Anna

2 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

I am trying to find out what was really said about animals, but it seems I will have to wait, if it is really on the programme.

I don't remember anything being said about animals as was insinuated by some. I do have a recording of the convention though so when I get around to it I will see if I can find it. There is a lot of information to sift through though, so I am wondering if anywhere, it could be in the symposium: "Creation reveals God's love"; Animals.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But is there something wrong with sentimental love ? 

Of course there is nothing wrong with that kind of sentimental love. Since I came to America I  have noticed people are more apt at showing this kind of emotion, as opposed to the stiff upper lipped Brits. I had never seen brothers cry while giving a talk on the platform until I came here (usa).  There is a lot of sentimental love at assemblies for sure as well. People are dewy eyed during the videos, songs, and when saying good bye to the brothers and sisters they've met. Honestly John, you are poking holes where you don't need to as it is a non issue. JW's for the most part are an emotional bunch, that is why there is no need to give talks on how to show "sentimental" love!
However, the love we all need to learn is the principled kind. This is the love spoken about in Corinthians 13, and this is the love that is the theme of the convention. "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.  It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails.

Notice it says it never fails. Well romantic love can fail, so can sentimental love. You do not still "love" your ex wives do you, I didn't think so. Hovever, would you help one of them if they were in dire need and you were able to? That is principled love, AGAPE, the love described in Corinthians that doesn't always come easy to everyone and needs to be worked on. Hence the convention on that theme. If the whole world practiced that kind of love, there would be peace on earth. 

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

A JW is not always disfellowshipped for breaking God's 'laws', but on occasions a JW is disfellowshipped for breaking the 'laws' of the GB. 

It might be good if you gave some examples

7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Anna mentioned something about not having 'emotional' love for anyone ? I'd need more info on this one though. 

I am sure I didn't say NOT to have emotional love. I wonder why you think that would be ok? Emotional love comes more naturally than principled love though. We don't have to work at emotional love. But to love your "enemies" that is a whole different kettle of fish. Jesus didn't expect us to emotionally love someone who hurts us. But we are expected to love them with principled love AGAPE. I am sure in your days as a Witness you were familiar with the Biblical term and the difference between the various types of love.

Talking about songs, the oddest thing happened at our convention. on the last day, the afternoon, just before we get ready to sing "Give me Courage", the brother announces that we should pay attention because the music was slightly changed. ??? My excitement dwindled as I and others had diligently practiced the song since its release on the website last year. Anyway, everyone sang their hearts out, and I must say sounded pretty good, except in the last chorus. For some unexplained reason the music WAS different, however no one was deterred and sang as they had learned it. As a consequence it sounded absolutely awful. Terribly out of tune. Like cats and dogs howling. I stopped singing and just shook my head. When I got home I checked the recorded version of the convention we have for my mother in law who is house bound, and there was no such problem there. It sounds like it was just our convention....?

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, 

That is because they are not inspired Anointed. Why would God give us His word if He would not give inspiration of holy spirit to Anointed ones to interpret it properly. Do you think God wants people to misuse scripture ?

No, of course God does not want us to misuse nor misunderstand scripture, and to understand scripture we need to ask God for help, which as you mention is the holy spirit. But holy spirit can only do so much. Since we are all free moral agents, but are imperfect at the same time, we CAN make mistakes in understanding where holy spirit is leading "us" (the person in question). Just because the holy spirit guides, doesn't mean that someone is capable of following it perfectly all the time.  Look how long it took Jonah to finally do what he was told. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) including the anointed. I think one of your problems John is you are waiting for someone to interpret the scriptures to you perfectly.  But the irony is, how would you know? How would you know what that one person is saying is better than what another person is saying? Jesus gave people identifying marks so we can recognize his true followers. It's not complicated. Matthew 7:21, John 13:35, John 17:16 etc... The Bible  lets us know clearly and unambiguously what is important to God. That's not complicated either. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 1 Corinthians 5:11, Ephesians 4:28, Colossians 3:8, Corinthians 7:1, 1 Timothy 5:8, Galatians 5:20, 21 etc....

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Going beyond what is written.

Calling themselves the F&DS...............

Perhaps they are not going beyond what is written. How would you know?

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

 I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.

