Anna

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. 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? 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? 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)

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. 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?

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...

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.

It is evident in Raymond's case, that he only wrote what the Societies' understanding of those dates were at the time. He added nothing of his own understanding or interpretation to these dates. He quotes nobody else but the Societies' literature concerning these dates. It had nothing to do with anyone else's perception but only of the perception of those who mentioned these dates in the first place ( Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Franz...) These dates are only a common theme for ex-JW books because most of them derived this information from Raymond's books I think they understood these dates, but most of these dates failed in their expectations and had to be revised, several times. I think it is up to each individual person to asses whether this is meaningless for them or not. I am not sure what you mean by this. But assuming I understand what you mean then again, I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion if you quote (in context) the other party. I think it became quite clear how certain things were supposed to be understood. Many times it was crystal clear. I am assuming you mean that Raymond put too much faith in his own research of the society? If that's what you mean then it doesn't make any difference whether Raymond put faith in his research or not because research, or the evidence provided, should be able to stand on it's own, and it should be up to each individual to decide how much faith they will put in the evidence shown. It's what we do with our Bible studies, we show them evidence, and on the basis of that evidence the student decides whether they will accept it or not, or reach a different conclusion. It doesn't matter how much faith in that evidence we have ourselves. If you mean that Raymond did separate parallel research on the same subject as the organization, then I do not see that in his first book (I didn't read his second book). From what I've seen, Raymond merely reports on beliefs already held, and how those beliefs had to change due to inaccuracies. I do not see him espousing his own ideas. Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices. So you decide by whose standards are they correct. I don't think that this late in the stream of time it is difficult at all for anyone to see that the organization has had wrong expectations and understanding. Time itself has has proved this. No one has to try very hard at all. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174 https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/#?insight[search_id]=2d58f3a4-a39b-4bab-8385-d3b8065094d5&insight[search_result_index]=1 What Raymond does focus on though is how some of these misunderstandings have had detrimental results in the lives of some friends. Distorted information has no benefit of course. Did you have something in mind in Raymond's book that would be considered distorted information? There are some things I remember that I did not agree on, but it has been a while since I read the book and I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps you can be quicker in giving an example.

What do you mean by meaningless understandings? And what do you mean by "what the world doesn't already know? Please explain a little. Perhaps give examples of the 'meaningless understandings' you have in mind. And what is the 'knowledge' you are talking about that the world ready knows?

That is why I spelled Truth with a capital letter and in quotation marks. I am talking about what most Witnesses understand to be the tenets, based on the Bible, that Jehovah's Witnesses live by. What attracted you to what Jehovah's Witnesses taught'? Why did you become one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Surely there must have been something that you recognized as valuable? I am sorry you had put your faith only in man. It's not funny at all, it's sad. If you are implying that this is wrong, then you have misunderstood the meaning of faith in this case. All of us need to have some faith in fellow human beings, some more than others, and in different circumstances of course. I am sure you have faith in your wife, in your children and others? Faith in this case is synonymous with trust, belief, confidence, reliance. The difference is that faith in God is always completely justified, because He can never fail us, everyone else can. You must have posted this after I went back and clarified that I was not trying to compare the GB with Jesus. The thought did cross my mind that someone might think that this is what I was saying. I was trying to compare the situation. Did you know that a very large majority who leave Jehovah's Witnesses sooner or later become Atheists? They realise that there really is 'no other religion to go away to'. Then you know more than anyone else

