Outsmart - DJeggnogg - You keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc. What you fail to discern with most of us is that the problem doesn't lie with the elders necessarily. They are just as much mind controlled as we all were at one point. The problem lies with the governing body.
DJ - How so? If you happen to know these men personally, the ones that sit on the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, then perhaps there is a legitimate reason for your disdain from them. For reasons unbeknownst to me, you don't much care for these men in the least, which is fine with me, but why should I care that you don't care for them much? Why aren't you man enough to take pencil or pen to paper and tell them what you think of them? Why would you be here telling me what you think about these men? I suppose I could contact these men and tell them that you don't like them very much, but I'm pretty sure that they would all of them think that I'd lost my senses passing on such tripe to them.
Outsmart - Never once did I indicate that I know these men personally. One does not have to know the President of the U.S. to determine whether or not he likes his leadership or the direction he is taking. For reasons unbeknownst to you? How about promulgating false prophecy? How about adding to the bible? ""When it comes to valueless words, elders too learn an important lesson. Whenever they are called upon to give counsel, they bear in mind their limitations and do not presume to offer counsel solely from their own personal store of knowledge. They should always point to what the Bible says. A sound rule is found in the words of the apostle Paul. "Do not go beyond the things that are written". Elders do not go beyond the things that are written in the bible. And by extension, they do not go beyond the bible-based counsel written in the publications of the faithful and discreet slave." (Apr 15, 2008 p7) The italicized portion of this text clearly shows that the FDS feels that they have the authority to "extend" the bible. They say that it is bible based but is it? Where does the bible say that buying a raffle ticket to help raise money for cancer is a form of greed? It doesn’t. The FDS made "extensions" to include that. Where does the bible say that a man should not have any "privileges" if he grows a beard? Where does the bible give the authority to disfellowship someone who refuses to curtail their association with a disfellowshipped person? The list of "extensions" is practically endless.
DJ - Neither did I say that you knew the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses personally. I'm not cognizant of there being a problem with the governing body, but this doesn't mean that you have one or more gripes against these men yourself. Let's say you had a problem with the decision-making of one of the supervisorial people still working at the place of employment at which you had formerly worked, which severing of your employer-employee relationship led to your currently unemployed there. My point is that for you to be telling any of your former coworkers your grievances about someone with whom you no longer work as if your relating these grievances to them would lead to these former coworkers of yours either becoming disenchanted or angry enough that they quit their jobs in protest over the things you will have persuaded them to believe that make this former supervisor incompetent to serve as a supervisor in your former place of employment could work, but I don't think your former coworkers would actually quit their jobs and join the ranks of unemployed over your gripes.
You come off as if you know the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses personally, so that there are things in particular that, say, Theodore Jaracz, Stephen Lett or Gerrit Losch have said to you, thinks over which you have gripes, then why not take a pen and paper to one of them to let them know your feelings. Even if you should no longer be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and/or you don't know any one of them personally, I can imagine that they would give consideration to whatever you should say, and get a reply off to you, even if someone else should be asked to do so on their behalf, whereas a former supervisor of yours at the place where you no longer work would likely ignore such communication from you were you to put pen to paper and send your gripes about this supervisor to your former employer.
Outsmart - Exactly how did I come off as though I knew the governing body members personally? Did I mention any one by name? Did I relate any personal experience? No. My "griping" was in regard to the governing body as a whole and I tried to make that clear. You said in your opening line "neither did I say that you knew the members" thus indicating that you finally understand that I do not know them. Yet immediately after that admission….you continue to ramble on with a pointless employer/employee example.
Again…..being still baptized and having family still involved in this cult, do you really think that picking up a pen and paper and writing all of my beliefs and issues out and sending it in to NY will possibly have a good ending? I will get a "loving" letter back in the mail that proves none of my accusations wrong….rather..it will only reiterate the governing body’s stance on the issues. The local elders will be CC’d and they will want to talk with me. If they talk with me and I agree with what they say then YAY! An imaginary sheep has been saved. If I continue to disagree, I may be subject to disfellowshipping. Great plan, DJ!
___________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - One does not have to know the President of the U.S. to determine whether or not he likes his leadership or the direction he is taking.
DJ - Wait a sec! Are you referring to the direction that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is taking those of us who are Jehovah's Witnesses? If anyone isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then what business would the direction in which those who are actively Jehovah's Witnesses are being taken be to folks on the outside, those who are not non-Jehovah's Witnesses, those who are former Jehovah's Witnesses or those who are in the so-called "conscious class" in fade?
Unlike a US president, the governing body doesn't "govern" any nation of people with its own man-made laws and precepts, but it serves as a central body of elders to uses the Bible to provide oversight with respect to the worldwide preaching activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in searching out those that respond favorably to the good news and wish to enter into the blessings in store for those that survive the end of this system of things to become the nucleus of the new earth under God's heavenly kingdom by Jesus Christ.
As the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, you are mistaken to believe that you can check the hand of our king to tell him what things you don't like about his leadership over the remnant of his own congregation, especially considering the fact that all mature Christians recognize the fact that he appointed the faithful and discreet slave over all of his spiritual belongings in 1919 or whenever it was that he and his father, Jehovah, came to his temple to judge the work that his followers here on earth were doing at that time. Our growth demonstrates God's blessing is with the work that the slave has done since 1919, considering the Bible example of how Achan caused God's blessings to be hindered upon his people in Jericho, when he decided to steal from Jehovah. (Joshua 6:19; 7:1-26)
Of course, if you're not spiritually mature, then you won't be able to make the connection here in the amount in the book of Joshua with the blessings that Jehovah's Witnesses have had in connection with their spiritually activities since 1919, so I'm hoping that you are able to take my point that it doesn't much matter whether or not you personally approve of the work that Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing and are currently doing, or the work that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses have done and are currently doing. We are seeking Jehovah's blessing on our efforts, even if whatever we are doing doesn't meet with your approval. We are working out our own salvation.
Outsmart - Yes I am referring to that direction. As mentioned before but you seem to have difficulty remembering, I am still in theory a baptized witness. And as mentioned before, my family is still involved in the cult, so yes, I have a vested interest in their mind control and spirit-lacking teachings.
So…..the GB doesn’t govern with man made laws? OK. Just wanted to make sure.
I am not checking the hand of Christ. I am challenging the authenticity of the GB’s claims that Jesus chose them (technically their predecessors). Please provide some proof that Jesus appointed Rutherford and his minions in 1919. If you can do so, then I may actually believe that Christ is actually your head and that he directs your organization. Your growth demonstrates God’s blessing is being bestowed? Really? How about the Mormons? They’ve really grown in the last 100 years. God must really be blessing them. How about Scientology? Islam? All are growing. But certainly none of those religions have the stellar 2% growth rate of the Witnesses! Yep. Your growth certainly has nothing to do with increased population and the law of large numbers does it? But for the record……what are your thoughts on other religions and their increase in numbers? Is that just coincidence? Or perhaps the devil is directing them and making it seem like it is God? After all, Satan keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, right?
Outsmart - How about promulgating false prophecy?
DJ - "Promulgating" as in inventing prophecies that aren't really Bible prophecies? First of all, to promulgate is to make law, and Jehovah's Witnesses -- and by "Jehovah's Witnesses" here I mean to include the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses -- do not make law. Secondly, you speak here about false prophecy and yet (1) prophecy isn't the same as a commandment, but prophecies are predictions of future events and (2) as far as the prophecies that one reads in the Bible are concerned, they have all of them come true, so unless you happen to have an example of one of God's prophecies that should have already been fulfilled, but hasn't been fulfilment, then I'd say that what you have just asserted here is false.
Outsmart - To promulgate (actually the first definition) also means to promote or make widely known. But thank you for your attempted correction. Now then…you say that the GB (or Jehovah’s Witnesses) does not make law. Let’s go back to the whole beard thing. If I grow a beard, I am not allowed any "privileges" in my congregation. Granted the choice is still mine as to whether or not to grow one….but the point is….if I do…I have no privileges. If I have a beard……THEY withdraw privileges. How is that not a law made by men? If you exceed the speed limit, and you are caught, you will receive a citation. You have the "right" to exceed the speed limit so long as you accept the consequences. The same thing applies. It is a law whether it is abided by or not. It is enforced by issuing speeding tickets. Not having a beard is a law that is enforced by the withdrawing of "privileges". I never said that prophecy is the same as a commandment. I understand that they are predictions of future events. I never intimated that a BIBLICAL prophecy had failed. Remember….the topic here is the GB and THEIR failed prophecies. Try to stay on track, please. I’ll give you an example. Here is a quote from your spiritual granddaddy Mr. Rutherford, "
What, then, should we expect to take place? The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favour, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth."
Of course you will not refer to this as a failed prophecy even though he clearly says that 1925 is the year to expect the return of the "faithful men of old". You will probably take the FDS’ point of view that this was merely "expressed opinion", right? In fact, the 1980 yearbook says so. "
Certainly they have not returned. No one has seen them, and it would be foolish to make such an announcement. It was stated in the "Millions" that we might reasonably expect them to return shortly after 1925, but this was merely an expressed opinion."
Interestingly though, the June 1, 1997 Watchtower says the following, "
Modesty on the part of the faithful and discreet slave class…..prevents it from presumptuously running ahead and wildly speculating about things"
Tell me, what is the difference between "expressed opinion" and "speculation"? I’ll save you the headache of trying. There is none. They are synonyms for one another. So the 1980 yearbook admits that Rutherford’s statement was nothing more than "expressed opinion" (to weasel out of accusing him of falsely prophesying). Yet the Watchtower mentioned above says that modesty PREVENTS the FDS from wildly speculating. But since I know neither you nor the FDS likes the word "speculate" perhaps I should have said ……Yet the Watchtower mentioned above says that modesty PREVENTS the FDS from wildly expressing opinion. So which is it Chief? Did Rutherford falsely prophesy? Or did the Watchtower lie about not expressing opinion or….speculating?
Outsmart - How about adding to the bible?
DJ - What exactly have Jehovah's Witnesses, or what exactly has someone among the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, added to the Bible? I need you to provide an example of something contained in the Bible that has been added to it, an example of something that you have yourself discovered to have been a case where Jehovah's Witnesses have tampered with the Bible to make it say something that it doesn't say. Or, I will need you to provide an example of something that you yourself have discovered to have been a case where Jehovah's Witnesses have tampered with the Bible by omitting something from it that it should say, but doesn't.
Outsmart - The accusation of adding to the bible should not be taken literally. If anyone would understand not taking things too literally (your belief of the rich man and Lazarus) I would think it would be some like yourself. You know….a "mature Christian". That is why I mentioned that Apr 15, 2008 article. I thought you’d be able to put 2 and 2 together but I am sorely mistaken. No the GB did not write a 67 th book to the bible but it is painfully evident that they feel that they can indeed give "extensions" to the bible. The bible does not prohibit birthday celebrations….but the FDS does. They use several points of "logic" to come to this conclusion but the main one is that the bible mentions 2 birthdays and at both….someone was murdered. Using this logic….perhaps I should get rid of my dog. After all, the bible speaks rather negatively about dogs. Surely Jehovah must disapprove of them as well.
Now that I think about it….there is one area of the bible that comes to mind that the Witnesses added. Take a look at Colossians 1:16 and 17. It is very clear why the NWT has the words [other] inserted. But please tell me where….in the original Greek writing is the word "other" found? Yes….the word "other" is found in brackets thus indicating that the original text did not include it…..but…if the original text didn’t include it then why did they feel the need to put it in there aside from making it match their theology?
Outsmart - "When it comes to valueless words, elders too learn an important lesson. Whenever they are called upon to give counsel, they bear in mind their limitations and do not presume to offer counsel solely from their own personal store of knowledge. They should always point to what the Bible says. A sound rule is found in the words of the apostle Paul. "Do not go beyond the things that are written". Elders do not go beyond the things that are written in the bible. And by extension, they do not go beyond the bible-based counsel written in the publications of the faithful and discreet slave." (Apr 15, 2008 p7) The italicized portion of this text clearly shows that the FDS feels that they have the authority to "extend" the bible. They say that it is bible based but is it? Where does the bible say that buying a raffle ticket to help raise money for cancer is a form of greed? It doesn’t. The FDS made "extensions" to include that. Where does the bible say that a man should not have any "privileges" if he grows a beard? Where does the bible give the authority to disfellowship someone who refuses to curtail their association with a disfellowshipped person? The list of "extensions" is practically endless.
DJ - When I read your words here, I began to sigh over them, for in reading them, it became manifest to me that there are clearly a few basic principles that you do not now comprehend, even if you might have associated with Jehovah's Witnesses for 10, 20 or 30 years. I am made to wonder, for example, what part of "the holy spirit and we ourselves" at Acts 15:28 didn't you understand.
Outsmart - I understand it to mean that the holy spirit directed and the apostles agreed. I have already explained this. Remember, I think for myself and reason. You are not allowed to. We’ll get into the flaws of your understanding later.
DJ - According to what we read at 1 Timothy 3:5, 12, those appointed as elders and ministerial servants in the congregation must be men that preside in a fine manner over his own households before consideration can be given to having them preside over God's congregation, and at 1 Timothy 3:15, specifically, "the congregation of the living God" is described by the apostle Paul as being "God's household." It is important to note that it is by means of the words of the apostle Paul in these two Bible passages that the holy spirit speaks to God's household.