BUT the GB say they are the F&DS and requite complete obedience. Didn't someone put up a Watchtower quote where the GB said that God and Jesus Christ trust them (the GB), so everyone else should trust them. 

Yes, in fact God and Jesus want us to be obedient; "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account"... (Heb 13: 17)

But complete obedience is first and foremost to God. It's a no brainier. The GB know that. Yes, God and Jesus support trustworthy older men. Paul told Timothy: "You, therefore, my child, keep on acquiring power in the undeserved kindness that is in Christ Jesus;  and the things you heard from me that were supported by many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful men, who, in turn, will be adequately qualified to teach others". (2 Tim 2:2). And as you know, not only do God and Jesus trust older men, but they trust all Christians who strive to obey God, since they entrust them with "shining as illuminators" and with preaching the good news

"“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house.  Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens" (Matt 5:14-16)

To be honest @JOHN BUTLER, I just couldn't be bothered to give you a detailed reply because your reasoning is so out of whack. But here goes:

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

First point. And this is funny.  Quote "who all err and make mistakes." 

So you are agreeing with me that to 'err' is not a mistake but a deliberate wrongdoing. Because you say, err AND make mistakes. 

As far as I am aware there is not much difference between an error and a mistake, they are just synonyms of each other. Once you put the adjective "deliberate"  in front of any of those words, then it changes the meaning to being  ummmm....deliberate, intentional, calculated, wilful etc. And no, I do not think their errors are deliberate. To which you will no doubt say I am brainwashed. It's good to have an opinion John, it doesn't mean someone is brainwashed, to the contrary.

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God.

I would include Jesus Christ as he has been given the power and authority, and he will be doing the judging.. 

Sure. But ultimately it is God. 

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB cannot ensure our salvation, 

No, but didn't the Watchtower used to say that a person had to be part of the JW / W/t org/soc to gain salvation ?

It's still up to God to grant that, not up to the GB. You could be part of the WT/JW etc. and still be disapproved by God. Just being a part of something is no guarantee.

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass....

Well that knocks the Bible Students and JW Org / GB / W/t on the head then doesn't it.  

Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters.

This didn't work with CSA in the JW Org did it ? MORAL STANDARDS. I don't think so. 

The WT org. didn't foretell anything new, it just repeated what the Bible already foretold.

As for moral standards, you already forgot how high they are. You don't remember if someone is found to be unrepentantly flaunting God's moral standards they are out on their ear? 

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

if his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

Well we have both of those in JW Org. The standards are low and predictions are false.

Already covered above

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB falsely call themselves the F&DS. 

Your opinion 

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now this bit is almost clever, Quote Anna Starts with 'The true prophet', then she moves on to  'the prophet/spokesperson/GB' but finally she moves on to ' the prophet/GB/FDS. 

How sly is that. A perfect JW way to twist things. Start with a true prophet and end with the GB/F&DS. 

You are reading FAR too much into this! My inconsistency has nothing to do with the intention of twisting anything. Just laziness.

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Yes the speculation about 1975 was wonderful wasn't it. And the speculation that one has to be a baptised JW to be 'saved'. And the speculation that Armageddon is 'so close now'..........

1975 was speculation. To be baptized as JW to be saved is a belief. Armageddon being close is also a belief.

Sorry, can't finish. Got to go. Will carry on later.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

"gentlemen" of the 19th century were famous for "mock humility." It's part of what it meant to be of the "genteel" class, and even the Watch Tower itself praised Russell's "gentlemanly" character. I don't think Russell was exactly like this, but clearly, in keeping with the style of the times, Russell knew that it would not do to just crassly put his own name on this interpretation. A rule of the time was that you get others to praise you; it had to come from the mouth of other people. I don't know if Russell ever had to ask for it, but it was common in the 19th century for a speaker to write up a self-praising introduction about himself for another person to read when introducing him.

Good observation and reminder. I think it's always a good idea to keep in mind the "customs" and general attitude of society in times past when judging a situation from the the perspective of the present. It explains a lot of things. For example we can see why the organization was so weary of certain things in the past, which it now accepts. (organ transplants, vaccinations, cooking with aluminium etc.....etc...) We can also better understand things in the Bible, some of which might sound positively traumatic to the "modern" mind.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I woke up this morning and was pleased to see a red 17 on the notifications bell at the top of this page.

