Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Juan Rivera]

15 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).

More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

This is why I'm a firm believer that people who want to conduct academic debates about theology, study philosophy before they study theology. Some of those concepts are metaphysical. But even more necessary are the epistemological ones, especially those in logic and critical thinking. (I’ll admit I’m an epistemological tyro). Without a proper study of philosophy, there is a lot of frustrating going-round-in-circles.

 

[Many Miles]

24 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

I wonder what you think about the early Church; was it, in your opinion, a denomination? If yes, then how did it not exemplify the true church. But if no, then what is the principled difference between what the early Church was and a denomination, and why do you think Jehovah’s Witnesses are a denomination and not what the early Church was?

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 

Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.

23 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Until the Reformation, almost all Christians believed that Christ established an organization/institution (one hierarchically organized body). Were they all wrong?

Yes.

23 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Was the true Church not exemplified until the plethora of denominations arose after the Reformation? Or the last two hundred years?

See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 

Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.

I hear you. I probably mentioned already on the forum that I grew up as a Witness and baptized at 15, but then got caught in Greg Stafford’s theology (Mere Christianity) at 18 which then evolved in me becoming a Neo-Anabaptist for 5/6 years when I was 21, back in (2011- 2016) while still being a Witness. I explored other options after as well, but found that I could not take them seriously as intellectual propositions and remained a Witness.

I try to be careful when constructing arguments and often wonder if I have understood and learned the other person’s position. So I try to live by these three options:

Try to refute the argument.

Say that I need time to think about it.

Or accept the conclusion of the argument.

Anything else would be intellectual sloppiness at best.

I’m still trying to grasp and understand your position and of other Witnesses here, especially JW Insider’s since I used to believe the same thing you guys do (a more rudimentary form though 😂) in ecclesiology.

I'm not saying that the thesis you have described is unreasonable. But I do believe that it is neither fitting nor true.

Looking forward to our discussions. I've some catching up to do. I’ll get to reading all your points and JW insiders eventually.

 

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

I explored other options after as well, but found that I could not take them seriously as intellectual propositions and remained a Witness. [Underlining added by Many Miles]

In that case there's a single doctrinal position you need to apply yourself to. The society's blood doctrine.

That doctrine has led to a lot of premature death.

From day one there has been disagreement within the community of JWs about the merit of this doctrine. From day one. And people are dying over it.

If that teaching is demonstrably wrong then the society has bloodguilt. If a person stands in even tacit support of that, natural law condemns them. Also, what God said to Noah condemns them too. Look close. Look very close. And, look hard. You don't want to be on the wrong side of that teaching.

"No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends." (Jesus)

In reverse chronological order:

- If we have permission to donate our life to save a friend then we have permission to donate our blood to save a friend

- Christians have never been under Mosaic law provisions related to blood

- Noah was told nothing whatsoever about donor blood

- God said nothing to Adam or Eve prohibiting them from anything they might want to do with blood

 

[Juan Rivera]

 

@Many Miles I haven't fully read your above response, but I will follow up. 

Can you disclose or tell me a bit more what is your relationship with the Congregation and if you consider yourself a Witness? I’m intrigued in learning where you are coming from? I don’t mean to be nosy, and fully understand the repercussions. 

To give you some background. And please don’t take this the wrong way. I am of the belief of using your real name, unless doing so would risk your career or livelihood. Real names makes us accountable for our words, by tying our reputations to what we say and how we say it. Transparency contributes to authentic dialogue, anonymity detracts.  I’ve said in the forum before that I am not a fan of anonymous internet dialogue because it artificially separates persons from ideas and arguments, and in this way it assumes a false anthropology, as if we are mere intellects, and not embodied beings with feelings and biases and emotions, character, histories, etc. In my opinion, so long as a person remains anonymous or hides his or her identity behind a moniker or an avatar she remains incapable of entering into authentic dialogue, because authentic dialogue requires the personal authenticity by which we reveal who we are, where we stand, and take responsibility for our words, by allowing them to be connected with our personal identity by those who we enter into dialogue. Maintaining anonymity, for example, hinders the development and expression of sociability. I don't think that ideas and persons can ever be fully separated. All dialogue is between persons, and it involves the character of the participants.