In addition, Paul makes two other points, first, at 1 Timothy 5:14, that younger widows must manage their own households until they should marry, while, second, at 1 Timothy 5:8, he states that if anyone that ought to be providing for those who are "members of his household" does not do so, then he, or she, would be considered as having "disowned the faith." Likewise, it is through these two Bible passages as well that the holy spirit speaks to all Christians. This is God's arrangement of things.
I don't know who presides over your household, @outsmartthesystem, but, according to the Bible, the single parent ought to preside in single-parent households, and not the children, and in households where there are two parents, it is the man, whether he be believing or unbelieving, that ought to be the one presiding over it, not the believing or unbelieving woman. In God's household, it is the elders and ministerial servants, those men that are taking the lead in the congregation, that are the ones that ought to be presiding over the congregation, the ones that ought to be presiding over God's household. This is God's arrangement of things.
Since it is the holy spirit that tells us what God's arrangement is for Christians that are a part of God's household, those that are not among those that are to preside over the congregation ought to "be submissive" to the elders and ministerial servants that the holy spirit gives such authority, even if we should disagree with them. (Hebrews 13:17) These men will render an account for their decisions, good and bad, but for anyone to make their role one that involves a lot of sighing on their part, then this would be tantamount to taking a stand against God's arrangement, for the holy spirit also says, at Romans 13:1, 2, that "there is no authority except by God" and that anyone that "opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God."
At John 21:15-17, Jesus three times underscored the importance of those appointed to shepherd the flock of God in their case, to feed the sheep, when he told the apostle Peter to "feed my lambs." Note that Jesus is referring to his disciples, not to those who have not yet become his followers, so it is with the flock of God -- Jesus' sheep -- those that comprise the Christian congregation that Jesus exhorted Peter, and by extension, exhorted those appointed to take the lead to "shepherd my little sheep" and to "feed my little sheep. the elders and ministerial disciples, to be about doing just this, to "shepherd the flock of God" that has been placed in their care. (1 Peter 5:2, 3)
Outsmart - This is all fine and dandy……if we were talking about 1 st century households and congregations. But we’re not. We are talking about the authority that the FDS gives themselves. You just gave me a completely irrelevant lecture. I could only imagine trying to respectfully listen to you as a householder.
DJ - You have here quoted from something you read in a Watchtower article, but I don't care to discuss what this Watchtower article says with you. It is evident from what you say here that you are of the belief that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who merely represent the faithful and discreet slave, are, in fact, the faithful and discreet slave, and that your are also of the belief that our governing body believes it has authority to "'extend' the Bible."
Outsmart - Why do you refuse to discuss the article with me? Is it because your fearless leaders do indeed "add to what is written" by virtue of your hallowed magazines? What does it matter if I use "governing body" in lieu of "faithful and discreet slave"? Am I aware of the difference? Yes. The faithful slave TECHNICALLY is comprised of all spirit anointed Christians including those members of the governing body. The governing body is merely a group of 7 men that represents the faithful and discreet slave. Another way to look at is that you can be part of the FDS without being part of the GB, but you can’t be part of the GB without being part of the FDS, no? Therefore I can and do freely use the term "governing body" when referring to the FDS because they are indeed supposedly "anointed" and they are the ONLY ones that make decisions. The point is……ALL decisions…edicts…changes in teaching blah blah blah comes from those 7 men in Brooklyn. There is a little old woman that is "part of the anointed" in the local kingdom hall. Never once has she been consulted by the governing body in regard to ANYTHING. Nor does any other member of the FDS get consulted. It all comes down to the 7 men in Brooklyn and what they decide. So….I hope that I’ve made it clear that I do understand the difference between the GB and the FDS. That being said, even if I were confused…..even if I believed that the GB and the FDS were exactly the same….why would that prevent you from discussing what is written in that Watchtower article? You give my implied confusion regarding the status of the GB and the FDS as your excuse not to discuss the article. That makes no sense. Yes I believe that the GB thinks they have the authority to extend the bible. They themselves said it. By extension, the elders should not go beyond what is written in the publications. If the publications contain only that which is specifically outlined in the bible already…..then what is the point of the publication? Exactly. The publication is designed to go beyond what the bible actually says….using "bible principles" as a guide. The problem is that the "principles" are interpreted by the GB. If they feel they have the right to do so, then so be it. But don’t be retarded and say they don’t go beyond what is written.
DJ - By this, it seems to me that you are saying that you don't believe anyone has been granted by God the authority to go beyond what things the Bible explicitly condones when it comes to things like gambling or grooming, or when someone decides to not break off his or her association with someone that has been disfellowshipped. I would say though that you seem to be oblivious to the fact that Acts 15:28 doesn't just refer to what the holy spirit itself says, but also to what "we ourselves" might determine to be necessary safeguards for those having the responsibility to preside over God's household to implement with a view to protecting the flock of God that has been entrusted to their care.
Outsmart - Interestingly, as I already mentioned, you didn’t want to discuss the Watchtower article above. Your reasoning was two fold. 1) That I believe that the GB and the FDS are the same and 2) I believe that the GB thinks they have the authority to extend the bible. Yet in your very next paragraph you indicate that it is perfectly ok to go beyond what is written. At this point I will address the fact that you and I appear to differ on something (well actually many things). Somehow, to you, "going beyond what is written" is ok. But "extending the bible" is not. What is your definition of going beyond what is written?
And what is your definition of extending the bible?
Have you read 1 Cor the 4 th Chapter lately? What do you think Paul was saying? The brothers at that time were new in the faith. They needed to understand how important it is not to exceed the authority given by the scriptures. Exceeding the scriptures would constitute a faithless arrogance with respect to the adequacy of what Jehovah was causing to be written. You have grossly misinterpreted Acts 15:28. Again……"we ourselves" means nothing more than stressing that they were in agreement with the direction given by the holy spirit. If "we ourselves" means that the GB has the right to go beyond what is written then what is the point of holy spirit? By saying it is ok to go beyond what is written….you are blaspheming against the holy spirit. You are indicating that holy spirit isn’t enough. The holy spirit that Jehovah sends forth can’t get the job done….therefore our leaders must take matters into their own hands. Is the holy spirit that Jehovah sends forth not enough? By your logic of the meaning of "and we ourselves", Jehovah expects some decisions to be made on behalf of his people WITHOUT His spirit….because is holy spirit is deficient.
DJ - If anyone desires to buy a raffle ticket, he is free to do so; if anyone desires to wear a beard, he is free to wear one. If anyone feels he must continue his association with a disfellowshipped person, that's ok; he is free to do this as well, but in his engaging in any such conduct when admonished not to do so, he is not submitting to God's arrangement, and this is the point. It doesn't matter that the proceeds from the raffle ticket sales will benefit cancer research when there will be no sickness or death under God's kingdom. At Luke 9:60, Jesus also admonished his followers to "let the dead bury their dead, but you go away and declare abroad the kingdom of God" since God's kingdom will eliminate cancer and all diseases that are the cause of death, pain and sorrow. (Revelation 21:3, 4)
Outsmart - Who says it is God’s arrangement that people not buy raffle tickets and that brothers not have beards? Those are not decrees in the bible or even principles that could be stretched into a decree. Those are man made rules by 7 men in Brooklyn who misinterpreted Acts 15:28 (while ignoring 1 Cor 4:6) and decided to also ignore the principle behind the second part of Acts 15:28 of not adding any unnecessary burdens to the flock. Adding unnecessary rules = adding burdens. And it most certainly does matter that the proceeds from the ticket sales will benefit cancer research. Listen to you! You don’t give a crap about the pain and suffering that people go though right now because all will be better in the new world. Your focus on the "new system" makes you cold toward the sufferings of people NOW. You don’t know when this supposed new system is coming. So why not volunteer or donate or buy a raffle ticket that helps find a cure in the meantime? "The new system is coming!" Does that mean we should quit looking for cures to ailments? Should we quit going to the doctor? Should we let the world go to hell in a hand basket because God’s kingdom will someday fix everything? Read your insensitive statement again. "It doesn’t’ matter that the proceeds from the raffle ticket sales will benefit cancer research when there will be no sickness or death under God’s Kingdom." It doesn’t matter, huh? So a 6 year old little girl that fights through and beats cancer due to the advancements in cancer research over the years…and goes on to live a full, honorable and healthy life doesn’t matter? It doesn’t matter to her friends that she is still alive? It doesn’t matter to her family that she is still alive? No….it DOES matter. It just doesn’t matter to YOU. Your attitude is just like the majority of other witnesses. Because of your "hope" in the resurrection to a paradise earth….you don’t respect the life you have now (or anyone else’s for that matter) enough to help out the needy in the community. Curing cancer? Feeding the homeless? Protecting children from predators? Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t donate……they don’t volunteer their time….they do NOTHING for the community except hand out tracts that feature children playing with lions. Try reading James 2:15 and 16. Now try applying the principle behind that. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t. They go out and preach and tell others of the lovely new system that will wipe out the disease and death the plagues everyone….but they don’t do a damn thing to help anyone NOW. In a sense they tell the world "Go in peace, keep warm and well fed" but then they do nothing to help. They do exactly what James said NOT to do. Is volunteering your time or money for a healthy cause going to keep Jehovah’s day from coming? I think the answer is no. Then witnesses have no excuse for not being more involved in charity work to actually SHOW others that they care.
DJ - I don't know if you already understood what it is Jesus was saying here, but if you want to contribute to cancer research, you are free to do so without your needing to accept some quid pro quo arrangement (like a raffle prize) if your motive is really just to make a donation to cancer research. You should not need the possibility that you might win a prize to be yours motivation to make such a donation; else, your motives would be suspect, which is why such admonition is given in the first place.
Outsmart - I am aware that the FDS does not prohibit donations to charities (depending on the connections or past connections that charity has with "false religion")…..but they certainly don’t encourage it. When was the last time your congregation or circuit got together to do a food drive for the homeless? Never. It doesn’t happen. Witnesses aren’t concerned with helping people NOW. They are only concerned about preaching and getting people to focus on a future illusion.
And here you go with a classic witness response. Rather than answering the question (which was "what’s wrong with buying a raffle ticket?", you elected to engage in an ad hominem attack…..questioning my motive. Basically you are saying that if a person was going to engage in a raffle…….he should just go ahead and donate money instead. If not…..then his motive for buying the ticket in the first place in now in question. 1) try answering the question instead of deflecting with a fallacy. What is wrong with buying a raffle ticket? 2) who are you or anyone else to judge what a person’s intentions or motives are? The GB should not be handing down a rule that governs what a person’s motives are (i.e. their prohibition of raffle tickets)
DJ - In countries where it is not uncommon for brothers to wear beards, they wear them, but in the US, it is uncommon for brothers to wear beards without raising additional doubts in the minds of the householder as to whether the person standing at their door is, in fact, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Outsmart - Perhaps that was the case in 1923, but that is not the case now. It is good to see that with so much "increased light" over the years…..you are still clinging to this century old explanation. A beard does not distinguish whether someone is or is not a JW. Rather….someone at my door in a suit with a pamphlet talking about Jehovah’s Kingdom is what distinguishes a JW. Nice canned response though. Are you saying that a man at my door in a suit and carrying a brief case with a mustache would illicit a response of "wow that’s a JW"…..but a man at my door in a suit and carrying a brief case with a goatee would illicit a response of "who the hell is THAT?"
DJ - Mormons, for example, might be more quickly dismissed from the doors of those upon whom they make visits were they to sport beards and wear tee-shirts and jeans instead of the white shirt and black pants that they do wear, but this really isn't about Mormons.
Outsmart - I agree that if a Mormon showed up at my door wearing a Bob Marley tee shirt and skinny jeans…I’d wonder what is going on. Same thing with a JW. You can dress appropriately without making unnecessary edicts about facial hair. And a man is not allowed to have a beard….but a black sister is allowed to have purple hair? I mean….a man with a beard makes me wonder "who is this sinister fellow?" But a woman with purple hair puts me at ease that she must have been sent by Jehovah.
DJ - My point here is that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses has decided that it will be our custom here in the US that the brothers will not wear beards, and Jehovah's Witnesses here in the US are submissive to God's arrangement in this regard. If someone that sports a beard should live in a country outside of the US, such individuals, upon visiting and/or speaking at a Kingdom Hall or at a district convention will not likely be required to remove their beards, except where it is known that someone donning a beard could be a cause of stumbling at a particular congregation.
Outsmart - Ok then. I just want to make sure that the governing body did indeed make a rule that men can’t wear beards and that rule is not found in the bible. Because I could have sworn a few paragraphs earlier you said, "
Unlike a US president, the governing body doesn't "govern" any nation of people with its own man-made laws and precepts" It is impressive how your own contradictory statements seem to make sense in your pre-programmed mind.
DJ - I trust that you understand the point I've been making here, namely, that it doesn't matter whether you think the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are guilt of promulgating a "list of 'extensions'" to the Bible, extensions for which there is no scriptural support. It's not just the Bible, it's not just the holy spirit, that leads us, but "we ourselves" that are taking the lead in God's household are free to employ our own spiritual judgment in order to protect the flock, even if you don't agree with and/or are not privy to knowing their reasons for giving such admonitions to the flock.
Outsmart - At this point I’d say we’ve reached an impasse on this issue. And it comes down to Acts 15:28(a). My interpretation of it does not blaspheme the holy spirit and the direction it gives. Nor is it in violation of the (b) section of that scripture. My interpretation also does not conflict with 1 Cor 4:6. Your interpretation is not only in conflict with the (b) part and 1 Cor 4:6, but it makes a mockery of God’s holy spirit.
Your leaders are protecting the flock by means of arbitrary decisions that are neither found in the bible nor are directed by holy spirit? That alone should make people run away from these wolves.
