Anna

5 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you honestly think Elders should overrule Anointed ones ? 

All the anointed I have ever known were elders, except for the sisters of course.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But GB says in Watchtower  "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." 

Which is true. The Bible has been written for everyone's spiritual instruction. The Bible is the instructor. Without reading it, the holy spirit wouldn't be able to bring anything out.  John 14:26  "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you". Jesus was telling his disciples they would recall everything he taught them, and they wrote it down for us, and today the holy spirit will help us to recall what we have read. Holy spirit is also needed to understand what they wrote. Not everyone understands, because if they did, we wouldn't have so many contradictory "Christian teachings" based on the same writings.

In other words:

In context, John was writing about those anointed in the first century. At that time only the Hebrew scriptures were available.  He said the holy spirit would anoint them and guide them into all the truth. They wouldn't need anyone to teach them (perhaps such as the scribes and pharisees?). This is why the apostles were able to write the Christian Greek scriptures. They were under inspiration from the holy spirit. And they were commissioned to spread the good news about the Kingdom and Jesus with the holy spirit helping them.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "God does not judge people by the job/ function they have, ..." 

Luke 12 v 48 b.

Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

Says it all i think. 

John, we are going round in circles because we are both talking about two different things. Maybe that’s my fault because I have not explained it very well. Yes, more will be demanded of the one who was given a bigger job. Logically! But that does not change that all people’s LIVES have the same worth. Otherwise you would be saying God discriminates on account of position, that somebody with a higher position has more value in God’s eyes than someone of a lowly position. In fact God has chosen the lowly ones to put the more important ones to shame. Intellect, power, position and wisdom are not deciding factors in whether God approves of them more than another person. God reads hearts.

I was using the word Judge as a verb, not a noun:

Judge  (noun)

1.a public official appointed to decide cases in a court of law.

2.a person who decides the results of a competition or watches for infractions of the rules.

3. a person able or qualified to give an opinion on something.

Judge (verb)

1.form an opinion or conclusion about. come to the conclusion, conclude, decide, determine; consider, believe, think, deem, view;

 

 

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

NWT “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold;n those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.

 

This does show a distinction. It shows that Jesus was only talking to the Anointed. 

Yes, he was talking to the anointed, and I never denied there was a distinction between the two, there is obviously, a BIG distinction. One goes to heaven, and the other stays on earth. And there will even be a bigger distinction once the heavenly group are in heaven, they will be immortal, whereas the earthly group will not. But as regards the value of life, everyone has the same value. Jehovah doesn't look upon an anointed brother here on earth and says he has more worth than a brother, or a sister, or a child who are not anointed. God does not judge people by the job/ function they have, but by what is in their heart.  ....." For the way man sees is not the way God sees, because mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but Jehovah sees into the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna Quote " I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. "

 

You make this statement with nothing to back it up. I've asked you for scriptural backing and you refuse to give any. You do not even quote which W/T it came from.

 https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2016/anointing-process/

 

 

19 hours ago, Witness said:

While you believe there is no distinction needing to be made between the anointed and all believers in Christ, it wasn’t so in the apostle’s day.  The commission to preach was given to them

Well yes, that's because the other sheep weren't figuring in the equation yet. But as soon as they were,  they supported Christ's anointed.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

You say there is no difference, but I doubt you understand that the anointed must follow the path of Christ.  They must sacrifice their life for the rest of the children to come.

I don't know what you mean by that they must sacrifice their life for the rest of the Children. Wasn't Christ sacrifice all that was needed for ALL the children? The scriptures you cite don't explain anything you are saying here. All Christians should follow the path of Christ, regardless of them being anointed or not.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

Do you know what the fulfillment of the New Covenant brings to all of God’s children?  “Healing of the nations”.  How?  By “New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven” as the Bride.  Rev 21:2  Who comprise New Jerusalem? Who are the dwelling of God? 

I did make a distinction between those anointed on earth, and those in heaven. I said the anointed in heaven are very different from anyone on earth.  The anointed on earth have a calling to heaven, but until they are sealed at the time of their death, they are not part of Jerusalem above yet. The anointed can fail in their faith just like any other Christian. I do not subscribe to the once saved always saved ideology. It's not scriptural. In the first century there were anointed ones who left the faith. However, once sealed and in heaven, they have immortality. But while on earth they do not.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

JWs believe the organization is their “temple”, complete with a false priesthood and “christs”. Matt 24:24  This is why the anointed are considered useless and no different than all JWs, until the coming Kingdom of God.  