I've learned it's never a good thing when I see more than 6 notifications, especially if I've been away only a few hours...

1 hour ago, Bubba Johnson Jr said:

that's a wolf in sheep's covering if ever there was one!

If you're referring to "Witness" then I don't think she is pretending to cover anything up. If you stay in this forum long enough, you will soon find out who is who.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

BUT your comment is very sly, almost clever,

There was absolutely no intent at being clever or sly on my part. But you really show your paranoia though. Attributing intent where there was none.

54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That is to say, they are not merely comments
on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since
there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any
individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to
present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We
therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind
of instruction, this kind of Bible study.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see
the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also,
that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he
has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after
he has read them for ten years--if he then lays them aside and
ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has under-
stood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within
two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had
merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and
had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the
light at the end of the two years, because he would have the
light of the Scriptures. 

I can understand what Russell was saying. In his mind, he was probably thinking that he made the Bible more readable and understandable. And that as a result it would stick better in people’s minds. I feel his motive was genuine. But that does not mean that his statements were not presumptuous and dangerous. The danger is that as a result many will fixate themselves on every utterance of this “prophet” at the cost of actually checking the Bible itself. Not only that, but gradually people will take what this “prophet” says as gospel truth, no matter what it is, without checking or without a wait and see attitude. And this situation we find ourselves in today. I posted an example of the resulting hysteria above.

On 7/3/2019 at 3:36 AM, JW Insider said:

We tend not to see this wielding of authority as a problem, because MOST of what the GB relays and publishes is perfectly acceptable. But this lax attitude toward what Jesus warned us about can result in a very dangerous situation for Christians. We do not mature as we should to stand on our own, because it's so much easier to just accept humans as leaders, and accept them as vicars of Christ. (bold added by Anna)

 This is very true and there is a perfect example of how "obsessed" some can become. Just the other day I noticed a thread on a JW only chat forum, regarding the latest WT study articles (October 2019). There had been a glitch on the jw.library app and only the questions to the articles appeared. (It didn't help that some of those questions were quite provocative). The speculation among the friends was getting so out of hand, so much so that one brother was compelled to make this comment in answer to someone who intelligently remarked that this was obviously just a glitch:

It has to be remembered though that these 30 or so brothers and sisters who make batshit (pardon the expression) crazy comments do not necessarily represent the whole worldwide brotherhood, although maybe it could indicate that on average 2 out if 30 are reasonable, and it appears that 14 of them agreed with the ridiculousness of it once they actually thought about it, and 3 saw the funny side of it.
This whole thread showed how out of hand the friends get with their immature thinking because after the glitch was repaired, and the whole articles appeared, they carried on undeterred in their craziness!

P.S. The WT in question: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2019/

On 7/3/2019 at 12:52 PM, Noble Berean said:

Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants

In those days I am sure there were quite a number, and only a fraction were Jehovah's Witnesses

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

As a suspected Watchtower Lawyer 

I think you should drop this suspicion as extremely unlikely.

I think he was only joking 😃

35 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

are you saying this is an illustration to placate "end of this system" oriented Christians to keep plodding on? How many of them do you think there are?

Yes, I could be wrong, but it does seem like that to me. Not sure what you mean by your second question, about how many do I think there are....that need placating? 

I don't think we need placating to keep plodding on. And I think it can be dangerous to do it this way, and could back fire!

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

portion to begin a discussion on the topic

I don't know, is there anything to discuss? All I know is my experience has been similar to that of JTR. The friends I talked with find it quite unimportant. It still baffles me why this subject (in broadcasting) was even raised. It seems odd that Br. Splane didn't begin the topic with something like "many of our friends have been wondering what Jesus's generation really means" OR "we have received letters asking about the generation" which he surely would have done had it been the case. It would have been the perfect introduction to start this subject.  Is it possible that no one really wondered about it? Then why bother trying to speculate on the matter if it isn't crystal clear already? It makes me wonder whether this isn't a little carrot on the end of a stick....

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here.