___________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - This is a group of men that say "We also have the faithful and discreet slave appointed by Jesus to provide spiritual "food at the proper time". Thus God is still speaking. But are we listening?" (7-15-98 WT p 12). Yet these same men also say "the brothers preparing these publications are no infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers". (03-22-93 Awake p4). So which is it?
DJ - Your question here presupposes that the two things you mention here are mutually exclusive; that is to say, that it is not possible for the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses to represent the faithful and discreet slave and that it is also not possible that imperfect men can carry the water for Christ and yet the brothers responsible for preparing our many publications not be writing them under the inspiration of Jehovah God. Unfortunately, I don't believe these things to be mutually exclusive, so I'll let you figure out what it is you wanted to say but didn't, or let you shop the answer to your question with someone that thrives when someone asks them an imponderable like yours.
Outsmart - First of all….no, I never meant to indicate that it is impossible for the GB to represent the FDS.
Dj - And yet, you did suggest this very thing.
Outsmart – I meant to imply that in the minds of JWs. See my explanation above of the GB and the FDS if you are still confused. Of course to me…..you are correct. It is indeed impossible for the GB to represent the FDS because neither exist by God’s direction….only by self appointment.
Outsmart - That being said….I do think that the whole idea of the term "slave" applying to a group of individuals in New York that "speak" for 143,993 others makes any sense. But that’s not part of the argument so I’ll leave it alone.
DJ - What? Yes, you should probably leave this "argument' (or whatever it is!) alone. What you said made no sense.
Outsmart – That’s a type-o. I meant to say that the idea of a singular "slave" being represented by plural group of individuals in New York that "speak" for all others that are part of that "slave class" makes no sense.
Outsmart - I don’t see what is so imponderable.
DJ - I though you just said that you thought you should leave this argument alone. Now with this comment you have just picked it up again. Ok. Let's go.
Outsmart – No. I said I will leave the argument of how 7 men in Brooklyn acting on behalf of thousands of others can constitute a singular slave alone.
Outsmart - The Watchtower quote basically says that when the GB writes something it is just like God is speaking to us….hence…"are we listening". The Awake says "however…..we aren’t inspired". That doesn’t seem just a tad contradictory?
DJ - No, this doesn't sound even "just a tad" contradictory to me. Why would you be asking me such a question when you already know what my view is? Are you really talking to me now or to someone else?
Outsmart – Let me see if I can make it easier for you to comprehend. The Watchtower quote insinuates that when the slave speaks it is as if God is speaking. Would you ignore anything God says? I assume not. Therefore the message is to always listen and abide by what the slave says as well. Yet the Awake quote says the slave is not inspired. Would God ever tell you something that is incorrect? Again I’ll assume your answer is no. Therefore you can always trust what God says. But the Awake’s message is that since the slave is not inspired….they may not always be right…therefore their words to us may be incorrect. So….we are to listen and ACT as if God is speaking when the slave speaks…..but we have absolutely no assurance that what they are saying is correct (unlike if God were truly speaking). What a nice gig. I wish people listened to me as if God was speaking but then when I am wrong….I could just refuse to accept responsibility too!
Outsmart - Ultimately, their message is "we are not inspired, however you need to be listening and doing as we say". Remember….the WT article said "God is speaking to you through us (what we write)". The Awake said "but we’re not infallible".
DJ - You're repeating yourself here, and I don't want to hear you repeat the same things over and over again as if my response to your question might change.
Outsmart – I know that. But you still haven’t explained how it is ok for the slave to tell others that what they say is from God…..but at the same time they shouldn’t be held accountable when they are wrong. I’m still waiting.
Outsmart - So how can a humble person (or in this case group of people) say that unity and obedience to their teachings must be maintained when they themselves admit that their teachings may very well change due to their own infallibility?
DJ - I'm not going to even try to answer a ponderable. You are certainly free to ponder this question, but I have no interest in discussing this with you.
Outsmart – OK. The first time you responded you said you couldn’t answer imponderables. Now you refuse to discuss a ponderable as well? Or did you mean to call this one imponderable too? If that’s the case then the only reason it is imponderable to you is because of the wall that blocks objective thinking that you with the help of the FDS have constructed in your mind. Critical thinking abilities shut off when you are forced to use them on your own beloved FDS don’t they?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - Are they or are they not the sole channel of communication from God to his earthly servants?
DJ - The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is not the sole channel of communication from God to his earthly servants. Rather, the composite anointed body of Christians is what constitutes God's sole channel of communication, to whom Jesus refers at Matthew 24:45 as the "faithful and discreet slave." BTW, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is merely the legal instrument used by Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is neither the faithful and discreet slave nor is this entity God's sole channel of communication.
Outsmart - Really? "Christians who have truly received this anointing do not demand special attention. They do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special insights beyond what even some experienced members of the great crowd may have" (June 15, 2009 WT) How can the composite anointed body of Christians help direct what God says to the rank and file witnesses when they don’t have special insights beyond what even some experienced members of the great crowd have?
DJ - Please don't quote anything from any of our publications when you don't understand what you will have read. I have no interest in explaining to you what it was you didn't understand, and, further, your quoting what you quoted here from a Watchtower article has nothing at all to do with your erroneous statement to the effect that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses represents "the sole channel of communication from God to his earthly servants." "Special insights"?
Outsmart – I understand what I read quite well. You’ve been more than interested in explaining all of your other beliefs thus far. Why stop here? Unless of course you don’t have a good explanation. Please go ahead and answer the question. How can the composite anointed body of Christians direct what God says if they don’t have special insights? Fine. Would you rather I say "Jehovah’s organization represents the sole channel of communication from God to his earthly servants? An organization whose decisions/edicts/doctrines are all made by the governing body?
Outsmart - Perhaps you believe differently….but that isn’t what is taught by your fearless leaders.
DJ - This is a strawman argument. You were not talking about the "special insights" that anyone might have, but had asked me whether or not it was true, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is "the sole channel of communication from God to his earthly servants." Why don't you stop doing what you're trying to do. I know what your initial argument was, and it wasn't about anyone's "special insights."
Outsmart – See above. I hope I corrected myself to your self-righteous satisfaction. But I AM talking about the special insights anyone might have. Again…if you haven’t done so already please tell me how the composite body of anointed Christians directs anything. You know they don’t. That’s why you haven’t answered. That’s why you are asking me to "stop doing what I’m trying to do". It all is done by the 7 Boyz in Brooklyn.
Outsmart - The GB represents the 144,000 (as you alluded to in your second paragraph above) and all spiritual food comes through THEM.
DJ - Yes, this is true. So what bearing does this fact have with your initial point as to whether or not the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is viewed by Jehovah's Witnesses as being "the sole channel of communication from God to his earthly servants"?
Outsmart - Again, you are having trouble making the connection. All decisions/directions/edicts/doctrines are made by the Boyz. So in reality, THEY ARE the sole channel of communication according to your beliefs. You can call it "the organization" if you want to, but it’s all handed down by the muckity mucks up top. You seem to get offended when I don’t distinguish between the GB and the organization……but you fail to realize that everything you believe right now is BECAUSE it filtered through the GB.
____________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - What's the difference between being directed by God's spirit and being inspired by God? Does being inspired mean that you are divinely guaranteed to pen the correct words....but being directed by Holy Spirit means you may or may not get it right?
Dj - This last question of yours is a compound question , so I'll answer your second question first before answering the first one:
Yes and yes. Maybe you will recall, and maybe not, that when the matter of whether Gentile Christians should be circumcised arose back in 49 AD, Jehovah progressively revealed to the early Christian congregation through His spirit that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile Christians or anyone converting to Christianity. But it is noteworthy that it wasn't just the holy spirit that decided the matter: "The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you...." (Acts 15:28) Today, Jehovah's Witnesses submit to the leading of God's spirit when it comes to our prophetic interpretation of the Bible, but none of us speak by divine inspiration since those spiritual gifts ended when John, the last of the apostles, died. (1 Corinthians 13:8)
Outsmart - The purpose of Acts 15:28 is to show that the holy spirit directed them….and they agreed.
DJ - I disagree, but you are free to believe what you wish. Acts 15:28 says that "the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you...."
Outsmart – See Below (and above for that matter)
Outsmart - Holy spirit directed +they followed = no problems. Notice he didn’t say "the holy spirit urged this…but we elected to go another route". Plainly, the holy spirit directed and they followed.
So you feel the three words, "and we ourselves," are meaningless? Ok.
Outsmart – No. It is a reiteration. Enforcing the fact that there was absolutely no doubt about the decision that was made. Perhaps I should apologize for trying to read it in context with the B part of the verse as well as keeping it in agreement with 1 Cor 4:6 and NOT undermining the power of the holy spirit.
Outsmart - What of the GB today? If they are forced to change a teaching, or flip flop on a previous decision then that means one of two things according to your logic. 1) the holy spirit directed them to a wrong conclusion which we know isn’t possible or 2) they went against what the holy spirit was telling them.
DJ - I never said this and I don't see how you could conclude based on anything I said that what you say here reflected my thinking on the matter.
Outsmart – You yourself said that the A part of Acts 15:28 means that your leaders have to make additional decisions that are not addressed by the Bible or the holy spirit. Hence your stress of the words "and we ourselves". So if the holy spirit would never direct them to a wrong decision……then doesn’t that mean that they chose to operate against it? Or does it perhaps mean that the holy spirit wasn’t there or there wasn’t enough of it? Please tell me….when the Boyz have to flip flop on a doctrine….what does that mean in relation to the current operation of the holy spirit? Was the holy spirit operational among them or not? If they flip flop then 1) there was no holy spirit or 2) it was there….but they operated against it. If there is another option I do await to hear from you.
DJ - The holy spirit did not direct the first century governing body to a wrong conclusion; it was God's holy spirit so such a conclusion would be absurd. The governing body took the facts involving the circumcision issue -- which is the issue that they were deciding -- into consideration and saw no reason to require Gentile Christians to be circumcised.
Outsmart - I know that. The holy spirit was there and it directed them. And they listened. Hence….they didn’t have to reverse their decision.
DJ - The holy spirit did not specifically say to the governing body that there was no need for the Gentiles to be circumcised, did it? What the holy spirit did say was that Cornelius could receive God's holy spirit and he wasn't circumcised and God's spirit was evident in the "signs and portents" that were in operation upon the nations, who were also not circumcised. (Acts 10:47, 48; 15:12) As the apostle James pointed out, the holy spirit itself had spoken through the prophet Amos at Amos 9:11, 12, which indicated that the Gentiles -- though uncircumcised -- would be called upon by God's name, so the governing body received direction from the holy spirit as well as took what things they saw occurring with respect to the Gentiles as evidence that they were acceptable as Christians without the need for them to be circumcised. The holy spirit provided direction, but the governing body decided the matter based on the evidence that Peter and Paul and Barnabas had reported. I don't know if you understand any of this, but there it is.
Outsmart – Exactly. The holy spirit provided guidance. The apostles listened….got it right….and never had to go back and reverse it. So why don’t your leaders listen to the holy spirit that is supposedly directing them today?
Outsmart - You also mention that none of us speak by divine inspiration. The April 15, 2011 WT (p4) asks the question to the reader, "How, then, do we react when we receive divine direction?" Guess what that article is about? The FDS. It is referring to information received through the slave .
DJ - So how does this particular Watchtower article make your case? Maybe I should ask, What is your case?
Outsmart – My case is simple. And it is found lower in this thread when you refer back to this April 15, 2011 article.
Outsmart - "Who is this prophet? ... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses. ... Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record.… Thus this group of anointed followers of Jesus Christ, doing a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiel's work among the Jews, were manifestly the modern-day Ezekiel, the "prophet" commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God's Messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom." Watchtower 1972 Apr 1 pp.197-199. Yet according to you, "none of us speak by divine inspiration".
DJ - Yes, what's interesting about this article you quoted here from this Watchtower article is that it doesn't say that Jehovah's Witnesses are divinely inspired spokespeople for God, that what things they speak have their origin in divine inspiration. Why do you even bring this up? What point did you hope to prove by quoting what you did from this article? Did you expect me to disagree with what it says?
Outsmart – Interesting indeed. Especially considering that the definition of a prophet is a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. According to the Bible there are 2 kinds of prophets. 1) True prophets and 2) False prophets. True prophets are inspired by God. False prophets are not. Therefore we have 1) INSPIRED True Prophets and 2) UNINSPIRED False Prophets. Yet your leaders have managed to create a hybrid! You’re not inspired….yet the article above says you are prophets therefore you must be TRUE UNINSPIRED PROPHETS. It is amazing that you’ve managed to create in your own minds something that doesn’t exist. If uninspired true prophets exist then I’d like to inform you that I am the new vice Prime Minister of the U.S.
Outsmart - Tell me, how many of Jehovah’s prophets in the bible spoke without Divine inspiration?
DJ - None of Jehovah's prophets spoke apart from being divinely inspired to do so.
Outsmart - I shouldn’t get ahead of myself….but I assume you will say none.
DJ - You assume correctly; my answer to your question is "none."
Outsmart - Yet this modern day "prophet" does speak without Divine inspiration?
DJ - Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses today are all of them "prophets" in the sense that they speak to others about the future. Just as God used the prophets of God to tell others what his will for them was, likewise Jehovah's Witnesses today are being used as God's prophets today to make known his will for mankind and his purposes for the future. Yes, these prophets of old were able to predict the future, which modern-day prophets cannot, but the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not make predictions doesn't mean that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't prophets.