I have never heard the organization compared to the "temple" or a priesthood. Can you post a quote indicating this? Jerusalem above is comprised only of the Christ and the anointed in heaven.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

By the organization teaching that the anointed are just along for the ride, Jesus’ answer to those who failed to recognize these “living stones”, reverberate loudly,

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ ⁴⁵ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ ⁴⁶ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  Matt 25:44-46

???? Haven't the great crowd always supported and helped the anointed? Especially at the beginning when there were more anointed than the great crowd? Now the anointed are in a minority, but the great great crowd still supports them, they work side by side.

10 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Read Leviticus  chapter 21.

.. all people are not equal, even in god's eyes. And if it is so with god, how is it with other imperfect human than. 

I don't see how Leviticus 21 shows that peoples lives are not equal. It is merely describing that people with defects cannot serve as high priests. This in no way made their lives less valuable, it merely made them unfit for a certain job.

There are additional reasons, one of them being that this priesthood symbolized and forshadowed the perfect priest, Jesus Christ: "For it is fitting for us to have such a high priest who is loyal, innocent, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and exalted above the heavens. (Hebrews 7:26)

Of course today it would be seen as discrimination. Almost every establishment has to employ a certain percentage of physically or mentally disadvantaged persons. But that is an entirely different situation from what the function of the priesthood was. 

I remember seeing a physically disadvantaged person working in a department at Bethel. And I doubt if one of the members of the GB suddenly became physically disabled they would be barred from serving on the body. In fact I think that one of the members in the past was practically blind. 

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Doesn't make much sense really because if a person was given a position of responsibility OVER others, then they would be 'above' the others, not 'equal to' the others. 

"...there is no partiality with God"- Romans 2:11

27 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

do it in secret

That will be part of the topic

43 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote" I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. So if there is no difference.. "

How many scriptures did the WT use in full to make the point you've mentioned ?  Can you repeat those scriptures ? 

I don't need to cite any scriptural quotes from the WT to make that  point.

The scriptures make no distinctions between true Christians, only their destination.  In fact the scriptures make no distinction between anyone with regard to the value of life, all peoples lives have equal value in God’s eyes. Otherwise the scriptures wouldn't be able to say that Christ died for all.

The distinction is approval or disapproval from God on how they live that life.  

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It could be to answer questions about what they have learned in previous years of independent Bible study. If everyone is sharing in a group, it's easier for some to speak up after others have spoken up. It could be led like a class with sets of specific questions, partially in the form of a survey. Or it might just sound like a Watchtower study that no one had studied for in advance. The conductor would have a paragraph read with a certain idea and then he would ask for comments on the material. The goal would be to find out what things that some of the anointed have learned in their own studies that they wish the GB might be able to share. Or an oft-questioned doctrine could then come up and persons who volunteer could offer their thoughts and questions about it. And there might be a segment on what some of them may have thought was another possibility when it comes to prophetic explanations. They would not have to reveal their current views if it makes them uncomfortable to admit a difference, but just a brainstorming of ideas that have gone through their heads in the past. Naturally not everyone would participate and not everyone invited would want to attend.

There are a lot of JWs who always thought that something like this had gone on in the past anyway. And Brother Sydlik had made a comment on more than one occasion that we should just scrap a certain doctrine and "start over from scratch."

You mentioned that anointed and independent Bible study has already been a goal for some. I think a lot of people have the idea those Bethel Bible studies led to the apostasy disfellowshippings at Bethel in 1980. But as far as I know, this type of independent study had been going on, at least for some, since the late 1960's. In fact, the anointed brother who opened up his room to one 2 hour session and one 1 hour session on another day of the week, had been doing this ever since the Aid Book research began, and it was an excellent way to share things learned that wouldn't fit in the Aid Book. (Part 1 was released on 1969) There were a few who just loved Bible Study, and it was kind of an overflowing excitement that the host usually had, and it would affect others. I think a lot of people have the idea that ALL of these were dangerous just because a couple members of the Writing Department who were also involved in such things were asked to leave Bethel. But this was because of their personal beliefs, extracted after an inquisition that offered a bit of amnesty for anyone who heard anything that sounded like apostasy from a "higher-up." But this was not a part of the Bible study groups. Even if the host didn't believe in 1914, for example, he wasn't about to bring that up in a Bible study where Bethelites of various ages and backgrounds might get upset, confused, turn him in, etc. (Although I understand that one small group actually did use their Bible study night as a cover for discussing views against 1914,  the limited mediator doctrine, etc.)

These types of studies were even hosted by F.Franz who would answer questions in the steam room for people who held him in high esteem. Then he would take a passage in Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc., and start expounding verse by verse. The one time that I went to see what it was all about, he was focusing on Jeremiah.

I don't think it follows that independent Bible study results automatically in division. Besides, it would never be allowed unless the GB were looking for a different approach to our doctrines, and it would need to coincide with an approach that didn't claim to know the ONLY correct doctrine on some issues. As others have mentioned, you can simply propose the most likely version based on evidence, and humbly request anyone with additional evidence to come forward and share.