I think you have totally misread TTH

Here is my few cents on the Crisis of Conscience. (It’s been a few years since I have last read it though). This book must be unique to any other ex-Witness publication (I have no desire to read any others) just by virtue of the fact that the author was in a truly unique position to be able to write about something that none of the others could. If I was going to read only one book on Jehovah’s Witnesses (besides our publications of course) it would be this one. I say this with a bit of a heavy heart, because this book has been the cause of a multitude ‘falling away’. Perhaps I should rephrase that, it has given the impetus to those who were already on a wavering course for one reason or another. It’s difficult for me to explain this well, but I think those who have seen the ‘Truth’ transform lives for the better, and have experienced and seen this within themselves as well, and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, and those who’s faith is grounded in Jehovah and not mere man, for those people I do not think that reading this book poses a danger to that faith at all. Perhaps not even a danger to the relative faith in the Governing Body for that matter. And it shouldn’t. It’s not that kind of a book. It’s not some kind of ‘expose’ on par with Leah Remini’s whistle-blowing on her former faith. It will surprise some, especially those who have had unrealistic opinions of the Governing Body. But for those who have had more of a pragmatic and scriptural (!) approach, they will find that the element of surprise is not that great, and that in fact they begin to understand some of the things they have wondered about in the past. They will understand the human struggle and imperfections about those whom it has been said that they were the ‘mouthpiece’ of God (Russell etc.). They will understand better the dilemmas regarding end time calculations. They will also find that naturally the book is written with bias (as JW Insider pointed out), but if one can overlook RF’s obvious (and expected) emotional involvement in places, and just concentrate on the facts presented, then one can glean quite a good picture of behind the scenes of the Organization. (I still have to find the places where I thought RF was being unfair and less than honest, but I need time for that. One area where I remember RF was being unfair was in his descriptions of potentially life changing decisions being made in an arbitrarily frivolous manner, devoid of scriptural basis. He seems to omit crucial information and detail where discussion of scriptures and their application must have occurred, and he only talks about HIS input where he used scripture. I find that hard to believe since absolutely any idea put forward in WT publications have always provided an array of scriptural reasons to go with it, even if sometimes wrongly applied. On the other hand he is tries to be fair by admitting that problems were rarely just over looked or ignored. I suppose it was easy for RF to point out failings that became obvious in hindsight.) All in all the book shouldn’t undermine ones belief; in that if you are going to be part of a faith based organization, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only way to go. I think the scripture here could be loosely applied, (although in this case it obviously applied to Jesus, and I am here not trying to compare the GB with Jesus) “.....whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” . The disciples had just learned something ‘shocking’ and many left and did not wait for the resolution of the matter, despite the fact that Jesus demonstrated that he had the sayings of everlasting life. In the same way, if you have recognized the ‘sayings’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses as something valuable, then it would be a shame if you let the various failings of mere humans cloud that overall picture. The shortest way to describe the book? It’s like drawing back the curtain on the old man in the Wizard of OZ. P.S When reading the book one has to bear in mind that here RF is writing about what was the current GB of his time, and that not one of those people make up the GB today. Also, it is the opinion of quite a few, including mine, that if RF hadn’t been made to resign from the GB he would have served on it until his death.

Have you read the book?

This actually this isn't as crazy as it sounds. The reasoning was based on (if I remember correctly) that in order for fornication (which was the only grounds for divorce, according to what Jesus said) to occur, the partner had to "become one" with another person, and that could only happen if the other person was of the opposite sex. That is Biblical. In Jehovah's eyes you cannot become one with anyone but the opposite sex, and you cannot become one with another creature either for that matter. The problem was, that the word 'fornication' was understood to be the same as 'adultery'. However, fornication (porneia) is different. It covers any kind of sexual relations whether with a human or animal. It should have been clear from the start because the scripture in Matthew doesn't say "whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of 'adultery', and marries another commits adultery." It says on the ground of 'fornication'. But we were not the only ones who understood it this way: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/divorce-adultery-law-rules-gay-lesbian-same-sex-affairs-why-dont-they-count-a7533766.html

Yes, I figured as much . I am back on my laptop, slowly recovering from my...whatever virus it was....but I also have a lot of work I have to catch up on so I can't fully concentrate on here. But of course time allowing I will search for it, if it means I have to read the book again! The problem also with any active Witness who would like to write some kind of rebuttal and put their name to it is practically impossible, for obvious reasons, therefore the book has remained largely unchallenged, I think. It definitely gives much impetus to those who are looking for an excuse to get out though.