Outsmart - As I’ve already brought up….the word "inspired" is part of the definition. But witnesses have their own language….their own bible….so why not? Why not just remove "inspired" from the definition and create your own version? Unfortunately your fearless leaders have indeed made a lot of predictions.
Outsmart - What gives them the right to do so? It is interesting to note that this 1972 Watchtower contradicts what 1 Cor 13:8 says about future prophets. Unless of course that scripture applies to everyone BUT the FDS.
DJ - I see no contradiction. Where is this contradiction in the 1972 Watchtower article? One of the things to which this article to which you refer speaks is to the prophetic ministry of Jehovah's Witnesses to the "rebellious house" of Christendom, to whom they even now speak, and regardless of whether they hear or they refrain." (Ezekiel 2:6, 7) What is your point?
Outsmart - I guess it depends on whether or not you want to use the true definition of the word prophet. When you preach something that does not come true…you are a false prophet. I was out in service in the 80’s. Guess what our message was? God’s kingdom by means of Christ Jesus. And when was this kingdom to come? Within the lifespan of those who witnessed the events of 1914. It didn’t happen. I was a false prophet. Everyone I went in service with was. Every single Jehovah’s Witness that spread that message was. Especially the FDS since they were the ones that originated the message. JW’s were spreading a lie that 1 Cor 13:8 told them not to spread.
______________________________________________________________________________
DJ - Since Jehovah's Witnesses put their faith in God's word, God's spirit may lead us to the realization that we may have gotten something wrong, that we may have drawn a wrong conclusion about something we may have understood differently in the past. Over the years, such progressive changes have occurred many tines as our understanding of the Bible increases, so over the years there have been many adjustments in our understanding, and these adjustments are published as soon as practicable in our literature, and at our Kingdom Halls, circuit and district assemblies.
But because Jehovah's Witnesses continue to be led by holy spirit, only qualified men are appointed to serve as overseers based on the standard provided in God's word, so in this way they are appointed by holy spirit according to the scriptural requirements set forth at 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, and by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses through the recommendations made by spiritually "certified men ... full of spirit and wisdom." (Acts 6:3)
As to your first question, the Bible was inspired by God, for the men that contributed to its pages were all "borne along by holy spirit" (2 Peter 1:21), but being directed by God's spirit requires one to submit to what things the holy spirit directs, that is to say, we are doing our best to adhere and subject ourselves to the spiritual guidance that Jehovah provides in the Bible. (Galatians 5:16, 18)
Outsmart - Your example of Acts 15:28 kills your argument. It says "The holy spirit AND WE OURSELVES".
DJ - What bearing does what I stated here as to how "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to be led by holy spirit" have to do with Acts 15:28? Why are you backtracking to discuss something other than what it is I had said? I don't get it, but ok.
Outsmart – Read below. The point is the apostles were directed by holy spirit. They listened and they got it right thus not having to backtrack and change constantly. Following the holy spirit would eliminate the need for your constant revisions. You would have known this and would not have had to ask the questions you asked directly above if you would quit chopping up my responses.
Outsmart - This indicates they were directed by holy spirit and they listened and followed. And by doing that…..they got it right.
DJ - You are free to believe that what Acts 15:28 says means what you believe it to mean. I don't agree with you, but I have told you how I understand this verse.
Outsmart – Fine. We aren’t going to agree
Outsmart - They didn’t have to change a previous decree or flip flop a decision. They got it right by listening to and doing what the holy spirit directed. When the FDS flip flops….why didn’t they listen to the holy spirit in the first place like the apostles did in Acts 15:28?
DJ - You are harping upon an earlier argument that you made, but I don't know why you are doing this since you are not going to teach me what Acts 15:28 means and you are not going to be able to persuade me, convince me, change my mind by telling me how the faithful and discreet slave "flip flops," especially when you keep getting loss here, as you were talking about the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and now you have expanded "your argument" regarding Acts 15:28 to mean the anointed remnant that comprise the faithful and discreet slave. I cannot follow you, I don't understand where you want to go with this, but I do know that I'm not going to allow you to take me to Silly Street, ok?
Outsmart - Nice red herring response…..changing the focus from your errant view of Acts 15:28 to (again) the difference between the GB and the FDS. See my explanation above regarding the GB and the FDS. Just answer the question, man. Why don’t they listen to the holy spirit in the first place like the 1 st century apostles? Let me ask another question…..does it really confuse you that much when I sometimes use FDS to refer to the GB? I ask because I am quite familiar with the lingo and inner-workings of the witnesses. When someone says GB but means to say FDS….I don’t get bent out of shape because I understand the point they are trying to make. And if someone says (I hope this doesn’t result in seizures for you) "the society"….again…I understand that they are referring to the people in charge. So….why do you have such difficulty with it?
Outsmart - Only qualified men are appointed to serve as overseers? So my brother in law (who was appointed to serve as an elder as he was in the midst of reading "The Gentile Times Reconsidered") was appointed by the holy spirit?
DJ - The answer to your question is, of course, if your brother-in-law was appointed to serve as an elder -- even if he had already read Jonsson's book, "The Gentile Times Reconsidered," in its entirety -- he would have been appointed by holy spirit. What it is clear to me that you fail to realize is that those who are appointed to serve as elders in the congregation are appointed based upon the guidelines provided in the Bible at 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, and by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses based on the recommendations of the local body of elders. These scriptural requirements were written by the apostle Paul as he was "borne along by holy spirit" to write them. (2 Peter 1:21) If your b-i-l continues to serve as such, it will be because the local body of elders believe the continues to meet the scriptural requirements of an elder. However, if he should be deleted from serving as such, this would mean that the holy spirit will have removed this privilege of service from him if it came to be observed by the local body of elders that he no longer meets the scriptural requirements that an elder must meet in order to serve as an elder in the Christian congregation. Maybe you won't understand this and that's fine. I'm only telling you here what it means in the Bible to spiritually mature men and woman when it speaks of "the holy spirit" appointing someone as an overseer "to shepherd the congregation of God." (Acts 20:28)
Outsmart - You stress the words "in its entirety". Are you indicating that if he read all but the final page of the index…..then the holy spirit would have approved of him due to that technicality? No…I understand that Timothy and Titus are used when approving men to the positions of elder and MS. And I understand that of course the GB must approve based on recommendations by the existing elders. But as you allude to at the end of your paragraph….Acts 20:28 and many talks from the platform make sure to tell us that elders are appointed by holy spirit. So the holy spirit doesn’t care if he is reading apostate literature and quietly telling others about it so long as he 1) hasn’t finished the book and 2) fits the qualification brought out in Timothy and Titus in the eyes of the local elders? And he’ll continue serving as such so long as he meets the scriptural requirements of Timothy and Titus only? Oh yeah. I forgot about that. That’s right there next to that other scripture in 3 rd Eclopoclese that says that the holy spirit helps men that lead double lives to lead Jehovah’s sheep.
Outsmart - How about an elder from my congregation that was appointed as he was having an affair? Remember….only qualified men are appointed.
DJ - I believe I've sufficiently responded to the "restatement" of your question as it related to your b-i-l. There is no distinction to be made between the appointment of an elder that qualifies to serve as such in the congregation whose conduct is not exemplary and who has maybe escaped the notice of the local body of elders' scrutiny, and the appointment of an elders that meets the scriptural requirements to serve as such while at the same time having an affair. If the affair should end, good, but whether it does or it doesn't, the same holy spirit that appoints one to serve as an elder is the same holy spirit that will remove one from such an appointment, for "God is not one to be mocked," even though some may do so.
Outsmart – the organization’s claim as to how elders are appointed is in and of itself a complete mockery of God and his holy spirit.
Outsmart - And if you don't get it right, can you really say you were directed by the Holy Spirit in the first place?
DJ - Yes, for while God's word is infallible and Jehovah never gets it wrong, we ourselves sometimes do not get it right, but this in no way means that we are not directed by God's holy spirit. When we get something wrong, this simply means that we are not infallible -- which we already knew -- and that we need to make an adjustment in our viewpoint so that our view is in harmony with what we have since come to appreciate the Bible teaches in that regard.
Are you saying that when God’s spirit directs and the FDS gets it wrong anyways……it was because they either ignored the holy spirit or misinterpreted what it was telling them?
DJ - Maybe both are true, that what the holy spirit was directing was either ignored or didn't register with God's people at the time. Whatever.
Outsmart – I’ve asked you multiple times now why the FDS doesn’t just listen to the holy spirit like the 1 st century apostles did. You’ve refused to answer. At least here you say that it is certainly possible that they may ignore it. Good to know that. Sounds like some really trustworthy leadership!
Outsmart - You would never admit that they ignore holy spirit so we won’t even consider that argument.
DJ - Why wouldn't I? You only just asked me this very question, and I just answered it. Why did you say this?
Outsmart - Because I assumed you would answer that way. My bad. But only a total and complete buffoon would admit that he still follows the leaders of his religious organization unquestioningly even though they could very well ignore the direction by God. If it is even a remote possibility that they have rejected what his holy spirit was directing…..does God really want you in association with such ones?
Outsmart - Therefore…..it must mean that they misinterpret.
DJ - Yes, we don't always get it wrong. It happens that at times we get it wrong.
Outsmart - OK. Then 1) they are not equipped to be in the position they are in. If they can’t follow the holy spirit’s direction then why are they leading others?
DJ - Why are Jehovah's Witnesses not equipped to do the work that we do? Why isn't the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses equipped to do the work that it does? We do follow the direction of God's holy spirit as best we can, but, again, as I've said before, we are not inerrant.
Outsmart – Did you even read what I just explained? If they either can’t follow or ignore the guidance provided by the holy spirit then they shouldn’t be leading. If you cannot follow directions at work…..guess what? You won’t have a job much longer. If I am ignoring or not understanding the instructions on how to operate a piece of machinery…..I shouldn’t be operating it. If the FDS can’t or in some cases won’t follow the lead of the holy spirit then they should not be telling 7 million others that they have information for them and it is from God.
Outsmart - And 2) if they admittedly can’t follow the direction then how can they demand obedience to something they know may or may not be true?
DJ - Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses demands obedience. This is something that you believe to be true, but it is not true.
Outsmart – Again….according to them….if you want to have a relationship with Jehovah…..if you want to understand the bible……….if you want to survive Armageddon ……if you want to avoid being disfellowshipped then what must you do? "
"We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval." Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 p.24. So ultimately no….they don’t demand obedience any more than the IRS demand s that you pay taxes. It’s up to you if you want to comply.
______________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - Regardless, the GB does claim that all edicts are coming from God.
DJ - I don't think this is so. The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses alone doesn't make such statements. It is Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, with the assent of our governing body, the central body of elders that is taking the lead in ensuring that the good news is being preached throughout the earth for a witness that submits to the instruction provided in God's word.
Outsmart - If you disagree then please show me a publication or direct me to a talk you heard given in which it was admitted that SOME directives given are from God but the others are man made.
Outsmart - "It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the "slave" as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (June 15, 1957 WT p 370). Again, just use logic. When is that last time you heard from the stage or read in an article that the FDS thinks the rank and file witnesses should listen to and obey some of their directives? That some of their publications are from God? That some of their decisions were made with God’s direction?
DJ - Did you notice the context of this 1957 Watchtower article from you which quoted? Was the statement that you quoted from it saying that our publications are from God? No. Was this statement that you quoted from it saying that we must explicit obey the faith and discreet slave? No. What is "this fact" that ought to make us appreciate and respond to the direction given by the faithful and discreet slave as we would responding "to the voice of God"? Notice clearly that this opening words of the sentence you quoted -- "It is vital that we appreciate this fact... -- refers to the fact that God himself has directed "the members in the body, each one of them" -- the faithful and discreet slave -- and set them in the congregation "just as he pleased." (1 Corinthians 12:18).
Outsmart - In your own mind and in the minds of your cult leaders…God has directed "the members in the body, each one of them (FDS) and set them in the congregation "just as (you think) he pleased". It is only in your minds that God himself did this. "THIS FACT" is nothing more than an expressed opinion by a group of men that have promoted themselves to a high position. But regardless of whether "this fact" refers to God having chosen and directed the FDS members…..or not….you cannot ignore the rest of the sentence. Let’s just pretend for a moment that God really does direct the FDS. What does the sentence go on to say? We need to respond to their directions as we would the voice of God. And if God does not direct these clueless and self promoted men…what does the sentence go on to say? The same thing. We need to respond to their directions as we would the voice of God. Again, you have attempted a red herring defense. Regardless of whether or not you believe in "this fact"…..the point of the statement is that we are to listen to all (not some) of the directions of the slave just as if we were listening to God. It is because of "this fact" that we are supposed to listen to the FDS and all of their directions.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - "How then do we react when we receive divine direction?" (04-15-2011 WT p4) What is the definition of divine? It is "proceeding from God". So these men claim not to be infallible....yet still claim that the directives issued are divine
DJ - Again, I must ask you: Why do you believe the divine direction we receive from Jehovah through his word, the Bible -- these directives to which you refer -- and our claim that not one of Jehovah's Witnesses is infallible are mutually exclusive? They aren't mutually exclusive at all.
Outsmart - Read that 4-15-11 article I mentioned. The question in quotations above was referring to information provided by the FDS….not information from the Bible. The comparison in that article was the FDS to Moses (both supposedly being directed by God). The FDS does indeed claim that the information they are "feeding the sheep" with is coming from a Divine origin. Simply put, coming from God means divine.
DJ - I agree with you; what you just said is "simply put." You didn't understand what you read in this article since you read our publications through a prism that informs you as to what the things you read in them means. There are many folks that read our literature through such a prism.
