Anna

26 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

What is the Ex-JW and opposers perception about 607BC, 537BC 1874, 1878, 1914, 1917, 1919, 1925, 1969, 1975 etc.? This is a common theme for ex-JW's books. Nothing original.

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

35 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

If people never understood the significance of these dates, yet are willing to break ranks because of a misguided understanding, what would be the message for loyal witnesses, and what would it be called aside from meaningless.

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.

40 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

It becomes a personal opinion about something they believed was understood like Raymond, and then the facts weren’t.

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.

44 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Don’t you think Raymond put too much faith on research gathered, rather trust in God the vast research done by the organization reached a different conclusion?

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.

55 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Yet, Raymond and people like Raymond came to an absolute decision, they are correct. By who's standards are they correct?

Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices.  So you decide by whose standards are they correct.

59 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

So, excuse me, I rather trust in God and Bible understanding rather than men trying very hard to prove the organization wrong.

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.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

When the same distorted information is circulated, what is the benefit?

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.

6 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

I only see meaningless understandings just like any other ex-JW book out there. There's nothing original that the world doesn't already know.

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?

10 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better..."  Misuse of the word Truth. Truth is from God through Jesus Christ, NOT through the GB of JW Org. 

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.

13 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

"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, .. "

You jest of course ? When teachings /doctrines change constantly. Twisting the meanings of scripture. Are you sooo blind. ? 

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?

17 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

"and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, "  It gets funnier. 

I am sorry you had put your faith only in man. It's not funny at all, it's sad.

19 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

" faith in the Governing Body "  Your words Anna. 

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.

30 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And then you dare to compare the GB with Jesus. "..whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” "

31 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think you would willingly follow the GB over a cliff if you were told to. You'd think it was God's will.  

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.

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

Well, then it appears that you hold the same misguided understanding on what the definition of apostate means.

Have you read the book?

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "The Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce.. "

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

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you can recall any of those items you thought "twisted" that could be very important to the current discussion.

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.

15 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna  I quoted from FelixCA  " If you’re a person that is looking for excuses to fade or leave, promote this book if you must, just keep the Watchtower and faithful followers of Christ out. Perhaps JW only would be more suitable to discuss this among yourselves since no one will be able to refute misguided understanding." 

Sure, but I was asking about YOUR definition

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

expresses agreement with many details that some Witnesses had first seen in R.Franz book, and had found difficult to believe.

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.

17 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for faithful followers of Christ.

What do you mean by that? Literally please.

On 1/21/2019 at 12:00 PM, Witness said:

Are you equating this to the GB, or Raymond Franz as being “handpicked by Jesus” to do good, or evil?

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. 

18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So there you had a member of the GB, who was supposed to be of the 'Faithful and discreet slave ' and he had opinions that should have been guided by God's Holy Spirit. 

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

8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I hope you get well soon and I hope some Sisters are visiting you to give you help and give you practical and spiritual support.

Anna, keep up your prayers to God, and get well soon. 

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!

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

GENERATION (GENE-RATION)  from. ‘gene,’ a foreshortened version of generous, i.e. abundance 

and

’ration’ which suggests a limited supply, the very opposite of abundance.

From this we may conclude that the word itself is an oxymoron. Think anything you want.

”I think he’s got it. I think he’s got it. BY GEORGE, HE’S GOT IT!!”

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!'

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

but he is like a person who likes to talk.

😂😂😂 don't listen to him @JW Insider

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Sounds like you can only "Do-little" for now, but if you scream to get your doctor double-quick, maybe you'll be off a second later, and get yourself to the Kingdom Hall on time, tomorrow.

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

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

23 hours ago, Jaocb said:

Now my view is that they should have provided numerous possible interpretations and we just watch and see which seems to be more true. This is my contention.

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 

On 1/18/2019 at 2:13 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'm noticing a lack of response from others here. 

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.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 

But of course some of us will be spoken about in your 'posh' private club. So be it. It seems you need to regroup to think up moe rubbish to hide the faults of your GB and you JW Org.  Cowards, but there you are. 

God will, when He is ready, sort out the Org and the GB. Just as He sorted out the Pharisees. So it's not really a problem for me.

Finding real truth is more important to me that worrying myself about people that bury their heads in the Org. 

As far as I am aware we haven't mentioned you once John, sorry.  But we can change that, how about the topic "John the cry baby"  . And you are funny with your assumptions. You don't take a break. 

Remember though that members of the "closed club" still comment here too.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So the 'loyal club' does exist. Such a shame that they cannot face truth as it is now. So easy to hide behind closed doors. 

It's called the "closed Club" . Are you able to read the rules of the club? If yes, then you will notice you do not qualify. That's just life John, and that is the prerogative of the club's owner. He can determine who gets to join. I can't join our local golf club, because I don't qualify. As for your other sentiments, well you are assuming a lot. You have no idea what we cover in there.  Same goes for @Shiwiii just assuming things. But that seems to be what you guys do.

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As a victim of child abuse myself

What justice did you get?

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

What else do you suggest we do? I recall Anna asking you this question and you did not answer it. 

If I remember right, I think it was @Srecko Sostar who I asked.