TrueTomHarley

1 minute ago, Brother Rando said:

Don't go away mad...   Just go away...

No offence, BR, but whether directed to me or to him, it hardly seems appropriate.

While I was typing, you posted your answer. Thus, the two preceding comments should be in reverse order. They make more sense that way.

20 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I usually try not to focus on the fact that JW's baptize young children because I believe that it's wrong to threaten someone of any age into remaining a member of a religion that they no longer believe in.

Okay. It's a valid question. I'll address it. 

But it will have to be later in the day, possibly even tomorrow, as I must attend to some other things. Possibly someone else will chime in. But whether they do or not, I'll get back to you.

2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

So putting aside the deception that witnesses use to lure in new members

Don't put aside the 'deception that Witnesses use to lure in new members' simply because you got pasted on it. Deal with it.

Or say: "well, I guess I didn't know what I was talking about."

Then bring up children on a separate thread. 

Look, @The Librarian (a fine woman) is trying to impose some order on this chaos. Cooperate with her. Don't just jump in willy-nilly with a blunderbuss

7 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

I am, I'm trying to raise awareness so that no one else gets tricked into joining this cult.

Few things in this world are less tricky than one choosing to become a Witness. One cannot do so without a lengthy period of voluntary study, seldom lasting less than a year in these parts. It is not a religion where one can impulsively "come down and be saved." Almost always, the one who studies the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses is in familiar settings at congregation meetings and a picnic or two - perhaps 5% of one's time is in unfamiliar settings - probably less. One is always in control of one's destiny.

Though it is not my intent to denigrate college here, college is far more 'controlling' than anything JWs originate, in that it separates students almost 100% from what is familiar - a classic tool of 'brainwashing.' 24/7 campus life is a far cry from life back home. The new people of Jehovah's Witnesses trickle in only to the extent and at the rate you want them to. The new people of the college experience replace and overwhelm your former associates from Day 1 - no longer is there the stabilizing influence of family, community groups, or familiar friends.

You just don't like the conclusions JWs have come to, and you mask it with concern about their 'controlling methods.'  Those 'methods' are far less controlling than that of the greater world's system of education.

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

I care because I and thousands of others like me are currently suffering from the abusive policies of this high control group

In that case do not say "believe whatever you want, I don't care." It is misleading.

They are not so 'high control' as you imagine. There is little damage done that cannot be done provided one is not determined to saw off the limb one is sitting on. Set yourself to undo it.

3 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Believe whatever you want I don't care,

For someone who says 'believe whatever you want I don't care,' you sure do seem to care a lot.

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

And while the Council of Jerusalem comparison overall seems appropriate for the GB today, I question whether they exerted the same control we see in the WT organization. We only have one recorded event in the Bible where the first century Christian governing body intervened and made a decree. It was an emergency situation when there was discord in the Christian community. And the goal of the decree was to put less burdens on Christians rather than more.

Perhaps it is as you say about separation of powers, but I suspect you are overthinking this. It is better if you do not.

Search the scriptures for how many indicate submission to a human authority is a good thing. Contrast that with how many indicate congregational authority is a thing that we can accept or reject as we see fit.. 

I think you will find the first vastly outnumber the second.

Of course, the exact methods will always be arguable. So if there is something you absolutely cannot abide, find the faith that is doing a preaching work comparable to Witnesses and go there. Otherwise, remain here - support what you can, sit out what you cannot. Look for what is good, cut slack for what seems lacking, and allow yourself to be taught by Jehovah.

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

Are you honestly going to sit here

I am sitting elsewhere.

2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

 and try to claim that rejection of these teachings doesn't result in disfellowshiping. Especially when this very article is defending the disfellowshiping of those who reject it? 

Read the entire thread mentioned previously before you jump in from nowhere and carry on about what has been covered already. It's only a few months old and the title makes clear which one it is. Add to that thread, if you must - you see any reasonable points uncovered.