Outsmart – If this article was not a comparison of Moses to the FDS, then please advise….what was it comparing? The article even asks "Are we familiar with up to date directions"? That’s not referring to the Bible. That’s referring to info from the FDS. You gave the response above because you have no valid argument. I know. I’ve been there before. I’ve been a witness for 30 years. It sucks being wrong, doesn’t it?
Outsmart - Therefore if the directives coming from the FDS got their origin with God then yes…..they are Divine directives. "All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah’s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave." (Oct 1, 1994 WT p 8).
What does that magazine quote tell us? If we want to learn what the bible teaches our only hope is through the only channel of communication to God……the FDS. So when the FDS receives information, it is coming from the holy spirit, no?
DJ - No. The faithful and discreet slave do not receive information by means of holy spirit. In the 19th century, in the 20th century and even in our 21st century, this has never been the case. Wherever it is you heard such a thing, this idea is not so. The faithful and discreet slave is being directed or led by holy spirit, but it doesn't receive a thing by way of the many spiritual gifts that the early Christian congregation received before those gifts passed away. (1 Corinthians 13:8)
Outsmart – Again…it was not meant to be an insinuation that the FDS receives startling visions or has visitation rights to angelic messengers. Allow me to rephrase. When the FDS makes a decision….changes an edict….revises a doctrine…..it (the decision) is supposedly guided by (through prayer and meditation) the holy spirit, no?
Outsmart - And if the holy spirit is God’s active force then he has to direct and send forth that active force, no?
DJ - Yes, this is true.
Outsmart – Okey dokey
Outsmart - Therefore any time the FDS is "helped" to a decision by the holy spirit…..by God’s direction…or whatever you want to call it….. then ultimately it began with God.
DJ - Yes, the help that the faithful and discreet slave receives, that all Jehovah's Witnesses receive for that matter, ultimately begin with God, whose holy spirit is responsible for all of the things we read in the Bible today.
Outsmart – 10-4
Outsmart - It is divine.
DJ - What is divine? The decisions that the faithful and discreet slave make are not divine. I don't know what you mean.
Outsmart – Dear God. I feel like I am trying to explain how to tie a pair of shoes to Rain Man. THE DIRECTIVES OF THE FDS! You agree that the FDS is supposedly guided by holy spirit. And the holy spirit is God’s active force. And if the holy spirit is God’s active force then God himself must have sent forth that active force. And if God sent it (the holy spirit – in case you’re having trouble following) forth, then it originated with God. And the definition of divine is to proceed FROM GOD. How are the directives NOT divine if they begin with God?
Outsmart - You cannot claim that the FDS is directed by holy spirit, yet those directives somehow are not Divine.
DJ - There are no divine directives that are given to the faithful and discreet slave. I really don't know what you're talking about or where you're headed, but it's clear to me that you do not understand Scripture.
Outsmart - You seem to be having trouble understanding the definition of divine. There is a difference between "divine" and "miraculous".
Outsmart - Does the holy spirit somehow, on its own accord, direct the FDS to write and teach the things they do without consulting Jehovah?
DJ - The faithful and discreet slave, as well as the entire household of faith, doesn't consult Jehovah, except by prayer. You seem to have in mind a seance, where someone representing the faithful and discreet slave approaches Jehovah apart from prayer, say using Urim and Thummin, to receive God's holy spirit. You have IMO an unbalanced idea that doesn't fit what things the Bible teaches though, since beyond "yeses" and nos," Jehovah has moved way beyond the need for high priests and such, since Jesus has been appointed God's High Priest on our behalf. What you are saying here sounds ridiculous to me.
Outsmart – Why must you take everything so literally? The question was does the holy spirit act on its own accord? And no….I do not have in mind a séance. I understand that the holy spirit supposedly helps them make the proper decisions through prayer and meditation on the subject matter. If there is another way…..please inform me.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - Dude. You can't have it both ways. Either you are or you are not directed by God.
DJ - This is not what you just said here. We can have it both ways and we do: Jehovah's Witnesses are directed by God by means of his holy spirit, period.
Outsmart - Again, who puts forth that holy spirit? Does Jehovah have any control over it or does it act on its own accord? If it is controlled by Jehovah then any decision the FDS comes to by way of it is indeed Divine.
DJ - No, it isn't; you are mistaken in what you are saying here. In fact, you don't make sense.
Outsmart – Please explain to me how….given the definition of divine….and given the fact that holy spirit is sent for BY JEHOVAH……exactly it is that I don’t make sense. Do you agree that divine means "proceeding from God"?
Outsmart - So then….when "they get it wrong", did they ignore the direction by God or did they just not understand it.
DJ - Maybe both of the things you mention here is true.
Outsmart – OK. Good. You admit that your leaders may be both incompetent and ignorant.
Outsmart - I don’t know of any biblical examples of ones being directed by God but getting it wrong because they didn’t understand.
DJ - What about Jonah, or don't you recognize him as being one of Jehovah's servant, Jehovah's prophet? Would you say that Jonah wasn't directed by God or that he didn't get it wrong because he fully understood the reason God has sent him to warn the Ninevites?
Outsmart – Jonah was directed by God and fully understood. And he initially chose not to listen. It’s not that he "got it wrong". He got it right. He just chose not to listen. The account of Jonah is meant (at least that portion of it) to teach a lesson. And that lesson is to listen to Jehovah. He chose not to and look at the turmoil that ensued. Yet you yourself claim that when your cult leaders "get it wrong"….it may very well be because they ignored the direction by God. Sounds to me like they need to reflect on Jonah’s account a little more.
Outsmart - In the past….nobody misunderstood the direction the holy spirit was giving…..but you seem to think it’s ok for the FDS to do so.
DJ - Ok; it you say so.
Outsmart - I don’t need to. You already did. You said that the holy spirit directs but sometimes they just don’t get it right. And you’re perfectly ok with following the wrong path so long as the Boyz in Brooklyn tell you to.
Outsmart - You’ve been incredibly evasive. To be sure…..in this spot, please give your definition for directed by God’s spirit:
DJ - Being directed by holy spirit means for one to be in harmony with it. What being directed by holy spirit or being led by it doesn't mean is that Jehovah gets it wrong. Jehovah doesn't zap anyone with a measure of his holy spirit, but it isn't Jehovah that "gets it wrong," but we ourselves that are seek guidance from his word, the Bible.
Jehovah's Witnesses are led by what things we read in the Bible and by what things we discern from the things we read in it, so that while we might get it wrong at times, we are willing to adjust our viewpoint when it becomes necessary to do so, such as when we realize that our understanding of something that the holy spirit says in God's word turns out to be mistaken. God's holy spirit speaks through His inspired word and it is often in hindsight that Jehovah's Witnesses come to the realization that we have come to a wrong understanding of what the holy spirit says, a wrong understanding of what the Bible is saying to us, and so, whenever we should err, we will make whatever adjustments are necessary since, as Jehovah's Witnesses, we endeavor to teach things that are in harmony with what the holy spirit actually does say and not with what he may have thought the holy spirit was saying.
Outsmart - You’ve mentioned nothing about prayer or meditation. Is it safe to say that you believe that the holy spirit is only operational through the reading of scriptures and not via heartfelt prayer? Interesting that you describe being directed by God’s spirit to mean "for one to be in harmony with it". Because…..if your leaders must continually revise their teachings in order to be "in harmony" with it, then the truth of the matter is that what they were teaching prior to the change was NOT in harmony with it. And according to YOUR definition that means they DIDN’T HAVE GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT DIRECTING THEM. If being directed by holy spirit means to be in harmony with it….then the opposite is also true. Being in disharmony would then be proof that the holy spirit is lacking. The fact that a certain teaching has just changed yet again is proof by your definition of the lack of holy spirit in operation when that original teaching was put forth.
Outsmart - Now in this spot, please give your definition for inspired by God:
DJ - The Bible is inspired by God, that is to say, the Bible was inspired by God's holy spirit.
Outsmart - I didn’t ask for an example of what was inspired by God….I asked for your definition of what it means to be inspired by God. Please try again.
Outsmart - If you have not already done so, please list and explain the contrasts between the two:
DJ - I do not intend to do so. If I were to do so, I would be as goofy as you are to be asking me to explain the contrast between what it means to be directed by holy spirit and for the Bible to be inspired of God, or "inspired by God,"
Outsmart – Even if you wanted to…you can’t do so because you haven’t even given a true definition for inspired by God.
___________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - If they are directed by God, they have no excuse for false prophecies and flip flops of teachings....unless.....God directed them to write/teach such a falsehood.
DJ - What "false prophecies" do you mean? Jehovah's Witnesses have neither taught nor published any false prophecies. If you don't mind, please name one of these false prophecies that we have taught or published. Please don't be vague or ambiguous, but be specific.
Outsmart - There are oodles of them. I’ll start by giving you two. 1) "October, 1914 will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea" utterly destroyed as a system". (June 15, 1911 WT p 190). It is common knowledge that Russell and the Bible Students expected the end to come in 1914. It is now 2011 and "Babylon" still exists. It was a prediction that did not come true…..otherwise known as a false prophecy.
DJ - I disagree. Babylon fell in the year 1919, which was about the time when seven representatives of the Society, including Joseph Rutherford, were finally released on bond from incarceration from a penitentiary in which they had been housed for some nine months in Atlanta, Georgia. God's people were finally extricated from the grip of Babylon the Great when it suffered its fall from God's grace in 1919. Although Babylon the Great has fallen, evidently without your realizing what this actually meant, this was neither a prediction or a false prophecy.
Outsmart – Babylon has not fallen. I do not pretend to be a JW scholar….but I know the literature fairly well. Please present to me proof from JW literature that Babylon has fallen. Another thing you seem to miss is that the quote says two important things. One is that it would happen in 1914….not 1919. The other is that the year 1914 would witness the FULL END of Babylon. And it would be utterly destroyed as a system. To the best of my knowledge…..the Great Harlot of "false religion" still exists today. Again….please provide proof from your literature that shows that your leaders agree with you that Babylon has fallen…..that it happened in 1914…….and that Babylon was destroyed as a system at that time. I eagerly await this information.
Outsmart - 2) "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." (May 22, 1969 Awake p15). If you were 10 years old when this was printed you are now 52. If you were 20 you are now 62. Let me guess….52 or 62 isn’t really "old", right? And this system ending in a "few years"? That didn’t happen either. Unless it is reasonable to believe that 42 years is "a few". There are dozens of others. The FDS has a 100% failure rate with predictions.
DJ - This was not a prediction. Jehovah's Witnesses have never published any particular year for when the end of this system of things -- Armageddon -- would arrive. The expectation of some that this system of things could come to its end after 6,000 years of human history -- and 1975 would mark 6,000 years of human history since Adam -- to be followed by the millennial reign of Christ Jesus was flawed for two (2) reasons that were ignored by those that wanted to believe the hype:
- Jesus clearly stated at Matthew 24:36 that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father," and (2) assuming a 7,000-year creative day, this 6,000-year period would have come to an end, not after Adam's creation, but after Eve's creation, and we have no idea when this 6,000 years will lapse from Eve's creation forward since the sixth creative day -- again, assuming a 7,000-year creative day -- would end only after Eve's creation. I asked you to "please name one of these false prophecies that we have taught or published," and you are 0 and 2. If you have none, that's ok; they aren't any.
Outsmart – You don’t have to attach a specific year in order for it to be a prediction. If I say the words "China’s economy will be larger than that of the U.S. within our lifetime"…..THAT IS A PREDICTION. I did not attach a specific year to it. But I predicted the future. Now….either it will or will not come true. If it does not come true then my prediction WAS WRONG. The above quote says "if you are a young person, you will never grow old in this present system of things". Your argument is pathetic and laughable. Even you know that what was written above was indeed a prediction that did not come true. Shamefully though…you are so captive to your concept that you will argue against the pure truth and easy logic. And why did you turn this into a discussion about 1975? I never even brought that up. Regardless, again, you are mistaken. 1975 was indeed trumped up. If it wasn’t then the Boyz would have had no need to publish they half apology they published in the Watchtower in 1980.
______________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - Would God direct them to mislead 7,000,000 people?
DJ - This allegations suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of misleading 7 million people in some way, which is not true. Again, if you don't mind, I'd like you to provide one example of our having misled anyone, let alone 7 million people, and with specificity, please.
Outsmart - Again, I’ll give you 2.
The end was originally supposed to have come in 1914. 1975. Within the lifetime of the generation that saw the events of 1914. The "men of old" were supposed to have been resurrected in 1925. Nothing happened. And this isn’t misleading?
DJ - No, I don't recall any such prophecies being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are here repeating yourself as to what you provide as one "example" of our having misled 7 million people, your reference to 1975. While Rutherford and others had speculated back that the beginning of the antitypical jubilee would occur in 1925, which jubilee corresponded to Jesus' 1,000-year reign, but this wasn't a prediction, nor a case of misleading 7 million people (or whatever number of Witnesses there were back in 1925). What was hoped in the lead up to 1925 was merely an expectation that was unrealized. Can you do any better than this? Frankly, speaking for myself, I do not believe that I have not been misled by anyone.
