Anna

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.

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

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 😅

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.

I have not had that experience, I mean someone threatening to destroy my family if I do not believe their "fantasies". And yes, I understand what you are talking about. No need to explain

Yes, but also whether the subject is a burning concern (to borrow True Tom's expression) or not. In your story, if your idea of rescuing the Mexican family entailed them eating your grass, then that would be a burning concern.

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting. Which brings me to this quote of yours: I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God. I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images) Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick. So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you there since the question itself points to the interpretation doesn’t it? You are right. Perhaps this might be a clue that these subjects are not as important as some might suggest. They definitely are not included in the section "elementary Bible teachings" which form the first part of the questions, but some are mentioned elsewhere in the book, such as the anointed and other sheep. I know for sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. only agrees with about 15% of the interpretations made by the GB and yet he remains a part of the congregation as far as I am aware. I realize it seems like I am contradicting myself since I said that one " should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book", but I did not necessarily mean these questions are about specific doctrine which one has to agree with, but rather that one agrees with the fundamental teachings and recognizes Jehovah's Witnesses as the true religion, which would take care of "own opinion on certain scriptures". All this of course could be covered under the umbrella that we recognize the GB/FDS as dispensing spiritual food therefor whatever it dispenses we agree with as the truth....well..... truth at the time . This is basically goes back to the header topic I raised. Of course when I was going through the questions in the 80’s there was no mention of the FDS applying exclusively to the GB. We know this has been a recent change as is evident in the 2015 version of the book. Perhaps this will be something that will be re-worded one day. However, it applying to all Christians has it's draw back, since how can all Christians be made masters of Christ's belongings? I suppose this is another subject. If you can explain it concisely I would be happy 😃

Thank you for drawing attention to the aspect of circumstantial evidence. In this case, this was counted as a witness. Not hard to do since it was known that the couple in question was already romantically involved.

The good thing is, by the time one gets baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses one should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book".

Yes, and one of those standards is the two witness rule. Just last night, my hubby and I were watching a series on "Evil Murderers". This particular episode was about a man who tortured and murdered 8 women. He was caught and admitted to the murders, not only that, but as proof he gave the police the names and details of what each victim had been wearing. He also told them the name of one victim who got away 15 years earlier, describing in detail how and where she got away. The police checked their records and found the surviving victim, and exactly matching details of what she had reported. The woman, who had been 21 at the time, had not been believed all these years, even though she had marks on her body. Her own mother said she made the story up. The woman ended up in counseling for years, and said she even started doubting herself. Imagine how she felt when 15 years later she was finally vindicated. The murderer was convicted, and put on death row, but even when the criminal admits to the crimes, and even where there is undisputed proof of guilt, the criminal can appeal many times. As a consequence the appeals process takes decades to complete, and costs the taxpayer millions of dollars. Why am I telling you this story? You will only say "we'll that is the world, you guys should be better anyway" Well yes, I should hope we are better, and when the death penalty was in existence during Israelite times, this guy would have been executed immediately. Today, we (JWs) don't execute people obviously, however, the consequences for a crime can be severe. You all harp on about how devastating disfelliwshipping is. Do you not think that before this action can be taken it has to be established that the "sinner" really is guilty? How would you feel if you lived in Israelite times and one person falsely accused you of something deserving the death penalty, and no second witness was required? What about today. How would you feel if one person falsely accused you of something deserving disfellowshipping, and you were disfellowshipped on the basis of that one person's testimony? If you are honest, you will admit that the requirement of at least 2 witnesses would be quite desirable in that case. As regards CSA, the org. is not in trouble because of some maliciously and wrongfully applied scripture involving the two witness rule. The org. is in trouble because it handled cases of CSA at a congregational level only, without involving outside authorities, (who by the way without adequate witnesses would not have done anything prior to the 00's either, and you know all about that, as you didn't get any justice).

There is something else I wanted to add to this. It's not that JW's personal views are valueless, but if you look up the definition of "to harbor" you will see that it means something like "keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly....with the synonyms "nurturing" "nursing" "cherishing". It's all about attitude. There may be something that a JW understands differently to the GB/FDS, they just don't see it the same way. If someone understands something differently to the GB/FDS, do you think it would be reasonable to expect that someone to stop seeing it that way just for the sake of it? Or has it more to do with the attitude of that person? For example, someone may not really accept the explanation of the "Generation" although they tried, but just can't. The immature person might want to make a big deal out of it. They may "nurse" their idea until it becomes unbearable and consumes everything else, including all the "truths" they previously cherished. Now the only idea they "cherish" is their own opinion. The mature Christian accepts they may understand things differently and moves on, and waits till things become clearer one way or another. Let's say at some point in the past someone had a personal opinion on a subject which was not the official understanding at the time. Some years later though, the very opinion they had, now becomes the official teaching. Does that mean they were guilty of having the trait of an immature Christian just for having that different opinion? Obviously not. But they would have been an immature Christian had they "harbored" those thoughts to the point of advocating their opinion and becoming consumed by it. When it's not merely a personal opinion or idea but a clear unambiguous Bible teaching. This is why it's important to know your Bible well. Those who didn't get carried away with 1975 were cognizant of the scripture which clearly says "no one knows the day or hour" no matter what anyone else was saying. Some who did get carried away blamed the org. for their losses. It's up to each person how they react, in the end we stand alone in front of the judgement seat of God and render an account for ourselves, not for anyone else.