1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

This is supposedly a list of the fundamental doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that all are required to believe. You will in most cases be disfellowshiped for not believing in one or more of them.

This statement is ridiculous and has been dealt with in an entire dedicated thread.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 Oh wait, sorry about that last one. I just looked that up again, actually it was a grandfather who designed the water distribution and drainage for the city.

Spill the beans on me and I'll cut off your water supply and make you gift-wrap your own excrement and urine, just like Rabshekah threatened the Israelites 

On December 9, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Diakonos said:

the study conductor really showed to me how, as a general rule, we are such a non-thinking and illogical group of people.

 

I'll allow for this, to a degree. Furthermore, it is not a bad thing. It is in harmony with the first century GB being "uneducated and ordinary," not masters of critical argumentation.

While faith and logic need not be mutually exclusive, you should not expect to PROVE matters of faith by logic.

It ought to be clear that Jesus didn't give two hoots about argumentation.

On December 9, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Diakonos said:

It is also upsetting that the governing body, in instances like this, always speak in the third person. How much more humble would it be for them to say ;

 

Usually it is considered bad form for an author of non-fiction to write in the first person. It is considered immodest.

 It is similar to why you don't say "in my opinion." OF COURSE it's in your opinion. You wrote it.

On December 9, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

 I suggest that it has been more like a scenario where some of the more dominant tourists start guiding the other tourists, loudly and authoritatively explaining details about the city's features that are a mishmash of fact and falsehood. The experienced guide is shaking his head, trying to speak above the few dominant tourists and waving the group back on track but they're all wandering off after the loud, 'knowledgeable' ones.

At this point one of the dominant tourists carjacks a steamroller and attempts to flatten the tour guide.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

How are we in the harvest time right now if the wheat and the weeds are still growing UNTIL the harvest? You just said that harvest time is when the bundles are bundled up, some tossed into the fire, and some bundled for a better purpose. Do you not believe that the wheat is still growing? Isn't the good news still being preached?

As you might have noticed, this is all part of the same 100% consistency among all the scriptures on the subject that point to a Parousia as a judgment event, the Synteleia as a final end involving the judgment event, and the "Harvest" also involving the judgment event AFTER the wheat and weeds are no longer allowed to grow.

This question is better left to others who will discuss it at greater length and with at least as much success.

Not everyone has to weigh in on everything. What - I should spend a few hours online and assume equal weight with the GB?

2 minutes ago, Witness said:

It now ‘plagues’ each JW as the Watchtower hangs on relentlessly to a date

It 'plagues' non-JWs even more, as they have made no progress whatsoever in united declaring the kingdom good news.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I say all that because I finally figured it out, and if you have a suggestion for another post to be at the top of this thread, I can make it happen. If you want one of your own at the top, that would be great, I could always put the one I quoted from in the new top position.

There's a new kid in town.

I, for one, question the authority of @The Librarian! (the old hen) Has she demonstrated that she can do these things? Does she alone have authority? Are not ALL here equally capable? Didn't she SCREW UP the deployment of simple thread technology? For lack of skilled direction, the people suffer!!!

What gives her the right to domineer over the sheep on this forum?!!

I am tired of her controlling attitude.  I think it is only right - YEA - IT IS AN OBLIGATION to question her authority until she gives PROOF that she is handling the word of this forum aright!

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Presumably our discussions here are to seek TRUTH, and to be reasonable about it.

You wouldn't know it by many of the comments.

In most cases, people are merely reiterating the same remarks they made the day they came onboard.

4 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

There were apostles and prophets in the first century (Ephesians 2:20). We know there are no prophets today, so are there still apostles? Can you have one and not the other?

While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets.

Possibly those who bellyached and refused to heed the decision did so on that account - that the then-prophets were ignored! and what right did the elders and apostles have to ignore the prophets?!! Surely those who scream bloody murder at GB decisions today would have screamed bloody murder back then.