Outsmart – 1) I didn’t repeat myself. This is a totally different reference. And 2) I didn’t bring up 1975…you did. I was trying to get you to focus on the "you will never grow old" statement…..and nothing else. I see with your response that you’ve decided to completely ignore #1 above. So I’ll ask again. For the 13 years that transplants were not acceptable for Jehovah’s Witnesses….for anyone that may have needed one……do you think the stance taken by the dictators in NY was misleading? If not, please explain why. YES! You did it! I was hoping you’d use some loaded language that’s been invented to get out of being called false prophets. "Expectation that was unrealized". That’s a classic! Hey….mark this one down. The end is coming shortly before the end of Obama’s presidency. Ok? And if I’m wrong…..we won’t call it a false prophecy. Nor will we call it a prediction that didn’t come true. We’ll call it and expectation that was unrealized. Sounds good to me! Jokes aside…..you STILL haven’t addressed #2 above directly. It was written that shortly within our 20 th century the battle in the day of Jehovah will begin. Please tell me what day it was back in the 20 th century that happened. Whether you want to admit it or not….both of these examples are misleading. If you send me a text that says "hey I’ll meet you for a beer at the bar at 7 o clock" and then you don’t show up……that means you misled me. I was led to believe by your text that you would be at the bar at 7. How is that any different than saying that Jehovah’s battle would begin in the 20 th century? That statement LEADS people to believe and expect it. Why else would it be written? Interestingly, a few paragraphs above you brought up the fact that "
concerning that day and hour nobody knows". So why publish such speculation? (of course….as the 1997 WT I mentioned above brings out……the FDS doesn’t really speculate….but you must not have been aware of that given your response above). Can I do any better? Of course not. But I don’t print billions of pieces of literature telling others my opinions while passing them off as God’s commands.
Outsmart - Yes we have biblical examples of imperfect men in the lead, such as the Bible writers. But let me ask you a question. How many of the bible writers got it wrong when they penned the scriptures?
DJ - None, for each of the 40 Bible writers wee borne along by holy spirit.
Outsmart - OK
__________________________________________________________________________
Did Paul have to go back 10 years later and change what Luke wrote because of increased light?
DJ - No. Luke wrote as he was borne along by holy spirit.
Outsmart - Allrightythen
___________________________________________________________________________
Did Nehemiah [misinterpret] the [blueprints] and have to start over during the rebuilding of Jerusalem?
DJ - You just asked this question when you asked how many of the Bible writers -- Nehemiah being one of the 40 men that contributed to the Bible in use today -- got it wrong when they penned the scriptures, and my answer is the same, none.
Outsmart – Agreement is good, no?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - If the Holy spirit in the past guided imperfect humans to follow Jehovah's direction perfectly and guided imperfect humans to pen his words perfectly.....and that same Holy Spirit is operational today.... then those directions should similarly be perfect.
DJ - The holy spirit that provided perfect guidance to imperfect humans in the past is the same holy spirit that provides perfect guidance to imperfect humans today.
Outsmart - If the holy spirit is providing perfect guidance today as it was back then….and none of the bible writers got it wrong due to the fact that the holy spirit was directing them….then why does the FDS get it wrong many times? You have still not made that distinction. Conversely, if the FDS can get it wrong today…….even though the holy spirit provides perfect guidance to them as you allege above….then why didn’t any of the bible writers make mistakes?
*No response from DJ here
___________________________________________________________________________
Outsmart - Simply put....if the Holy Spirit is directing you....you don't get it wrong. If you get it wrong....then it wasn't directing you, was it?
DJ - If this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though Jehovah's Witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.' The fact that we have 'gotten in wrong' in the past does not mean that we were not being directed by holy spirit. However, if you are persuaded to a different opinion in this regard, that's your choice, but one thing has nothing to do with the other, except in your own mind. This question of yours is loaded as it assumes facts that are not in evidence. What is your proof that if Jehovah's Witnesses were being led by holy spirit that we shouldn't be getting anything wrong?
Outsmart – This has already been answered above. Your very own definition of what it means to be directed by holy spirit (being in harmony with it) proves that when a teaching is changed….then your cult leaders weren’t in harmony with the holy spirit when the original teaching was made known and thus were not directed by the holy spirit. You can’t be in harmony with the holy spirit if you’re teaching the wrong thing.
Outsmart - Personally, I believe that if holy spirit directs you, then it directs you to the correct conclusion.
DJ - Ok, but like I already told you, this would just be your opinion of what it means to be led by holy spirit. You have your own definition of what this means, so it doesn't make any difference what the true definition is.
Outsmart – Strangely enough you disagree with me…..yet your definition for being directed by holy spirit agrees with me.
Outsmart - God didn’t send his holy spirit forth to a young David, who then put on full battle gear to go meet with Goliath……only to realize that he interpreted the direction of the holy spirit incorrectly….so then corrected himself by taking off all the armor, grabbed a sling shot and headed out for the battle field.
DJ - The fact that you have here referred to David and Goliath makes clear that you do not know, and don't care to know, what it means to be led or directed by holy spirit.
Outsmart – Are you saying that David went out to battle the Philistine on his own accord, without the slightest bit of bodily protection…..and he was not led to do so at all by the holy spirit? Jehovah had no hand in this? David told Goliath that he was coming to him in the name of Jehovah. That’s a pretty bold comment if Jehovah wasn’t directing the situation with holy spirit.
Outsmart - The bible is full of examples of those who were directed by God’s holy spirit….and got it right.
DJ - How exactly do you see the account of David and Goliath one about being led by holy spirit now? Was it the Law of Moses direct David to meet Goliath in battle or was it something else? Review this account again and let me know what you find out, ok?
Outsmart – See above. You seem to think that holy spirit is only operational when one is reading a bible or a scroll. If this is the case…..then why do witnesses pray for holy spirit before making a big decision?
Outsmart - Now then….is there a scripture that says that when God’s spirit directs you are bound to get it right?
Dj - I don't believe your question makes sense, except according to your own understanding, so, as phrased, I cannot answer your question.
Outsmart – OK – You understand how I feel about the holy spirit’s direction. You’ve even mentioned that you think I am wrong and you don’t agree with me. So if you understand my point of view….although perhaps disagreeing with me……how is it that you have difficulty understanding this question? Are you only able to comprehend questions that are in line with your own thinking?
Outsmart - Not that I know of. But if that is the case….then the governing body does not have the right to insist to the rank and file witnesses that they must believe a certain teaching in order to remain in good standing. I will get into this in more detail below.
DJ - You say here that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses require rank-and-file Witnesses to believe its teachings if they are to remain in good standing, but you don't provide a single teaching that rank-and-file Witnesses are required to believe or else. I suppose this is because you don't know a single teaching where this is so.
Outsmart – I know you may have difficulty but please try really hard to follow this….and please answer each question. If I were to give a talk at the KH next week and I mentioned that Christ is the mediator for EVERYONE….not just the 144k. And that everyone is going to heaven when they die……and there will be no paradise earth….what do you think will happen? Do you think the elders might want to have some words with me? Now…if I persist and tell them, "but I don’t believe the FDS interpretations anymore……THIS is what I truly believe"……do you honestly believe that I wouldn’t be disfellowshipped? How could I be in good standing if I was disfellowshipped? Please answer each one of these.
Outsmart - If these men have, do and will be wrong in their predictions and teachings then they have absolutely no right to demand unquestioning loyalty and unity and do not have God's authority to strictly enforce obedience to their ever changing doctrinal interpretations.
DJ - What are these "predictions" to which you refer? What "predictions" have Jehovah's Witnesses made? Jehovah's Witnesses have taught things in the past that we have since come to realize were erroneous and we have made necessary adjustments to our teaching, as appropriate. Contrary to what you have stated here, Jehovah's Witnesses do not demand anyone to give them unquestioning loyalty and unity, so it's clear to me that you made this up since you cannot prove this statement to be true. You are mistaken when you suggest that we believe we have been given the authority by God to strictly enforce obedience to ever changing doctrinal interpretations. Morever, Jehovah's Witnesses do possess the God-given authority to strictly enforce obedience to his righteous principles as set forth in the Bible, even if you should not think we do.
Outsmart - You need to look up your own history. I’ve already given a few examples. But I can see that you’ve already handed over your mind to be programmed by the GB. What if another religion were to have "predicted" that Armageddon would be here "before the generation that saw the events of 1914 unfold passes away"? The prediction fails when the 70 to 80 years that makes up a biblical generation came and went. And then that religion reactively…not proactively (because 80 years has already passed) changes the definition of what a "generation" means. I think that you and any reasonable person would say that the prediction failed, and they are false prophets.
DJ -
I asked you to provide the predictions that Jehovah's Witnesses have made, and you instead refer to Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34, and no one cares what you might think the meaning of the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 ought to be. (At least I do know that I don't care what you think these two words mean.) It really won't matter to you what you understood these words to mean should God's judgment actually come against you.
You probably haven't given any thought to this scenario, but you really should, for there are folks planning to retire ten years from now, but whose health will prevent them from reaching retirement age. There are other folks that consider themselves to be Christians with as many Bible-related questions that you have that do not believe Armageddon is coming (because they don't want to believe that Armageddon is coming!) for whom there will be funeral services before Armageddon arrives.
Outsmart – Yet another red herring! I did not gripe about not understanding the Proclaimers book. And I never mentioned anything about what is or is not required in order to be saved. The "gripe" was in regard to the predictions from your cult leaders that proved to be false. You are clearly in denial so I understand that I am wasting my time here…but telling others that God’s Kingdom will come before those that saw the events of 1914 pass away WAS WRONG. It did not pinpoint a year but it was indeed a prediction that did not come true. You do not understand because your concept will not allow you to. The concept that controls your mind is far too precious for you to allow rational thinking or even the truth to be seen. Perhaps you don’t care what I think Jesus words at Matthew 24:34 mean…..but you should care what YOU think they mean…..or rather….what you are told by your leaders they mean. You say that what "this generation" means isn’t at all relevant because it isn’t a requirement to gain life. Yet it is a teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (currently the belief is that Jesus’ words meant that overlapping lives constitute 1 generation) "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Watchtower 1989 Sep. 1 p.19" According to your beliefs….being associated (and thus believing the teachings) with the organization is essential for surviving into the "new world". You say that "he that believes and is baptized will be saved". Does that mean that you think that as long as you believe and are baptized you will be saved? Believe what? Believe in Jesus? Believe in 80% of what your leaders teach? Believe in 99%? Believe in 100%? Are you indicating that you are allowed to believe whatever you want to and you will be saved? If belief in the whatever the "generation" teaching is or will soon be isn’t required to gain life then please list all the other teachings that Witnesses adhere to (for the sake of unity) that aren’t required to gain everlasting life. I eagerly await these.
Your final paragraph above indicates that I should be concerned because death may be around the corner. You mention that "health will prevent them from reaching retirement age" and "there will be funeral services before Armageddon." According to your belief….wouldn’t this be a good thing? For then I would be resurrected to a period of judgment. Whereas if Armageddon came…..I would be wiped out forever. Try to get your warnings straight next time.
Outsmart - The change in "definition" for "generation" was made after 80 years came and went. It was made out of necessity. The change in definition does not take away from the fact that what was taught up until the time of that change was indeed false.
DJ - Between February 18, 1930, and August 23, 2006, school teachers worldwide were teaching that Pluto was the ninth planet in our solar system. Would you say that this a case of false teaching on the part of these teachers during this period in view of what occurred some 76 years on August 23, 2006, when the IAU (International Astronomical Union) vote in the Prague stripped Pluto of its status as a planet? If not, then would you say that after August 23, 2006, that Pluto should still be regarded as a planet? If so, how can you expect these teachers to know before August 23, 2006, that Pluto wasn't a planet?
The point I'm making here (in the event you just don't get it) is that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot possibly know in advance things that they do not know, and even though we may have speculated as to the meaning of "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, so what? Now we know what "this generation" does not mean, but this does not mean, and should not mean, that we ignore these words and stop trying to figure out what Jesus had in mind when he used these words.
Not many Jehovah's Witnesses today are aware that we had speculated almost 60 years before this Watchtower article appeared in 2010 that Jesus may have been referring to his anointed followers as contemporaries of the sign, whose lives may overlap during the generation of the sign that began in 1914. With this understanding, there is no reason that anyone should be attempting to force two, three or even four generations into becoming a single generation since Jesus specifically spoke of "this generation," which is only one generation, the one that began in 1914 and ends with the great tribulation.
Those of Jesus' spiritual "brothers" that were alive contemporaneous with the "sign" that were born or became manifest in 1914 would correspond to those that became contemporaries of Joseph at his birth, these contemporaries including not only Joseph's 11 brothers, but to Joseph's two sons that were alive when Joseph died, they being "all that generation" (Exodus 1:6). Thus, these contemporaries of Joseph's generation would correspond in a similar fashion to Jesus' anointed brothers, who from 1914 until now were all contemporaries of the sign as all of them could bear witness to the composite sign that became manifest in 1914.
This is what our latest understanding of Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 is today. You don't have to agree with us; Christendom doesn't agree with us either and could hardly care what it is we think Jesus' words to mean. If you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, when why should you care what we think Jesus' words to mean, @outsmartthesystem?
Outsmart – YES!!!!!!!!!! They were teaching something that is false. Ask them and they will tell you that. What they won’t say is "no….it was the truth…..only it is now a past truth". They were mistaken. Therefore the teaching was false. How can you expect these teachers to know before 2006 that Pluto wasn’t a planet? You can’t. But here’s the big reasoning point on the matter that will fly right over your head. THEY NEVER CLAIMED TO BE DIRECTED BY GOD! They got it wrong because of their own human thinking. They never had God’s direction nor did they claim to. Similarly your beloved FDS gets it wrong because they don’t have God’s direction…only….unlike the teachers….they still claim to.