I suppose it's not too much of an unreasonable concept to have a measure of confidence in imperfect humans, who all err and make mistakes. Without confidence in others, it would be a crazy world, even crazier than it is now and absolutely nothing would get done. Even when we have been disappointed over and over, we still check what the weatherman has to say about tomorrow's weather. I think maybe the word "complete" confidence should be omitted though when referring to any human, including the GB. Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God. The GB cannot ensure our salvation, only God can. (Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation Ps 146:3) We cannot question God, and quite rightly so of course. But we should be able to question a human, a prophet, or an angel for that matter. The story about the “man of the true God” in 1 Kings ch.13 highlights the seriousness of questioning (making sure) very well.  In Israelite times people needed to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. There were plenty of false ones, and they were exposed by Jehovah. Today, we need to question in order to determine who is false and who is not.  (The term prophet that I am referring to is a spokesperson for God, not someone who predicts).  The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (De 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (De 13:1-4). The last requirement was probably the most vital and decisive, for an individual might hypocritically use God’s name, and by coincidence, his prediction might see fulfillment. But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters. (Isa 1:10-20; Mic 6:1-12) Hence, it was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

So, we come to the crux of the matter. We should be able to question the prophet/spokesperson/GB, to make sure  that what he says does not conflict with "Jehovah’s righteous standards and mind on matters" as was verified by Geoffrey Jackson in his "if we gave wrong direction, then everyone who has the Bible would see that it was the wrong direction"  statement.

So unquestioning obedience and "complete" trust, in my opinion, are not the right choice of words to use in connection with the GB.
 
And this is the primary reason for the topic, not to suspiciously distrust the GB, but to remind ourselves, by discussing the topic in depth, that there are boundaries and stipulations that have to be met before we can have confidence in, and/or obey any single expression made by the prophet/GB/FDS. And these boundaries and stipulations are set by Jehovah himself.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Going beyond what is written. This happens when an interpretation is applied to any seemingly ambiguous scripture. Where to find the balance? Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, how about only sticking to what is completely clear, (besides not conflicting with other scriptures), and admitting anything else is speculation.  That would be a good start. I have no qualms telling anyone who wants to know my opinion on the revised understanding of the “generation”,  that I believe it is speculative, and may or may not be true,  and that we will know the true answer probably not until after Armageddon......

In saying all this, I do not think that the reasons for distrusting the GB that have been posted here by some are valid enough reasons. I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Of course! Everything I write here is opinion. Even the part you evidently agreed with. 😊

Smart Aleck! 😂 😂

1 hour ago, Matthew9969 said:

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/rape-fornication.php

Here you go, I'm only providing the link to the watchtower articles that state if a woman doesn't scream while she is being raped, she is guilty of fornication.

quote from 1980 WT "By no means would it be proper for her willingly to submit to being raped".

This is true,  since you cannot rape the willing.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The apostles remaining in Jerusalem prior to the writing of the "NT" has already served its purpose, and is not intended as an ongoing model of apostolic succession in the last days. Because we are only human, we think that the hierarchical system under Moses, and therefore the "seat of Moses" was intended to continue into Christian times.

I cannot help but agree with most of your post except for the above quote. I feel this is an opinion 😃

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I meant that there have already been several pages of explanations in this thread and others, going right back to your original question. 

Yes, I thought so from what you've said. The truth is I've not been keeping up, especially since this thread got re-visited and exploded with comments. I will have to go back when I get a bit more time. In the mean time I will read your (for you) concise comment 😅

15 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

"Anything that does not kill you will make you stronger". 

Tell it to the victims of Child Sexual Abuse. Tell it to the people who have been shunned by their families.  Tell it to the people that have lost loved ones because the loved ones would not have blood. Tell it to everyone that has been misled and hurt by the W/t / JW / GB et al. 

Things don't make a person stronger, they may show the person their own strength, but many have no strength. If you have strength then be happy with it, but don't take it for granted. Many of us don't have that strength.  

Didn’t the apostle Paul have similar problems? Yet he said “So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.” (2 Corinthians 2:12) Why? Because ….. “ the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7)  The issue of child abuse is horrendous, but if we are to believe God, then even the consequences of that can be overcome with His help. We know that whatever happened to us, could have happened anywhere, and that all those who committed these horrendous crimes will eventually be punished.