appreciate me being on my phone all the time. Plus it sucks on the phone. I prefer being on my computer at home.... Hope you have a good day!

Oooooh I gots itchy feet to answer all of Alan's arguments. But I won't butt in. Alan still has to reply to mine...

I did not say that. I said God obviously didn't appoint Greenlees. But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man. No it does not, it does not depend on that. No man can apply the scriptures perfectly. If they could, then there would be no need for Jesus to die. Also, man judges only by what he can see. So if someone appears to qualify according to the requirements in Timothy, then they are appointed. It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading. It does, because you asked : To which I replied, no God was not fooled but man was. Connect the dots please. There are a few people that I met in my life who I suspect may be that way inclined. But I have no proof. Holy spirit can be ignored, because we all have free will. Ok, here's a good one. Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8: << 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >> The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them. In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction. In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian. I think this part should be put under a different topic heading. Perhaps JWI can do that? And then I will reply to it there. You mean people like Bowen? Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations. I doubt that. My point was that if we really know the details, discoverable by reading detailed transcripts and unravel the complexity, then we can see that often there was no cover up, it merely appeared that way on the surface. I am sure you know about two sides to a story. With CSA there are multiple complex sides, its not easy to get the facts unless you hear all the sides. For example you find out that a disfellowshiped man molested an 8 year old girl, and that the elders knew about him molesting another girl years prior to this one. Those are the bare bones. Then you find out that the mother (of the child) took the child to the perpetrators house (who happened to be the mothers step dad) for baby sitting, knowing that he had previously molested her (the mother's) sister when they were young. "The first to state his case seems right,Until the other party comes and cross-examines him". Prov 18:17 I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do. Ummm....., that tells me merely your opinion. It is a process that is outlined in the Bible for the appointment of elder men. How else do you want me to understand it?

That's not what I said. And yes, that's true. The last people who were inspired were Bible writers.

I would have liked to merge this with my reply above, but had to go away and do something. Anyway, as I've already shown, I did not side step your question but I answered directly that I do not think God would appoint a man such as Greenlees: Of course I don't think that. Like I said: The process by which holy spirit "appoints" is through that scripture. Since JWS believe the Bible is inspired of God by means of holy spirit, then if one works along with the scriptures, one is working along with the holy spirit. Obviously in the case under discussion, holy spirit could not have appointed this man because unbeknown to those making the decision, he did not qualify. Which also answers your other question: Obviously it was not God but men who were fooled. Obviously. However I very much doubt that someone would have purposefully employed a pedophile. I am sure she has, and hopefully she has given that list to the Police. Sure I don't know much about him, only from what you and JWI said. That's hardly and inspiration for reform. I have seen them. Full of loaded language and sensationalism. However, the ARC was a different kettle of fish. I am sure there have been coverups. But I am sure you know cases are very complex. I have read two court transcripts (two different cases) each several thousand pages long. So I know what I am talking about. There are things afoot that will publicly expose a lot more corruption on the part of Watchtower officials and some local elders. That's good. Children need protecting. No, I did not say it was a lie. It's you, you are not comprehending the process. Those days of tongues of fire are long gone, with all the other outward manifestations of miracles etc.