If your leaders cannot possibly know in advance the things that they don’t know….then your leaders are no better off and no more useful than the teachers who would admit that they DON’T have God’s direction. You seem to be forgetting…..according to your leaders…..they don’t speculate. Their modesty would never allow such a thing. If they want to keep guessing as to what Jesus’ words mean that’s fine. But why put the words "evidently" before announcing the newest change? It is clearly not evident. It is nothing more than another guess….or they wouldn’t have had to change it 5 times already.
Again…remember….your guys don’t speculate. That would be immodest. Can you please provide proof of these "speculations" made 60 years ago? Or is it just hearsay? You say "there is no reason that anyone should be attempting to force two, three or even four generations into becoming a single generation"….but that is exactly what your leaders have done! They’ve taken a real generation and stretched the meaning to include from 1914 down to whenever the great tribulation should start. They’ve come up with their own definition to fit their own theology. Ya know what? That’s a good idea. I think from now on whenever I am wrong….I’ll just start re-defining the true meaning of things so that I am no longer wrong anymore. That’s modest and humble!
Outsmart - It was a prediction that did not come true.
DJ – OK
Outsmart – No need to follow up on that
Outsmart - You can call it what you want. You can say that you’ve "made adjustments". You can call it a "past truth". You can call what you are teaching now a "present truth". The fact of the matter is that if what you are teaching today is not the same 20 years from now….then what you are teaching now isn’t the truth.
DJ -
Just as these teachers got over it, likewise, when Jehovah's Witnesses learn that something that they are teaching today is in error, you can be sure that 20 years from now, they will have made an adjustment in not teaching that error since we have no problem admitting when we are wrong. We got over the fact that we understood "this generation" to mean one thing in 1995, and something else in 2008 when an adjustment was made in our understanding, and then again in 2010 when another adjustment was made.
Outsmart – Fine….but you also need to come to the proper conclusion that God is directing your organization no more than he is directing the teachers. By the way….how many times has the teaching about whether Pluto is a planet or not changed? I am pretty sure it has only been once. This is proof that human wisdom if infinitely better than what the FDS possesses. They possess human wisdom which is mistakenly believed to be Godly wisdom.
Dj - It was discerned in 2010 that the anointed would be contemporaries of the generation whose lives would overlap the lives of those that would see the beginning of the composite sign and those that would see the end, including the great tribulation. We got over it, and those that didn't get it, either didn't or didn't care. For the most part, it is only those that are former Jehovah's Witnesses for whom this change in 2010 is such a problem, but these folks are as silly to be concerned about what we do as you would be if you were to be concerned about what a Girl's Scout troop in your city to which you never belonged is doing to up the sale of cookies. It's none of your business what we teach in this regard, and you really should take the position of the Catholics and the Baptists and the Lutherans and don't pay Jehovah's Witnesses any mind.
Outsmart – DJ, if my family wasn’t knee deep in the stench of your cult I would do exactly as you suggested.
Outsmart - You’re right. Jehovah’s Witnesses (the rank and file) don’t demand anything. It is your fearless leaders. "We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval". (Jul 15, 2011 WT p24)
DJ -
Outsmart – Taking quotes out of context. Now THAT is something all witnesses should be familiar with if they actually checked the source material of the quotes located within their publications. Alas….nobody does. Anywho…..this quote was nothing more than a random interjected thought in your magazine. It was not located within any one paragraph. As such there was no further context. However….the subheading before it was "Continue to Progress with Jehovah’s Organization". The paragraphs immediately after brought up the classic witness response to all mistakes made by your leaders. Proverbs 4:18. This handy scripture (which has nothing to do with Jehovah progressively revealing things nor following the lead of a modern day organization) gives them the safety net they need to teach whatever falsehood pops into their minds…because hey…..they can always change the teaching again later and call it "new light". This scripture as interpreted by your cult leaders is the most detestable twisting of scripture I’ve ever read. Try reading it in its proper context. There is no parallel or connection to a modern day faithful and discreet slave whatsoever. It is nothing more than a father giving advice to a son. It refers to conduct….one’s course of life. The wicked live in darkness and commit bad deeds. They do whatever they feel like doing without regard for consequences. They are bound to trip up. The righteous live in the light by living according to God’s commands. The result is that the path gets lighter and lighter for them. It is a contrast of one’s path in life. No more. No less. Using this twist of scripture…the next few paragraphs beat the reader over the head with the need follow whatever changes in teaching occur without question.
Outsmart - "Avoid questioning the counsel provided by God’s visible organization"(Jan 15, 1983 WT p22)
DJ - Who is God's visible organization? Is God's visible organization limited to the faithful and discreet slave or to whom is this quote referring exactly?
Outsmart – Does it really matter? Whether God’s visible organization is the GB….the FDS….or everyone and every kingdom hall collectively united under the directives from the Boyz in Brooklyn….it does not matter. The point of the quote is to show that we are to avoid questioning the counsel received.
Outsmart - As rank and file witnesses….we are not to question teachings. We are to obey.
DJ - his is a mantra, but no matter how many times you utter it, this is not going to make it true.
Outsmart – Again you are in denial. Since providing written proof of your own publications isn’t good enough for you….please provide me with a list of teachings from the FDS that you are not required to agree with and follow in order to remain in good standing
Outsmart - According to them, if we do not obey them, we will not have Jehovah’s approval….meaning our eternal salvation hinges on it….and we cannot hope to understand the bible.
DJ -
Outsmart – That’s the point. It isn’t in the bible….yet you teach it. The very Watchtower we just discussed (July 15, 2011 p 24) says in large print "We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval". Do tell…..what does that quote mean to you?
WT 10/1/1967: "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind." Now I know you are going to put your usual DJEGOnogg spin on what that means and try to make it say something different but the fact of the matter is that it is the Witnesses belief that the only reason they now know the "truth" is due to their association with the organization. And of course….all doctrines and beliefs come from the Big Boyz.
"All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave" Watchtower 1994 October 1 p.8
Outsmart - The FDS has stated clearly in the past (see Apr 15, 1988 WT) that you do not have to be ACTIVELY spreading ideas that are not in tune with FDS teaching in order to be considered apostate. You simply have to BELIEVE differently.
DJ - You have again referred to one of our publications, a 1988 Watchtower, but in the article entitled "Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit," there is no mention of the things you have mentioned here, so my question to you is why do you intentionally and knowingly claim to be quoting from the April 15, 1988 Watchtower when you are not quoted from the April 15, 1988 Watchtower?
Outsmart – DJ you are correct. And I do sincerely apologize both to you and anyone else reading this thread. My memory did not serve me correct. What I was referring to was information found in the letter from the society to all C.O.s and D.Os in 1980 (as found in Ray Franz’ book Crises of Conscience). That being said I want everyone to know that I wasn’t actually wrong before. No. It was a past truth and the light just got brighter. Check that out! Proverbs 4:18 works for me too!
Outsmart - So….overall…we are told to obey.
DJ -
Outsmart – And repeating your denial of what your own literature says does nothing to prove your illusionary point.
Outsmart - We are told not to question. And anyone that so much as believes anything other than exactly what they teach is subject to DF’ing and a lifetime of shunning from their immediate family. Other than that….no demands.
Dj - Assertions aren't good enough; prove this.
Outsmart – Regarding the point of so much as believing being enough to get you DF’d please see my comment above. Also see the example taken from the 1983 Watchtower mentioned above regarding independent thinking. The magazine tells us to
Outsmart - I never said that Jehovah’s Witnesses think they’ve been given the authority by God to enforce strict obedience to ever changing doctrinal interpretations. I said the GB has.
DJ - And I've rejected this as being a false statement on your part. Can you prove that any member of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses thinks that he has been given "authority by God to enforce strict obedience to ever changing doctrinal interpretations"? You can make whatever assertions you want to make, but if you cannot prove what it is you are asserting, then I can only regard this as being your opinion, and you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Outsmart – If you still had control of your own brain you would be able to reason on the matter. You’ve rejected it but provided no proof as to why anyone should believe you. They’ve given themselves the authority to enforce strict obedience to every changing doctrinal interpretations by means of their disfellowshipping procedure. Take smoking for example. Regardless of whether or not it is a defilement of flesh or even "spiritism" due to the addictive effects and "controlling of one’s mind" it may have….smoking is not allowed. But it used to be. It was decided by the Big Boyz one day that smoking would no longer be tolerated. I believe they gave everyone that smoked at the time 6 months to quit. After that if you started or continued smoking….you would be disfellowshipped. Collectively (not individually) the Boyz made new edict that the Bible prohibits smoking. That was indeed a change. And it was enforced by the rule that those that choose to smoke anyways will be disfellowshipped.
Outsmart - And I am most certainly NOT mistaken when I say that they’ve given themselves the authority to strictly enforce obedience to their ever changing doctrinal interpretations.
Dj - But you are very mistaken, even if you should believe that you aren't mistaken.
Outsmart – Answer these questions please. If a Jehovah’s Witness received a blood transfusion prior to the official ban on blood would he have been disfellowshipped? If a Jehovah’s Witness received a blood transfusion by choice and was unrepentant after the ban on blood, would he be disfellowshipped? (prior to 2002 when the ruling was changed and witnesses now "disassociate" themselves by accepting transfusions.) I assume your answers will be "no" and "yes". Therefore it is a doctrinal interpretation that has changed. Obedience is enforced through the threatening of disfellowshipping to anyone that does not follow their doctrinal change. Don’t make simple understanding any more difficult than it has to be, DJ.
Outsmart -
If you think I am mistaken, then why don’t you try teaching others both in the ministry and at the KH that the "superior authorities" are Jehovah and Jesus again. See what happens. You’ll either fall back into line and do/teach what they tell you to…or you’ll be DF’d. That, my friend is a strict enforcement of obedience to a changing doctrinal interpretation.
DJ - No, the "superior authorities" to which the apostle Paul refers at Romans 13:1 aren't Jehovah and Jesus at all, even thought this was what Jehovah's Witnesses had understood the "superior authorities" to be between 1929 and 1962, but in the Watchtower dated November 1, 1962, November 15, 1962, and December 1, 1962, a careful analysis for made so that we came to understand that the "superior authorities" are the secular rulers, the political rulers of this world, who "stand placed in their relative positions by God." Jehovah's Witnesses would not be found teaching error, for if anyone should be found deliberately teaching error to anyone, this can lead to expulsion from God's organization for apostasy, since the holy spirit urges that all Christians "speak in agreement." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Outsmart – Yes. I am aware of what your belief is on the matter. But as usual you’ve missed the point. You basically reiterated what I said above (that if you taught or spread something other than what the FDS tells you is the "current truth"….you’d be subject to expulsion). You proved my point for me with your answer. Your answer proves that your doctrinal beliefs are ever changing and that enforcement of obedience to those changing doctrines is enforced via the threat of "expulsion".
Outsmart - Summing it up....we have men that claim they are speaking for God.....yet when things go wrong they say they aren't perfect and it is unreasonable to expect perfection.
DJ - I can agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are God's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for God. (2 Corinthians 5:20) I can also agree that when we get something wrong, this is because we are imperfect. (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8) Lastly, I agree with you that it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect perfection from an imperfect creature.
\
Outsmart - Yet they also say in as many words, "if you want to avoid eternal destruction....you need to QUIT believing THIS....and START believing THIS.....because the teaching has changed."
DJ - This statement of yours is loaded in that it assumes facts that are not in evidence. When ever have Jehovah's Witnesses told anyone to quit believing something and to start believing something else for any reason?
Outsmart - With as much respect as I can muster up here…are you out of your mind?
DJ - I don't care if you respect me or not, but, no, I happen to be of sound mind.
Outsmart - This is not a matter of rank and file witnesses telling "worldly" ones what they can and cannot believe. This is a matter of the governing body telling rank and file witnesses what they can and cannot believe.
DJ - I don't understand your point about rank-and-file Witnesses telling non-Witnesses what they can or cannot believe, and how this is a matter of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses telling rank-and-file Witnesses what they can and cannot believe. No one can tell anyone else what to believe. You are mistaken.
Outsmart- You don’t understand any point that requires you to think critically. The GB….the spokespeople for the FDS does indeed tell the rank and file witnesses what they are to believe. Let’s see….they tell witnesses to avoid independent thinking. They tell witnesses not to question the slave. If you are not supposed to think independently and you are not supposed to question teachings….then that means you are supposed to obey implicitly. And why would a witness do just that? Because the leaders tell them they need to in order to "have Jehovah’s approval". And because "To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb. 15 p.12
Outsmart - Again, start telling others at your KH that you believe something OTHER than what the FDS teaches.
DJ - Why would I tell someone -- anyone -- that I believe something that I don't believe? I don't believe in gay marriage, so should I tell someone that does that I do believe in gay marriage? I won't do that just as I wouldn't expect someone that believes in gay marriage to say because I don't believe in gay marriage, that it would be morally wrong for same-sex couples to be permitted to marry. Do you see my point or don't you? I'm an adult and I'm in the habit of telling someone lies just to please someone else. If you should do this, fine, but that would make you a liar, even a hypocrite, but I won't do this.
Outsmart – Yes I see your point. But again, you’ve failed to understand the basics of logic. I don’t think anyone (but you of course) reading this thread expected you to run out and tell others that you approve of gay marriage. The point was for you to try to understand what would happen to your status as a JW IF YOU DID do this.