That is a good point Srecko. The audience at the ARC wasn't JWs (and any indoctrinated JW would've probably avoided viewing the ARC recording). That is why Geoffrey Jackson is able to make disingenuous comments like the one Anna brought up. They weren't meant for JW ears. Another that comes to mind is his remark that the GB claiming sole spokesperson status would be "presumptuous." He wouldn't dare say something like that to active members, because it would confuse and disturb them. No, the comments were meant for outsiders that are less familiar with the organization and less likely to question him. To a certain extend I agree with your statement regarding the change in "language" when speaking to outsiders. JW's, do, and should do the same. Some don't, and as a result lose their "worldly" audience. As for GJ though to have intentionally used these comments to mislead, I do not think so, as this would be very short sighted. He must know that there will be other JWs who would hear his comment. The other thing is you do not know "he wouldn't dare to say anything like this to active members". That's just your opinion. Would you have ever thought you would see Tony Morris "dare" to go shopping for boxes of hard liquor? If TM was worried about being spotted he would have worn a disguise, or sent someone else. Again, it seems to me that what the GB dares or not dares to do or say lives in the minds of others.

Don't understand this. I think @Anna raised the topic? I thought you were talking about me raising the topic of the nature of God's happiness. Not the actual topic "How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole channel, and at the same time accept that they can err?

To some.

I also apologize for the (really) late response. Notice I said unquestioned obedience. There is a big difference, and I think this is what our issue should be, not the obedience which results from cooperation, but obedience which goes above obedience to Jehovah. The scriptures are clear, we must obey God as ruler rather than men. So if our obedience to anyone, including the GB, conflicts with God, then we do not obey. This rule governs any of those quotes from the WT you posted. Of course, when one discusses the general aspects of obedience, including those quotes, one assumes that in reality the FDS is not going to instruct anyone to go against God and do something unscriptural. So that means that one can take those quotes at face value and happily obey, without any qualms. However, it is possible that some would allow their obedience to cross the threshold of what is scriptural, because they intend to obey the FDS no matter what, and that is the point I was trying to make. I understand why you say this, but the context of that particular paragraph is Christian maturity as exemplified by "oneness of the faith" as spoken of by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:11-14 : " And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes". So if "oneness of the faith" here is the concern, then it is natural to regard "differing private ideas" about Bible interpretation as undesirable. Sometimes though we may not be able to stop "private ideas", and whether this is because of Christian immaturity or not, it is ultimately between us and Jehovah and not the GB/FDS. No doubt it must cross people's minds though that how come 8 men can wield such authority, supposedly over the faith of 8 million people, with only a claim that they are the fds of Matthew 24. But really, although they make that claim, it does not obviously mean that they are inspired or infallible, nor that they actually do wield authority over our lives, or our spirituality/faith. All these aspects are our own responsibility, our personal faith.Their responsibility is to provide food at the proper time, and also, to shepherd the congregations in order to keep them clean with respect to morality and spiritual cleanses (not mixing pagan ideas with Christianity). If the congregation was allowed to get contaminated with worldly attitudes (e.g. immorality) and false teachings, then the congregation would lose God's favor as it would no longer be clean. Some Jws and many ex-jws misinterpret this to mean that the GB controls people's lives.

I have heard it said that soon pedophilia will be classed as just another sexual orientation and that pedophiles will feel discriminated against and will insist on their "rights". Just to lighten things up a bit, are you the "man on the rocks" ? 😄: Cool song actually

You are probably right there

No, and I have been witness to two elders, unprovoked, tell me irrespective of each other that if there is ever a case of reported child abuse, the victim and/or parents are specifically told that regardless whether there is proof or not, if they want to contact the police it is their absolute right to do so and there will be no repercussions from the elders (which actually is a sad thing to have to say..... as if contacting the police would ever warrant repercussions....but, as we know, historically this was sometimes the case. However, this was never the organizations policy as far as I know, but it was more a personal decision by some elders).

You are just kidding about this one right?

YAWN

One of my hobbies is "looking" at houses on real estate websites. Of course the ones I like to browse the most are the ones in Beverly Hills. My favorite ones are the mid century modern, inside and out. Not too keen on the pretend Tuscan villas. Some houses are so terrible inside, it's as if these people have the need to buy everything and anything just because they can. But evidently they can't buy good taste....

Just piping up here; I agree of course, but I'm sure you will admit that some sort of organizational structure is also necessary, especially with a view to the preaching activity...

I understand your reasoning and I agree that Paul is warning the Galatians about listening to anyone but Jesus and Jehovah perhaps using Peter and co. as an example. As for Paul not exonerating Peter etc. I think it's evident that everything was ok between them in the long run. With the wording "seemed to be pillars" I took that to mean that to Paul it was "apparent" that they were pillars. I've run out of time so I will comment some more on the rest of your post later...

Might sound archaic in America, but not long ago I heard someone (non JW) in England describe a frivolous woman as a "brazen hussy". Usually this term is used in jest.