You raise some good points, and they, and some other comments, have given me an idea for a topic on the JW - only closed club. So when I get a bit more time I will put something together.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An interesting point, because we (some of us) tended to defend the idea (GB=FDS) by saying that it never made that much sense that all of the anointed would be both domestics and FDS. Yet here we are right back with one of the original problems with the doctrine that I, at first, thought had been overcome.

I know what you mean. But I think it makes a little more sense when we whittle that number down to a few (as in feeding many through the hands of a few). More like a function performed (someone’s got to do it) rather than any superiority or specialness on anyone's part.  I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. So if there is no difference, it logically figures that they are all domestics, whether it be the anointed scattered throughout the earth, the earthly class, or the anointed members of the GB. Obviously once in heaven, they are very different from the earthly class, in every way.

A situation that I think (in my mind) kind of illustrates the “domestics/anointed/FDS rolled into one” idea is when during the memorial (I am only using the memorial for the purpose of an example, not any significance that it is the memorial) emblems are passed around. Towards the end, the attendants who have been passing the emblems around also need the emblems to be passed to them.  All this is done in a symbolic way of course, but the point is that their function as emblem distributors is just a logistical function to get the emblems from platform, to one row to the next, and then back to the platform. This action or job does not include the symbolic observation of the emblems on their part. I don’t know if I have explained this very well, but I am sure you will let me know if I’m not making any sense at all

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Doesn't mean that they would split off from the congregations and be disunited. The Society gets missionaries together, pioneers together, elders, circuit overseers, branch overseers, doctors, lawyers, computer specialists, building specialists, orchestras, choirs  . . . why not a meeting or two with those who claim to be anointed?

I'm not sure I agree with you on that for the simple reason that all the other people you mention would probably not meet for the purpose of studying the Bible, or perhaps in the case of the missionaries or pioneers; to study the Bible independently. But this could be the goal of the anointed, and has been for some, as you know. Then there could be a separation, and as a result a kind of disunity.

50 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Can you provide evidence on how you don't believe the Holy Spirit an embodiment of God's active force cannot be transmitted to humans as in the ancient times?

I never said that I thought God's active force cannot be transmitted to humans like in ancient times,  in fact I said that of course it could and is. But it is apparent that the holy spirit doesn't help people perform some kind of miracles or see some kind of visions today. This is what Christendom claims for its saints. It doesn't seem that this is what the GB claims.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I take it to mean, you believe the GB are self-serving like JWinsider seems to imply.

I don't think JW Insider implied the GB are self-serving. Did he?

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

How does this view defer from that of Raymond Franz that thought along the same lines? 

I am thinking you mean how does this view differ from RF.  Well I don't think RF thought the GB were self-serving all the time, he did highlight their human imperfections and failings though. But really this would have only been surprising to those who thought the GB members were somehow different from all the rest of the brothers in the faith. But they give us o reason to believe they are. Apparently they themselves are domestics too.

45 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you stated to “witness” his understanding was utter nonsense, and then you agree with JWinsiders understanding of making scripture a hypothetical under his understanding. Are you playing to an audience of one man?

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Can you rephrase it please?

46 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Can you explain how the Governing Body only believe they receive God’s Holy Spirit without really getting the Holy spirit and pretend to use that as a justification to use scripture to see if there is a conflict or not to dispense spiritual food?

It was an explanation of how the holy spirit works, nothing to do with not really getting the holy spirit. The holy spirit works through the Bible. It is not a tongue of fire on top of your head like it was in the 1st Century.

49 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Does this mean Jesus and God are fraud to have given the apostles greater power of healing and removing demons, and the entire Bible time is a hoax? Once again, If you receive the same Holy Spirit that the GB receive, why the contradictions. Everyone, receiving the same Holy Spirit would be on the same page as leaders. Does scripture support such a doctoral change just like with Raymond?

I don't think anyone is disputing that God gave the apostles  power of healing and removing demons. But those days are gone. I am not saying Jehovah couldn't make this happen again, but He obviously has not chosen to do that in our day.

Everyone receiving the same holy spirit doesn't mean you have to be on the same page. That depends entirely on you and how you respond to the direction of that spirit.

50 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's "THAT" which is viewed as God's holy spirit motivating them, not because anyone feels anything special about a decision but apparently strictly because of noticing any Biblical principle that might apply to the decision after praying and going through the scriptures.

