Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Many Miles]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

...

Should we hold Paul's words to the same level of critical examination as we do with the GB?
 

Paul (and presumably his cohorts agreed) told Christians the point at which they should not obey (follow, accept, chose your verb) what he was telling them. He put it in writing.

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?

Where has today's governing body put in writing the point at which we should not obey something they tell us, that they should be accursed? In the super abundance of written words they have published have they provided this litmus test of themselves? I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Also, given their penchant for "organization", in all of their layers upon layers of organizational policies have they clarified how to employ that litmus test of themselves?

To me this is a conspicuous absence of something fundamental about what leaders think of themselves, and how they would expect to be treated by those who look to them as teachers.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.

Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.

One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.

Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

I somewhat agree. The fear of a different (doctrinal) opinion, regardless of the degree of importance of the topic in question (the issue at hand), I think is built into the caution that elders should have while leading the congregation. This is the task given to them by GB through manuals and courses.

Because of the desire to achieve the unity of uniformity to the greatest extent, globally, and small permissible deviations that the GB must be aware of, having different personal views is a slippery slope for members of the JW community.

Elders will always want to know, from that person or those who heard what that person said, whether the expressed opinion remained in the mind of the person who is the source, or was said in front of others, how many, whether the person in question defended his position or even convinced others that what he/she was saying was "better" than the official version. Or is he "promoting" an opinion about something on which "Society" has not expressed a clear opinion, yet.

The tool called conformism arose from the Society's desire for uniform unity, and as a consequence of the fear of schism, as you have described well.
This part of your comment does an excellent job of how the "doctrine", the doctrine of how to "spiritually govern" the congregation, both individual and global, beautifully captures the inner influences and reasons that have shaped the past, and continue to shape the appearance and purpose today.  First of all, in the field of doctrine and instructions (theocracy) on how to live before God and people as a JW.

What regulations can be used to achieve "unity of faith"? To separate "brothers and sisters" from secular society in such a way that the world is marked/declared a hostile environment ruled by Satan. Then to separate them from the content that is opposed to the teachings and patterns of behavior promoted by the Society. Ask followers to completely avoid all written and spoken content coming from former members, and not to associate with them even at the lowest level of social behavior, which is not to say hello to them. 

These described "theocratic" means/tools, I think, slowly lose their power.

[Pudgy]

I am guilty of that myself.

Since the 1960s I have known that the Biblical coincidences in the Bible about celebrating birthdays was based on faulty reasoning, and prohibiting birthday celebrations was unscriptural, but I reasoned that it was good for isolating JWs from the worldly influences … like the Jews dressing in what must have to seemed to the pagan world like ceremonial clowns, what with pomegranates and bells and a box that hit them in the forehead when they walked along. It served as a protection for the Jews back then, and served as a protection for JWs in this century.

So, I went along with it, with enthusiasm. 

I still do!

… but to impose what I still find is a good discipline on other people’s consciences invoking Scriptural Authority for what are two Biblical coincidences is sloppy thinking, bad reasoning, morally reprehensible, and just flat wrong.

It’s a reasonable argument … and MIGHT be true … and I think not celebrating birthdays is a good idea …. think of the harm caused for 80 and more years by removing a simple joy from peoples’ lives, and telling them it is God’s will!

… and disfellowshipping them for celebrating the day of their childrens’ birth.

The logic is the same as:

1.) Women prostitutes often wear high heel shoes.

2.) Nancy and Lois were seen wearing high heel shoes.

3.) Therefore, Nancy and Lois are prostitutes.

I think high heel shoes are obscene, but then again I am sitting in my living room with combat boots on.

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

...

Because of the desire to achieve the unity of uniformity to the greatest extent, globally, and small permissible deviations that the GB must be aware of, having different personal views is a slippery slope for members of the JW community.

...

The tool called conformism arose from the Society's desire for uniform unity, and as a consequence of the fear of schism, as you have described well.

...

These described "theocratic" means/tools, I think, slowly lose their power.

I've not isolated the above comments to have them suggest something other than what you wrote in context. I isolated the above to speak to two notions they contain.

First, the phrases "unity of uniformity" and "uniform unity" are, I think, self-contradictory. Uniformity is a state of being the same in all things all the time without differences. Unity is a state of being united or joined as a whole, despite differences.

All people are different from the next person, including the things they believe and why they believe those things. Because of difference, trying to achieve uniformity is, ultimately, impossible. It’s going to grind people down rather than build them up.

But there are many historical instances of humans who, though not uniform in belief, come together as a group to unify for common cause. Because a common cause draws these people (with all their difference) together for that common cause, the effect is to raise up the people that are unified.

Second, whatever tools are employed to compel people to be uniform will, I agree, lose their power because the overall effect grinds people down rather than raising them up.

 

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

...

Should we, therefore, collectively represent the entire brotherhood and embrace this assessment, as Paul stated in Galatians 1:8? I firmly believe that this should serve as the ultimate criterion for certain members.

So maybe I should ask the question this way:

Where has today's governing body's ever applied the statement "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed" to themselves?

Paul did that. He presented that statement as a litmus test for Christians to apply to him, and to the other apostles.

Where has the society ever done this?

[Many Miles]

51 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

...

Since the 1960s I have known that the Biblical coincidences in the Bible about celebrating birthdays was based on faulty reasoning, and prohibiting birthday celebrations was unscriptural, ...

...

There are probably other members here with more knowledge of this then myself, but were you to inquire of the society today about whether a JW is prohibited from celebrating a birthday (including their own), I think the society would inform you that JWs are not strictly prohibited from the practice. The person might not be used in privileged assignments, but that would be about it. However, were the same JW to begin promoting the idea that the society's teaching on the subject is wrong, the reaction could be an adverse action for causing division.