My reason for including some biographical facts here and elsewhere in the forum is not to persuade other Witnesses, but only to explain that I don't think that ideas and persons can ever be fully separated. The more I know about you, the more I can determine your credibility, your sincerity, your authenticity, and likewise the same is true the more you know about me.

I'd be glad to learn more specifically what your position actually is from a JW framework. Feel free to write me privately to discuss your thoughts.

[Many Miles]

4 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Can you disclose or tell me a bit more what is your relationship with the Congregation and if you consider yourself a Witness?

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs.

I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961.

In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about.

For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that.

5 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

In my opinion, so long as a person remains anonymous or hides his or her identity behind a moniker or an avatar she remains incapable of entering into authentic dialogue, because authentic dialogue requires the personal authenticity by which we reveal who we are, where we stand, and take responsibility for our words, by allowing them to be connected with our personal identity by those who we enter into dialogue.

I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs.

I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961.

In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about.

For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that.

I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

@Many MilesAppreciate your response🙏 I hope that one day we can engage in a dialogue and share a meal in person. Same with @JW Insider Between 2017 and 2020, during my intellectual crisis following my epistemological crisis. I traveled across the US to converse with elders and others capable of aiding me in resolving my lingering questions.(Grew up in Dallas and currently live there) It was during that time that I had the opportunity to meet Brother Edgar Foster in North Carolina, Brother Hal Flemings in San Diego, and other brothers who had collaborated with Greg Stafford in his research before his disassociation.

I also got to meet a friend who is a professor of philosophy of religion in Iowa. I had everything planned to study in Iowa while I was working in Chicago (ended up sleeping in my car for a full year) 😂Traveling back and forth working while attending college, pretty much putting myself at the feet of those who were masters of the science, especially since that friend also had a lot of training in exegesis as well. However, fate led me to Walkill, NY, where I stayed for two years. During this period, brother Flemings connected me with Governing Body helpers from the translation and writing departments who were open to discussing my inquiries.

I would love to meet Rotherham(moniker) in person as well, but I don’t think he likes my personality or style of writing 😆 @JW Insider I sent him an email but haven’t heard back. I would like to know how he’s doing health wise. Perhaps you can reach Jim Seward (Jimspace) he’s an elder in Upstate, NY my understanding is that they are close.  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/?m=1

[Many Miles]

14 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

During this period... connected me with Governing Body helpers from the translation and writing departments who were open to discussing my inquiries.

Good for you. I was denied this. Perhaps my questions where too precise and hit too close to home. They asked for my questions up front. But they also knew I was not going to be intimidated or distracted from having them answer what needed to be answered. They knew me plenty well enough to know that. Then they outright refused to meet with me in person despite long time appointment within the organization. They just would not do it.

It's really too bad, and sad. It could be so much better.

[Many Miles]

23 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

...brother Flemings...

I had discussions with him. He knows me. He had no answers either, except to fall back on secular constitutional legalism, which proves nothing from a logical let alone a scriptural perspective. But the worst was his use of demonstrably false premises. He just could not accept that certain premises put forth by the society could be false. This despite evidence as plain as his face in a mirror. Those premises asserted by the society are presented here:

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

I don't have a problem when someone declares themselves apostates.

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. 

In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING  Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active).

Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.]

Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. 

Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. 

But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 

So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

[Many Miles]

Apostasy? Well that's a loud word! Let's say it again. Apostasy! Everyone feel better now?

Jesus was accused and put to death for blasphemy. Blasphemy was held on par with apostasy by the same murderers. So what? If our Master is the Christ, should any of us expect better treatment? The main thing is making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine.

What is true is what matters. Those who prefer what is false over what is true will attempt to characterize (brand) persons all manner of ways to distract from their showing a preference for what is false over what is true. If we suffer, let it be over saying things that are true.

Don't let distractions interfere with focusing on truth.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. 

Yes. I heard that. Loud and clear. Couldn't help but wonder the same as you did. Only you had even more personal reason for feeling what you felt than I.