That's how I understand it. Basically, I feel that this "method" applies to any true Christian, whether anointed or not, and no need to be a member of the FDS either. The holy spirit is there for anyone who asks for it. But I  believe someone, a body, has to have the job of dispensing Bible truths, or food at the proper time if you will. I know you feel a bit differently about it. But it makes logical sense to me. Do I think that this "body" might or should receive a little bit more direction from the holy spirit than anyone else? On account of the job they do, it would seem reasonable that they might/should. Of course if Jehovah could make the stones cry out, then he can easily use a a group of people to do the same. Do I think this has been the case? To the exclusion of bad mistakes, I would say, in certain circumstances, yes. I feel certain he has blessed the effort of those who promoted Bible truths.  But He has obviously allowed blunders to be made as well. The GB are convinced they are a tool in God's hands, and I honestly cannot see why they couldn't be. As for "feeling special" about a decision, I think I prefer to leave that to the Mormons or Born Again Christians

4 hours ago, Witness said:

Can't you see this as the perfect setup for a "Wicked Slave" to wield authority over Christ's other slaves?  Matt 24:48-51  It shows the organization for the scam it is; not only are the anointed scattered,

The earth is a big place, I would assume anointed members like to live in their place of choice. Or do you think they should all live in a compound?

4 hours ago, Witness said:

CANNOT bond, according to your magazines.  They cannot reveal their identity as one of Christ's slaves.   

That's utter nonsense. The anointed are free to do as they wish, like any other member of the congregation. Their identity is revealed, whether they like it or not, when they partake of the emblems at the memorial. 

4 hours ago, Witness said:

Yes, it is clever how the anointed in the organization are unable to "dispense spiritual food", even if by letter form to the ruling authority.  Luke 22:24-27  It is easier to throw them out, rather than let them gather and bring their own spiritual food to the table.  John 16:2    

More nonsense. They can dispense as much spiritual food as they like, to anyone they like.  Throw them out? What, where, how? Such nonsense....

 

On 1/27/2019 at 3:01 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Things may be done differently, but are they done any better ? 

I would say they are.

On 1/27/2019 at 3:01 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

If it seems that one member ruled over the others back then, is it any different now ?

I would seem so

On 1/27/2019 at 3:01 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Can anyone here know exactly what goes on in a GB meeting ? Is it recorded and made public ? 

No, no one can know exactly what goes on in a GB meeting, we only see the results in the publications. But here are a few excerpts  from an "interview" with GB member G. Jackson which might give more insight into the workings of the GB:

Q. In September 2005, you were appointed as a member of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

A.   That is correct.

Q.   As I understand it, you have served continuously in that capacity since then?

A.   That is correct as well.

Q.   On the Governing Body, I understand that you are a member of both the writing and the teaching committees; is that right?

A.   If I may be allowed to explain, each Governing Body member has a home committee where his office is based.  So in my case, I work in the writing department under the writing committee; but then, also, I have the role of a consultant with the teaching committee, as well as the personnel committee.  But I do serve on the teaching and personnel committees.

Q.   As I understand it, you serve on the writing, teaching and personnel committees; is that right?

A.   That is correct.

Q.   Could you just briefly explain what it means to be a consultant on one of the committees?

A.   Yes.  With regard to my role, each member of the Governing Body - of course, there are seven at the moment - each brings something to the table with regard to expertise.  My field is translation, and as you realise and have mentioned, it has been for quite some time.  But also,obviously, I was appointed on the Governing Body because of my spiritual qualifications.  So my role as a consultant with the teaching committee and personnel committee involves me evaluating recommendations that are made to see if, first of all, they are scripturally accurate and correct, and, secondly, whether they are translatable.

Q. So would that be with regard to all business and decisions of the committees on which you serve - you would fulfil that function you have just described?

A.   That is the function that I fulfil.

Q.   So, in other words, to give guidance and ensure that the decisions and work of those committees are scripturally accurate and correct?

A.   As well as translatable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q.   Could you explain, Mr Jackson, the committee structure and how it relates to the Governing Body, which is to say, do the committees report to and are they accountable to the Governing Body as a whole, or how does it work?

A.   Thank you, Mr Stewart.  Yes, the Governing Body, as I mentioned, has seven members.  As you would realise, with 8.2 million active members of Jehovah's Witnesses, with approximately 20 million associated with us, there is no way that the seven members of the Governing Body can be up to date with all aspects of every part of our work.  So the Governing Body is broken up into various committees.  The committees - there is a measure of trust, obviously, because the men who are appointed on those committeesunderstand something about the operation of those various aspects. But if I may also mention something I think the Commission hasn't noticed is that there are a roll of 30 helpers and these helpers join us in not the Governing Body committee, but the various subcommittees, and they help us by making recommendations and implementing the policies.

Q.   Thank you, Mr Jackson.  Is it the case that the helpers also attend the Governing Body meetings that occur weekly, but don't make decisions there?