Sure, but I was asking about YOUR definition

I can see that it would have been difficult to challenge some of these things, because by themselves, if stated completely factually, without any emotion whatsoever, they were unchallengeable. What was disputable though (in my opinion) was the tone and implication of the things that RF wrote, that could be, and were, misleading. He was definitely not without bias, and I could point out a number of statements he made that were 'twisted'. (I would have to look for this again because I do not think I made a note of them, and if I did it was quite a long time ago, so I don't think I could find them that easily, but I do remember there was quite a number). My point is; I think that if Fred Franz would have made some effort in pointing out these obvious biases and subtle misrepresentations he would have had to do so by writing a book himself, as a kind of rebuttal, rather than talking about them. And you and I both know that this is not an option the GB consider.

What do you mean by that? Literally please.

No actually, I was not equating it, or at least if it appeared so, I did not mean that. My point was that anyone can do good or evil, no matter what lofty position they have, and no matter who they are picked by. Jesus could have chosen a different path if he had wanted to, and of course the most infamous example is of Satan, who was originally a perfect angel. So my point was that we should not be surprised if someone we previously considered good turns bad. With regard to RF, that is of course a matter of opinion whether he was good or bad. I do not believe however that Judas was "destined" to be bad, as that would have deprived him of the freedom of choice that has been given to all intelligent creatures in heaven and on earth.

What would you say to Jesus when he handpicked Judas Iscariot as one of his 12 Apostles?

Thank you John. I caught it off my husband, he is better now, and it's his turn to take care of me now 😁 . No, no. No visitors, I wouldn't want them to catch anything!

That might be the explanation next, if nothing happens within 50 years, and I will turn over in my grave and shout; 'thatTrue Tom nailed it all those years ago!'

😂😂😂 don't listen to him @JW Insider

I think, in fact I'm sure, the meeting will be cancelled because of inclement weather. I was going to listen in... We're supposed to get up to 6 inches of snow overnight

I agree that this would be a much more humble and discreet, much less presumptuous than proposing a specific belief without real scriptural support, and then just asking everyone to accept it as the solution. @JaocbI never thought about the option of providing several interpretations. That would have been a good idea. Do you have some in mind? Personally my main worries with this new understanding is that it seems like a grasping at straws, a carrot on a stick, and an actual devaluation of Jesus' admonition to be ready at all times. It'seems putting a date (although it's not a literal date, it is a specific closed time period, so still really concerned with time) is making it easier for people to worship Jehovah for a 'date'. I for the life of me do not understand why the GB found the need to 'reinvent' this interpretation again. For the third time if I'm not mistaken. When this idea first appeared in broadcasting, with br. Splane 'masterfully' explaining it, I asked myself why?? Were many of the friends asking for an interpretation, therefor did the GB decide they have to come up with something? It didn't seem like it, because br. Splane didn't introduce it that way, and he would have done if it was the case. So why? This was really a pain to type as my phone keeps doing weird spell check in several languages. So I'm going to stop there, although it's driving me crazy, because I like to respond

I'm not responding coz I'm sick in bed, and can't use my laptop coz it would mean I would have to unplug it, and the battery is dead so it would take ages to reboot and update. And so I am on my phone and its really a pain to type. So I'm just reading everything for now. You just wait! 😀

Just in case anyone is interested here are the 'closed club' rules: This club is intended for active publishers associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses only. Anyone who does not fall into this category will be denied membership. Members should keep in mind that an opinion on something of a doctrinal nature that is not in line with current understanding does not mean that the current understanding is wrong. Therefore it’s not necessary to take offense, or start defending current understanding just for the sake of it, without actually presenting a reasonable counter argument. Members must realize that one of the objectives of this club is that members should feel comfortable expressing their ideas and discussing things which can be viewed as controversial, as long as these do not become dogmatic and/or are aggressively promoted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it works both ways. Biblical principles to keep in mind: (2 Timothy 2:23-25) Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.. (Titus 3:9, 10) But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine. (1 John 4:1) Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Not allowed: obscene, vulgar, and/or hateful talk, racist remarks, ad hominem attacks (against anyone, which includes the GB), trolling, and links to apostate websites.