Telling to me is the identification of who was acting as restraint to apostasy back then. It was the apostles themselves. The minute they died, it was as if the chorus rang out among the malcontents: "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead." The 'elders' of the Acts 15 "apostles and elders" were not enough to hold back the rebels. What those rebels didn't dare do when the apostles were around, they did with impunity with their successors.

If apostasy could spin out of control the instant the apostles died, what possible chance does it have to not likewise overwhelm today. Plainly ones are pushing for that outcome with all their might. The only thing to thwart them - that they will not be able to prevail against no matter how hard they try - is the fact we are in harvest time now. 'Let the weeds grow along with the wheat until the harvest,' the Master told his workers. 'Come harvest time we'll bundle them up and toss them in the fire.'

10 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

We don't have prophets today, so what Biblical reference point do we use to understand how to view the GB?

All the letters from 1rst century apostles and older men to the congregations and all reactions from them toward those who challenged their authority.

As to the thread title:

"Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?"

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Call me a skeptic, but how can Jehovah God honestly expect JWs to put GB and Moses on the same level?

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Their souls never wore out.

Presumably, this is also true of GB members, past & present.

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

God left no doubt in the mind of the Jews that Moses was divinely appointed and had authority. Dissent was ridiculous.

One would think so. But that did not stop Korah and a whole bunch of others from doing it.

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

It may be an extreme example, but the point remains that these Kings were appointed by God, yet God punished those who followed the King into false worship.

You have not even attempted to make the case - and I trust you won't go there - that the GB is leading people into false worship.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

he didn't spare the followers b/c of the corruption of the leaders. So, why today should we follow without question? Will God care on his judgment day that we just followed along or will he care that we did right according to our own conscience? (And I'm not suggesting the GB is on par with those wicked kings, but I'm just trying to make a point.)

Since you're not suggesting the GB is on par with those corrupt leaders, the premise of your point collapses and the point along with it.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Wasn't the apostle Peter (one of the men taking the lead) openly chastised for avoiding the uncircumcised gentiles? 

Yes. By another one of the leaders.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

Can't imagine any open criticism of the GB today.

If we are to believe JWI, it happens all the time.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

But is it appropriate that all JWs be in 100% agreement with the GB's direction under threat of shunning?

This tired bit of nonsense has been dealt with already. There was an entire thread about it.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

If your Bible based conscience does not harmonize with the group does that make you an "apostate"?

You take a back seat in those instances. Nobody says you can't. It's when you try to grab the wheel that  trouble comes about.

@bruceq's verse is telling: They keep following the Lamb "no matter where he goes." In whose eyes? If it is each one following him no matter where he goes in his own eyes according to that one's own Bible-trained conscience, then some do one thing and some do another. The whole phrase becomes silly, and should be replaced with "each one did what was right in his own eyes."

Since you do not equate the GB with the corrupt, wicked kings, then the model of rebels in the congregation, be that Korah or Hymanaus, is the more appropriate. Further, since it is not corruption or wickedness you object to, then it becomes little more than a matter of style. You don't carry on and on over such things. You just sit out if you can't abide it. To not do so indicates that one really doesn't believe: "it's not about us - it's about God's purpose and the sanctification of his name." 

"It is about us" is the message that comes through loud and clear with the most chronic complainers

In the absence of human authority, when God says something you don't like, you simply interpret it away. 

No harm done.

Nobody has any problem with God. It is always with his human organization.

This is true even with Judas. He and God were tight. But Jesus looked pretty human to him.

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

We all have defense mechanisms that just seem to rise up when we feel our comfort level threatened.

I think most of us first respond like Paul, who 'lost it' in Athens.

"While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he grew exasperated at the sight of the city full of idols. So he debated in the synagogue with the Jews and with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with whoever happened to be there."  Acts 17:16-17  NABRE

Why didn't he mind his own business? Because he became exasperated - wanting to tolerate no rivalry toward Jehovah.

25 minutes ago, Kurt said:

and people started asking questions about God

It is to prevent this that the current persecution is all about. 

this is a fine report, Kurt.