A.   No, they don't normally attend the one meeting the Governing Body has each Wednesday, unless, of course, we need some special input from one of them or from several, and then they may be invited as needed.  But you are correct in saying they do not vote.

Q.   So is it right to say that the committees then are accountable to the Governing Body?

A.   There is a - yes, ultimately, the Governing Body oversees the work of the committees, but there is a measure of trust, obviously, that goes on, mainly - if I could use an example, I would be the last person on earth to ask with regard to construction details, but the publishing committee handles our construction worldwide, and so those that have more familiarity with that type of expertise, we would trust them to go ahead with most of the decisions.

Q.   You have said that the Governing Body presently has seven members.  How is it determined how many members there will be from time to time?

A.   There can be any number of members on the Governing Body.  In the past few decades - for example, when I was appointed on the Governing Body, there were 12 of us. I believe the number has been 18 at one stage.  But the qualifications of a member for the Governing Body - it involves someone who is considered an anointed Witness, who has worked in scriptural, with a scriptural background, either as a missionary or a full-time servant for many years, and is able to fulfil the role of the Governing Body, which is, may I state, a group, a spiritual group of men who are the guardians of our doctrine, and as guardians of the doctrine, look at things that need to be decided based on our doctrines, which are based on the constitution of the Bible.

Q.   I take it if the Governing Body is to be increased in size, that that will be a decision of the Governing Body itself?

A.   That is correct.  But obviously, we would get information from other fields.

Q.   And is it the case that the Governing Body then appoints new members of the Governing Body?

A.   That is correct.

Q.   Does someone have a designated role, such as coordinator or chairperson or president?

A.   You mean of the Governing Body?

Q.   Yes.

A.   Or do you mean the subcommittees?

Q.   No, I mean of the Governing Body?

A.   Yes.  We rotate each year.  There is a chairman of the Governing Body, but the chairman's role is merely to chair the meetings.

Q.   So there is no-one who has a permanent role of coordination or designation such as president or what have you?

A.   That is correct.  Only the committees, under the direction of the Governing Body, have a coordinator for each committee.

Q.   Dealing with decisions of the Governing Body itself, how are decisions made, by which I mean are they made only by consensus or by majority or is there some other system you adopt?

A.   So if a policy or a question comes up with regard to doctrine, or something that involves a biblical stand, we will allow someone to come in and present to us all the facts concerning that - obviously the seven involved cannot be familiar with every aspect that we need to consider.  So once the proposal has been given to the Governing Body, it's an agenda point.  Ahead of time, each Governing Body member, with prayer, by means of prayer and reading the Bible, then tries to see how the Bible would affect any particular decision.  So then, in our discussion, generally, from my experience, which has only just been the last 10 years, in most cases it's unanimous.

Q.   If it's not, then it would be carried by majority; is that right?

A.   That is the case but, as I said, it's a rare thing, because if someone - perhaps their conscience is not clear or feel comfortable with a certain decision, then more often than not, we would rely upon God's spirit by holding up on making a final decision until more research is done, and then we would meet again.

Q.   By what mechanism would you understand God's spirit to direct your decisions?

A.   Well, what I mean by that is, by prayer and using our constitution, God's word, we would go through the scriptures and see if there was any biblical principle at all that would influence our decision - and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light.  So we would view that as God's spirit motivating us because we believe the Bible is God's word and came by means of holy spirit.

Q.   And your reference to your constitution, I understand by the way in which you raised the Bible as you said that, you were referring to the Bible?

A.   The Bible is our constitution, yes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. From the next sentence, "Responsible Christian men do

their part by setting an example of obedience as they put such arrangements into effect", are we to understand that the expectation of the Governing Body is that the branches around the world will act in accordance with those procedures and guidelines?

A.   That is the expectation.  But may I put the proviso on

this:  you see, as paragraph 2 starts off, the second sentence, "The Governing Body obeys this direction" - Mr Stewart, what you need to understand with regard to our organisation is it is a faith-driven organisation.  This is not an organisation of lawyers or those that are overly concerned with legal matters.  So our primary allegiance is to Jehovah God.  Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction.  So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable. So if the direction given is scripturally correct, then we would expect that these members of the branch committee, who themselves also are Christians, who accept the

constitution, would follow that direction.  But if I can also say, there are provisions for those branch committees to get back to us if they see that there is something that doesn't work, and then we can adjust it accordingly.

Q....adjustments, and so on, in a moment, but from what you have said, am I to understand that the Governing Body seeks to obey Jehovah God?

A.   Absolutely.

Q.   And that the branches seek to obey the Governing Body?

A.   First of all, the branches seek to obey Jehovah. We're all in the same arrangement.  But because they recognise a central body of spiritual men who give spiritual direction, then we would assume that they would follow that direction or, if something is not appropriate, that they would identify that.