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

First, the phrases "unity of uniformity" and "uniform unity" are, I think, self-contradictory. Uniformity is a state of being the same in all things all the time without differences. Unity is a state of being united or joined as a whole, despite differences.

Maybe I didn't know how to explain better. Uniformity is visible through, for example, the same magazine (content) which is published almost simultaneously or at the same time and is studied in all congregations all over the world at the same time, so a conclusion is made about the existence/visibility of the unity of the international brotherhood. Or conversely, unity is seen through uniformity when all JWs study the same Watchtower on the same day. 

That's why I combined the two concepts in a perhaps clumsy way, especially since I think in my native language, and I'm trying to convey it in another language.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Where has today's governing body put in writing the point at which we should not obey something they tell us, that they should be accursed?

1. GB did not write that anywhere
2. Geoffrey Jackson said this before the ARC in Australia in 2015
3. His public testimony (some would say that he was called before the court of this world to testify for Jesus and YHVH) is recorded in the Court records available to the public
4. Official JW Television and their website did not broadcast the GB member's testimony for the International Brotherhood to see and hear

 

[Many Miles]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

1. GB did not write that anywhere
2. Geoffrey Jackson said this before the ARC in Australia in 2015
3. His public testimony (some would say that he was called before the court of this world to testify for Jesus and YHVH) is recorded in the Court records available to the public
4. Official JW Television and their website did not broadcast the GB member's testimony for the International Brotherhood to see and hear

 

Your first comment is exactly my point, and it's out of step with the early apostles.

The early apostles (represented by Paul in his letter to Galatia) applied language to themselves as a warning for Christians to heed. Paul wrote, "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed." Paul specifically applied that to himself, and the other apostles, or anyone who might do as he said.

That was an excellent warning issued to early Christians that, if heeded, would help them maintain their unity around their common cause of Christ and faith in his kingdom rule sure to come. Today's governing body among JWs has, to my knowledge, never issued a protective warning like that to us that they apply to themselves for our sake, as the early apostles did for their brothers in faith.

I am familiar with Geoffrey Jackson's testimony before the Royal Commission in Australia. What he said, as far as I can recall off hand, is that it would be presumptuous to think JWs are are the sole people representing Jehovah today, or words to that effect. He may have said it specifically of the governing body, but I'm just going from memory here. I'd have to look up the transcript in my library to verify the precise words. I don't think he applied the same warning that Paul did in his letter to Galatia for Christians.

[Srecko Sostar]

20 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I am familiar with Geoffrey Jackson's testimony before the Royal Commission in Australia. What he said, as far as I can recall off hand, is that it would be presumptuous to think JWs are are the sole people representing Jehovah today, or words to that effect. He may have said it specifically of the governing body, but I'm just going from memory here. I'd have to look up the transcript in my library to verify the precise words. I don't think he applied the same warning that Paul did in his letter to Galatia for Christians.

Yes, you remember well about that. However, I did not think of that when I listed those 5 points. It is in connection with Gal 1:8.

He spoke to the thesis that JWs are so independent that they can on the basis of the Bible itself, the Bible alone, "notice" (his word) whether the directive/instruction/doctrine that the GB publishes is correct or incorrect.
It is significant that he stopped there, giving no indication that the followers would be allowed to be disobedient. He continues with the thesis that if the directive is in accordance with the Bible, then how can GB expect JWs to accept it.

Notice: to see or become conscious of something or someone

Video- from 3:20

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

 

I the same video.

Regarding the role of women as judges. Mr. G. Jackson says, "The role of judges in the congregation is on men. We shall never fall in that."

Mr. Peter McClellan ask; "Can you give me a reference for that?"

Why a member of the governing body forgets that God does not forbid women to be judges. In book Judges 4:4,5 is written; "Now DEBORAH, a prophetess, the WIFE of Lappidoth, was JUDGING Israel ..., and the sons of Israel would GO UP TO HER FOR JUDGMENT." Is this is not "BIBLE PRECEDENT SAMPLE" for that ...

...also as one person testimony in book Deuteronomy 22:25-27.

But Mr. G. Jackson said he will ask Jesus for answer once in the future.

Shame on him !

 

@sreckosostar4299

prije 1 godinu

 @pawelwalecki9363  JW interprets NT in such a way that members of the 144,000 class, made up of Women and Men, will be kings and priests along with Christ and judge people. So I don't see what the problem is. Why do GB and JW elders feel that only they have the privilege of participating in the “decision making aka judging” of their spiritual brothers and sisters in present time, and women in the future? The existence of exceptions, such as Deborah, proves that God has nothing against women in the position of judge. Because, probably, he would not allow an exception to happen in "his organization". On the other hand, what if God “allows” JW men not to allow JW women access to management positions in a JW organization, but does not approves such conduct. Furthermore, both OT and NT have an expiration date. After them always comes something new and different. Maybe, before God, NT fulfilled its purpose as well as OT, and JW followers didn’t recognize it?

[Many Miles]

47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, you remember well about that. However, I did not think of that when I listed those 5 points. It is in connection with Gal 1:8.

He spoke to the thesis that JWs are so independent that they can on the basis of the Bible itself, the Bible alone, "notice" (his word) whether the directive/instruction/doctrine that the GB publishes is correct or incorrect.
It is significant that he stopped there, giving no indication that the followers would be allowed to be disobedient. He continues with the thesis that if the directive is in accordance with the Bible, then how can GB expect JWs to accept it.

Notice: to see or become conscious of something or someone

Video- from 3:20

 

 

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.