Q.   In turn, the congregations are expected to obey the branches?

A.   Again, first of all, they have to obey Jehovah God. That is the very first thing that they need to do.  But if direction is given based on the Bible, we would expect that they would follow that because of their respect of the Bible.

Q.   And the definitive interpretation of the Bible from time to time is the Governing Body; is that right?

A.   Ultimately, as guardians of our doctrine and beliefs, yes, some central group needs to make that decision, but that doesn't mean to say that we are just on our own unilaterally making those decisions without research and input from others.

Q Do you, as members of the Governing Body, regard yourselves as being appointed by Jehovah God or under the capacity or authority of Jehovah God?

A.   What we view ourselves, as fellow workers with our brothers and sisters - we have been given a responsibility to guard or to be guardians of doctrine.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. In making decisions on the publications, I understand from what you say that you are guided by the scriptures?

A.   That is correct.

Q.   And that involves, obviously, interpreting the scriptures from time to time?

A.   That is the role of the Governing Body.

Q.   Am I right in understanding that the Governing Body's interpretation of the scriptures on any particular point might change or develop from time to time?

A.   That is correct as well.

Q.   So I think some examples might be, for example, firstly, the question of blood fractions and whether that is or isn't covered by the prohibition for the receipt of blood transfusions.

A.   That is correct as well, but if I could just mention, when blood transfusions were first introduced, there wasn't a lot of options with regard to blood fractions.

Q.   Yes, but my point is, or what I am seeking to understand is, there was an interpretation at one point which said that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses should not receive blood fractions, but in more recent times it has been accepted, as I understand it, that there is no specific scriptural direction on that - on blood fractions, that is - so that is a matter for the individual conscience of Jehovah's Witnesses?

A.   That is right.  And Mr Stewart, if I may mention, this is an example of the desire of the Governing Body not to go beyond the scriptures.  Clearly, we have the direction in Acts chapter 15, 28 and 29 against blood.  But if I could also mention, you see, as with anything in the community, more and more knowledge becomes available medically, it can be very overwhelming trying to see all the latest medical research, and so on.  But the Governing Body tries to make sure that they don't go beyond what is written.  If we see that a direction from the scriptures has perhaps been used too broadly, then we are the first ones to try to correct that.

Q.   I take it, too, that the state of knowledge about the scriptures and, in particular, historical knowledge about scriptures, also improves or increases from time to time?

A.   That is correct.  But there are some basic things in the Bible that have not changed right from the beginnings of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I won't take your time, obviously, going through those, but it is important to realise what are basic things in the Bible.  For example, is the Bible from God?  There is no possibility of us changing our viewpoint on that.

 

 

 

 

 

      

Hence, if a government / ruler of a country offered Alternative Service that was not going against the will of God, then the people should obey it. - Romans 13.

The reasoning was that alternative service would be a substitute or "in place of"....which was perceived being "the same as" fighting in a war, in which case Acts 5:29 would apply  And the point was that as long as this service was commanded by the army, you couldn’t do it. But if it was commanded by any other institution it was ok. I think the problem starts when the brothers get bogged down with absolute detail in an effort to cover all bases. Unfortunately, it then becomes a pretzel of reasoning. It’s like Trinitarians trying to explain the Trinity. Someone on here posted an anecdotal example of this pretzel type reasoning with a mock WT article on why true Christians shouldn't own a cat. I have a suspicion that it was one certain brother who had a penchant for this type of reasoning......

All probably would have been well had this ambiguous situation been left to conscience in the first place, instead of trying to make rules where none existed......

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.

Yes, that is truly sad. It helps me to think of a few scriptures, this one particularly with reference to to the conscientious objectors:

"For it is agreeable when someone endures hardship and suffers unjustly because of conscience toward God. For what merit is there if you are beaten for sinning and you endure it? But if you endure suffering because of doing good, this is an agreeable thing to God". (1Peter 2:19)

For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. (Hebrews 6:10)

And these in general:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment". (James 3:1) and  

"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him" Luke 12:48

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad". 2 Corinthians 5:10

^"For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad". (Ecclesiastes 12:14)

"So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God" (Romans 14:12) etc...

On 1/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I had to be in excessive pain before the ambulance came and took me in to hospital with pneumonia, and I ask to leave hospital asap after treatment. Was only in three days, then recovered at home. I have no faith or trust in the Police force, none at all.

Still, you did have to have some faith in the doctors, that they would make you feel better, otherwise you wouldn't have gone in to hospital in the first place surely. The same with the Police. You must have some faith in them otherwise why bother reporting the alleged child abuse to them? And why else would you think it was important for the elders of your congregation to report the matter?

On 1/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote " With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change? "

The Creative Days being 7,000 years long, and us being in the 'Rest Day' of 6,000 years , then 1,000 years of Christ's rule. It made sense that all the days were 7,000 years long. God being a god of order not disorder............   But other changes are constantly being discussed on here, such as the F&DS once being the whole 'body' of the Anointed, but now only 8 men............ The teaching about 'this generation' .... the teaching about 'the superior authorities'.............. You don't have to look far to find them do you ? 

Well all I can say to that is change is inevitable as no one gets everything right the first time. It's also good to put things into proper perspective and honestly evaluate whether the change has been for the better or for worse. Some change is logical. The FDS being only the members of the GB make practical sense as most of the other anointed are scattered all over the earth and are in different time zones, so to expect for them to sit in on, and contribute to the dispensing of spiritual food would be unrealistic. In any case, I don't think everyone of the other anointed, with a few exceptions, ever contributed to the dispensing of spiritual food (apart from their own preaching, just like all the other Witnesses), so it has always been symbolic anyway. The generation teaching obviously had to change because time ran out. You are right, we don't have to look far to find them. Here is a whole list of teachings that were revised or updated: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174

Do you think it would have been better to stick to the previous understanding and never change anything?

On 1/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote " But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job,   " 

 Those 8 men misuse that title, which they have given themselves, to promote their thinking NOT God's thinking. 

Well they obviously believe they are promoting God's thinking. Every reason or suggestion for anything is always backed up by a myriad scriptures. So I think you must be talking bout the interpretation of scripture. Wrong interpretation or misunderstanding of scripture is not a sin, it is  part of progressive understanding, making mistakes is a natural part of learning. But again, it's good to put this into perspective, have all the wrong interpretations caused harm? A few have caused some harm, but the vast majority have not. And none of these mistakes have been done in malice or for some personal gain. We need to be able to forgive our brothers. I am sure you would agree this is a Christlike attitude to have. So:

On 1/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Deliberately misusing scripture to rule over others. 

Do you have an example of a scripture that has been misused to rule over others?

On 1/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Child Abuse situation, and on this one, if only i could find the video, I'm sure a member of the GB said it was 'all lies and just apostates causing trouble'.

I am not sue where the video is either, but I know that Br. Lett wasn't referring to the child abuse situation as lies from apostates. He said something to the effect that saying we deny or ignore child abuse are apostate lies. We do not deny or ignore child abuse.

On 1/26/2019 at 10:27 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Every time a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God.. " 

Wrong...Most times a' brother or sister' speaks, they are being a spokesperson for the GB or JW Org.  They go out with 'literature' more often than they go out with GOD'S word. There is such a big difference. JW's are taught what to say. Please remember I went to the Ministry School meetings / Work book meetings. It is all written in there. What to say, what to offer. It's JW literature, not God's message through Christ..

I don't know what kind of ministry you were doing but any claim, whether spoken or pointed to in JW literature has to be substantiated by scripture. Everyone does it differently, but I always say regarding the magazines for example, that's its not what we say, it's what the Bible says and to make sure to check all the scriptures that are cited. The publication are merely Bible aids and not there to replace the Bible. That's the big difference.

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

With or without Raymond, the FDS / GB has demonstrated (show it until today) how things are in WT.

I disagree with that. There are many things that are not done at all the same way today (for example the 2/3 majority vote). In fact things are very different only by virtue of the fact that every single person on the GB at the time of Raymond is gone, replaced by a completely different body, and that many of those issue that were pointed to by Raymond have been addressed. (This makes me believe that even today's members of the GB have read Raymond's book).

I think when it comes to God, there are naturally many things we cannot, and NEVER will, comprehend about him. Like the the concept of him having no beginning. Everything he wants us to know about him, he has revealed in the Bible. And of course as Melinda mentioned, we know about his qualities through ourselves, because we were created in his image. When it comes to free will, it is a gift from God, and he never has taken that away from any of his intelligent creatures. It makes sense that Jehovah can 'predict' what a person will do, because even we can correctly predict what someone will do. Jehovah can do that so much better because he can read hearts. We can only go by what we see, hear and past experience.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I tended to believe everything my brother told me about any subject. He's my older brother by 8 years, and I thought he had more experience of life than me so I trusted him to teach me the right things. 

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You are totally wrong. I have faith in no human, and trust no human

I am assuming you no longer have faith your brother, but you still do have faith and trust in so many people. You have faith in the milkman that he will bring your milk everyday, (do they still do that?) you have faith in medical staff that they will administer treatment for your benefit, you have faith in the pilot that he will get you to your destination, you have faith in the police force, that they will  help people. Whether that faith is justified or not doesn't matter. The fact is us humans have a need to rely on other humans and put faith in them otherwise it would be impossible to live a normal life. 

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And the people on 'ground level' were good and friendly. BUT that just makes it like a social club. I fell for it all. I did as I was told and didn't ask questions. It all seems to make sense. 

THEN, as time went on, the GB/JW Org changed the meaning of scriptures, changed teachings/doctrine,  ...... 

Maybe that was a mistake, that you didn't ask any questions, but evidently you didn't feel you needed to, if everything made sense....

With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change?

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

think it's funny that JW's pretend they don't put their faith in men. Whereas it can easily be seen that JW's are told to believe what the GB tells them. JW's do not question the GB's words, hence why wrongdoing has been going on for so long in the JW Org. 

From the examples I wrote about above it's unrealistic to think that JWs pretend they don't put their faith in men. I know in this case you mean the men on the GB. But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job, whether it be the milkman, doctor, pilot or policeman. Yes, Witnesses do put faith in the GB, it is logical they do so and there is scripturally absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as they keep in mind that if there is ever a conflict between what man says, and what God says, then what God says must always take precedent of course. You know the scripture (Acts 5:29). 

With regard to the wrongdoing you mention, I am assuming you mean the mishandling of Child abuse cases? Or were you thinking of some other specific wrongdoing?

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Proof from past Watchtowers shows that the Org presents itself as God's only organisation, and the GB as God's only spokesperson, and again the Org as the only means of salvation. And JW's do not question that.  

Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that the Org. presents itself as God's only orgnisation. Most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. With the GB being the only spokesperson for God, then that is disputable and would be presumptuous in the words of G. Jackson. Every time  a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God. The Org. being the only means of salvation can be a tricky one. Of course it is Jehovah who is going to save, and every Witness believes that. The concept 'means' or 'by means of' can apply to the fact that the requirements for salvation as stated in the Bible have been proclaimed by that Organisation. If the stones were to cry out instead ( Luke 19:40) then it would be by means of the stones

Don't forget about this scripture: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?  How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)

 

 

 

5 hours ago, FelixCA said:

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information.

This would be a good view if it was given as a good cause. Unfortunately, Raymond actions became centered in not being genuine but self-serving.

People at Bethel can say whatever they wish as an opinion, but Raymond’s actions spoke for themselves. Sincerity was not an option for him. Blind rage was.

Well here we are discussing the man and his motive. We cannot see into his heart. But the principle stays the same. Whether given in a 'good cause' or 'bad cause'. Whether he was genuinely concerned about the lives of others or not,  those lives were still affected.  There were many others whose lives were affected positively. Talking to brothers and sisters we see that most are grateful for having learned the Truth. It improved their life on many levels and gave their life meaning. Those are the positive things we want to focus on. But it doesn't negate those whose life was affected negatively, and the sad part is, quite unnecessarily at times. We don't want to have the attitude of some kind of collateral damage, that that's OK.

5 hours ago, FelixCA said:

That type of action affected others to promote apostate understandings, not biblical ones. Those that accepted his kind of methodology did so with a willful mind to accept what men claimed as fact, rather than be reliant on the fact that we are guided by God’s Holy Spirit. That makes a world of difference in Bible understanding.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean those in leadership positions claiming something as a fact? And that we should accept this because they are guided by God's holy spirit?

18 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Door to Door

“If the question were put to the headquarters organization of the Watch Tower Society whether each member (if physically able) must do house-to-house witnessing to be a true Witness, in fact to be a true Christian, the answer would probably be that this is not an absolute requirement. (Actually, it would be extremely difficult to get a clear, straightforward answer on such a question; the headquarters organization is remarkably reticent about expressing itself in writing on sensitive issues and, even when given, answers are often couched in ambiguous terms, or evasive and roundabout reasoning.) We have already seen, however, that responsible men in the organization acknowledge that there is serious reason to question whether in reality the Witness community as a whole engages in this activity simply out of a heartfelt desire to do it, as something freely motivated, done without any sense of compulsion.”

To read an error of attempting to argue against the door to door witnessing when scripture clearly states how Jesus would send the apostles are one of a thousand (exaggeration) ways; maybe not Raymond misinterpreted scripture to win the minds and hearts of troubled people. Therefore, his research was NOT incumbent on Bible truth. James 5:16-20

I am not sure what your argument is here. I believe the scriptures are clear on proselytizing. Wasn't Raymond questioning the motivation/desire, or rather the lack of  motivation/desire on the part of the Witness community? I guess I will have to read the whole chapter to get the context...

17 hours ago, FelixCA said:

The argument offered would lead us to what? In ancient times, I can offer many examples where the faithful people of God failed. What is the point, if we don’t allow God to make the necessary corrections rather than rely upon our own heart to make them?

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information.