Take this example. Let’s pretend Joe and Bob are talking one day. Joe says "I don’t understand why anyone would be afraid to go to jail anymore. The prisoners these days have so many rights. They get fed well. They get to exercise and watch TV. It’s a good life". Bob responds, "You really think that? Why don’t you rob a convenience store? Then you’ll find out just how "good" that life behind bars is". In that scenario, would your "average Joe" say "Why would you think I would do such a thing? I would NEVER rob a convenience store. First of all it is illegal. And secondly….the fear and intimidation that the store clerk would feel would be cause by ME! And finally, my strict moral conscience would never allow me to steal as it is prohibited in the bible. I just could NEVER do such a thing!" No. A NORMAL person would see that Bob mentioned robbing a convenience store for only one purpose. Not because he truly wanted or expected Joe to do so. But because he wanted to make Joe think about what would happen if he did do so. Unfortunately you are just like Joe in this example. Completely unable to reason and understand logic. Short of pictures or claymation….I’ve done the best I can to help you see the point.
Outsmart - For instance if you were still going around telling others that the ones that saw the events of 1914 unfold positively will not die before the end comes, you’d be reprimanded pretty quickly.
DJ - I don't recall Jehovah's Witnesses being taught that those that saw the events of 1914 unfold would not die before the end comes, but what I do recall is that it is possible that those that saw the events of 1914 unfold would not die before the end comes. This is what was in print and this is what I believed. One other thing I believed that many of the rank-and-file Witnesses did not: That when Jesus stated at Mark 13:32 that "concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." I am not someone that does what you do by quoting from our publications to prove that we used to teach something. I would rather use the Bible to show others what the Bible teaches and nothing more. Our literature is just an aid to Bible study, but is not a replacement for the Bible. Morever, what you are saying here is silly.
Outsmart – My statement above was not to be taken to mean that NO ONE would die. Rather….the belief was that the generation (i.e. most) that saw the events of 1914 would not pass away before the end comes. "
Of course you don’t quote from your own publications to prove that you used to teach something. Why would you? It would be damning to your case. Past contradictions, constant changes and false predictions don’t look good….so you have no reason at all to quote from your past literature.
Outsmart - And if you didn’t stop, you would be DF’d. As a Jehovah’s Witness, you are NOT allowed to have a different belief than the next JW.
DJ - You must be a fool to think that I would teach something that Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach when I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, for unlike Christendom's churches, Jehovah's Witnesses teach the same things.
Outsmart – Again….I wasn’t literally asking you to do so. I was asking you to understand the point of what would happen if you did. You’re about as sharp as a bowling ball. Indeed you are right in that all witnesses teach the same things. As long as your spreading of falsehoods remains in uniformity……God must somehow approve.
Outsmart - The point being….the FDS changed the meaning of the "generation" teaching. And using the above mentioned sources (i.e. obey the slave and do not question) as guidance, IF you want to be "approved" by Jehovah, you will unhesitatingly stop using the old belief and immediately adopt the new meaning. Your failure to follow the new edict from the governing body can and will result in your expulsion. Are you telling me that the GB doesn’t tell you what you do and don’t believe?
DJ - I am telling you that you are not and never have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though you may have thought you were. Speaking in the manner in which you have spoken here, it is clear to me that you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so my responses here to your questions and statements have mainly been for the sake of those lurking this thread that might have some of the same questions that they have always wanted to ask that you have asked me here. I've already told you that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't tell anyone what to believe and what not to believe, but I cannot be concerned if you do not wish to believe me, and I fully expect you to trample upon all that I have said here like a dog or a pig. (Matthew 7:6)
Outsmart – Ouch. Well…..my publishers card from all those years would say otherwise. But I can see that you must be one of the 144,000, so congrats on that! I mean after all….you just judged me by saying that I am not and never was a JW. Granted….your judgment came a little early but it was a judgment nonetheless. Perhaps you should have started reading in your bible 5 verses earlier than the one you quoted above. (Matt 7:1). For those that may have been "lurking" I am confident that my quotations of your very own literature is enough for them to see that you are lying and that you’ve been given a lobotomy by the organization. That fear and intimidation of losing one’s eternal life and "approval" from God makes the rank and file witnesses follow every teaching. And that failing to do so can result in disfellowshipping. After all, you yourself admitted above that you would never teach anything that is contrary to current teachings as provided by the FDS. To do so could result in your "expulsion". As I’ve said before….you are free to believe what you want so long as you accept the consequences of potential expulsion and loss or eternal life. Yay freedom!
Outsmart - OK. Let me get this straight. JW’s do speak for God yet somehow, as you put it, "none of us speak by divine inspiration?"
DJ - No, but I do realize that any statement I make here could be a candidate for your putting a spin on it, a spin that I would not at all be surprised to find that you have twisted into a statement that I would never make if this should be something that you wanted to do. What I said was that Jehovah's Witnesses do speak for God for 'it is as if God were making entreaty to folks through us.' (2 Corinthians 5:20) Personally, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have no need to recommend myself as being one of God's ministers. (2 Corinthians 3:1-3) In fact, none of God's servants here on earth have any such need.
Outsmart – I have a hard time believing that God approves of you and your leaders and their predecessors telling others things about Him that aren’t true. After all….you’ve admitted that in hindsight you’ve been wrong many times before.
And yes, the GB has indeed taken "some other position in this regard". The GB has and will made doctrinal changes. And as a rank and file witness, you are obligated to roll with those changes if you want to remain a witness.
DJ -
Outsmart – The "other position" your gutless leaders take is to remind the rank and file that they need to be obedient to the faithful slave…..while at the same time weaseling out of misleading others with their incorrect teachings by saying "but we don’t claim to be infallible". For your benefit….I’ve gone ahead and copied and pasted what you wrote above…..but with a couple of changes that make it more truthful. "they come to learn many things that the Bible [FDS] teaches that contradicts their belief system, because their faith wasn't based on Bible [what our leaders tell us is the "current"]truth. Before anyone can become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they must become acquainted with the "primary doctrine about the Christ" [primary doctrines as taught by our leaders] (Hebrews 6:1, 2), and over time they will come to learn the body of truth [they too will allow their minds to be controlled and will accept as "truth" the current teachings ] that Jehovah's Witnesses teach."
DJ - All Jehovah's Witnesses are obliged to conform their lives with Bible principles and to live by means of the truth if they want to remain in good standing in our midst; this applies equally to unbaptized person that might attend meetings with us from time to time and those with whom we are studying the Bible. Like I told you in my previous message, Jehovah's Witnesses do not demand, and have never demanded, unquestioning loyalty to doctrines by anyone. One must only prove their loyalty to God as a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Outsmart – No. All JWs are obliged to conform their lives with Bible principles AND the additional teachings that go above and beyond what the Bible says that the GB says they need to abide by. You say that all JWs are obliged to "live by means of the truth if they want to remain in good standing". That ‘s been my point all along. Thank you. You are obliged to live by means of the "current truth" (that you admitted is easily subject to change in the future) as taught by your leaders. And when that "truth" changes tomorrow….you are obliged to change and follow it now instead. And as I’ve said before…..JWs don’t demand anything. It is by means of the disfellowshipping rule that your leaders demand unquestioning loyalty to their teachings. You yourself said it in your paragraph above. "by means of the truth if they want to remain in good standing". The truth as taught by whom? The Boyz in Brooklyn. What you said above was ………..you are obliged to live by means of (in other words agree with) the "truth" that is taught by the FDS to remain in good standing. And what does "obliged" mean? To require. I went ahead and looked at a thesaurus. You’ll be happy to know that "demand" is not a synonym of "obliged". However there are some other good ones. I’ll repeat my statement with some of the synonyms found instead. "In order to remain in good standing, the GB coerces, commands, compels, contrains, forces, or makes the rank and file witness live by means of their interpretation of bible truths." Thank you for using the word "obliged". You clarified a lot of your previous confusing jibberish by doing so.
Outsmart - The GB has put in writing that they are to be obeyed and not to be questioned.
DJ - Where exactly has the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses put anything in writing? There are times when letters go out to the congregations that are signed off by the governing body, but since the Watchtower, for example, isn't the same as a letter that goes out to a congregation, I need you to provide an example of any edict that our governing body has ever made "in writing" demanding obedience and daring its orders to be questioned by anyone. I'm telling you now that I believe this to be a lie, but I feel you should be given the benefit of the doubt anyway, which is why I'm asking you to provide an example of such an edict to which all Jehovah's Witnesses are obliged to obey.
Outsmart – I am not going to paste the quotes again. Scroll up if you’ve forgotten. Besides….in your argument above you admitted that JWs are…..let’s see… coerced, commanded, compelled, constrained, forced, or made (pick whichever you like) live by means of the "truth". And of course….."the truth" is taught and interpreted by the FDS. Do I really need to find any more quotes? You admitted that you are required to live according to their teachings….and after all…..their teachings are "the truth", no? What I find interesting is that you are obliged to conform your lives to bible principles, AND live by means of "the truth". This alone indicates that you understand (consciously or not) that living according to bible standards and living by means of "the truth" are two totally separate things.
What does it matter whether or not a letter to a specific congregation is the same as a Watchtower? What if the GB writes a letter addressed to the Podunk Kentucky congregation that says "Jehovah’s Witnesses are not to cook turkeys on Thanksgiving Day. If anyone does….it can be taken to mean that you are celebrating a worldly holiday and may be dealt with judiciously." Now….what if the GB writes the same thing in a Watchtower magazine? What is the difference? The message still applies. To be honest….I guess I don’t quite know where you are going with this. Again….the GB doesn’t have to say "we demand obedience". As you mentioned above….to remain in good standing…..obedience to their rules and teachings as provided in written word through publications and through discourses at the local KH is necessary. You really want an edict that all JWs must obey? Ok. How about you are not allowed to celebrate birthdays? How about anything else that you could be disfellowshipped for as found in the elders manual? If you are a witness….you are obliged to not celebrate your birthday. Quit trying to sugar-coat the pharisaical rules and regulations that go with being a JW.
Outsmart - Yet they also write things like "The
DJ - You've repeated yourself now. I'd like you to provide an example of an occasion when the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses issued an edict to all congregations regarding a matter in which all Jehovah's Witnesses in these congregations were obliged to obey without any question or dissent.
Outsmart – Are you saying that the words put forth in your written publications for all to see that outline what is and is not acceptable behavior for a JW don’t count? As I’ve said before….changes in doctrine and teachings are prefaced with "this is a demand". It is already understood that the failure to readily adopt the new teaching can result in removal of privileges and possible removal from the congregation. We’ll use me as an example (since you can’t seem to make any connections when we use you as an example). When the GB changed the definition of a "generation" yet again last year, it was indeed a new edict. It was not a letter addressed to each congregation….rather it was located within a Watchtower publication. ALL CHANGES IN TEACHINGS AND DOCTRINE ARE HANDLED THIS WAY. All JWs are obliged to accept the new teaching if they want to remain in good standing. If they choose dissention and refuse to accept it….then privileges will be removed and disfellowshipping is certainly a possibility. So…..does the GB truly make the rank and file follow the new edict? No. No one can make anyone do anything. But removal of privileges…..removal of meaningful relationships with loved ones….etc is a pretty strong coercion. Let me ask you a question. Are you obliged to pay your property taxes? Realistically….yes. But the true answer is no. The Government can’t make you do anything. If you are content to lose your house you can do what you want. And so it goes in the life of a JW. Theoretically you can do what you want….but realistically you are obliged to obey. Then again…I don’t expect you to understand because JWs don’t think realistically.
Outsmart - Yet they fall back on this provisional infallibility when predictions go wrong.
DJ -
Outsmart – We’ve already been through this. I gave two examples. Your refutation of them was below the line of pathetic as my response has already shown. If you truly believe that a statement put in writing about a future event that doesn’t come true is an "unrealized expectation" and not false prediction then there is nothing else I can say. Other than….once again….let’s check the definitions. "Unrealized" - Not made real or actual. "Expectation" – the act of expecting (anticipate the occurrence of coming of). "False" – Not true. "Prediction" – to declare or tell in advance. So in the examples I gave….your leaders anticipated the coming of an event that was not real or actual. Yet at the same time…….your leaders also declared in advance something that proved to be not true. Your definition? Yeah….I guess it is correct. But guess what? So is my definition. They were unrealized expectations. But they were also predictions that proved to be untrue.
Outsmart - Speaking of the 1975 debacle, here is one quote from the March 15, 1980 WT,
DJ - I know exactly what was printed in the Watchtower, and what you quoted in your post wasn't a prediction and neither was it an admission that some prediction that was made had gone wrong. You have here quoted something from one of our publications that doesn't say more than that it was regrettable that certain ones had taken a wrong view as to what would occur in the year 1975, but this "wrong view" wasn't the result of any 1975 debacle brought by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses or Jehovah's Witnesses generally.
Outsmart – Oh yeah. This wrong view couldn’t possibly have been pushed along by your egomaniac cult leaders could it? In the book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God", Fred Franz points to the year 1975 as the beginning of the 7 th millennium of man’s existence. He writes things like "According to the trust-worthy Bible chronology, six thousand years from man’s creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 CE…….How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest & release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants……. It would be most fitting on God’s part for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible speaks as the reign of Jesus Christ over the earth for a thousand years…..It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, "the Lord of the sabbath" to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man’s existence." Now, did Franz say flat out "The end is coming in 1975."? No. But it doesn’t HAVE to say that for Witnesses to believe it…and they know that. For a writer to declare it to be "appropriate" and "most fitting on God’s part" for the end to come in 1975 would call for some measure of certainty, no? Wouldn’t discretion require, or better yet, demand that? This is just one example. An October 8, 1966 issue of the Awake had an article entitled "How Much Longer Will it Be" with a subtitle of "6,000 Years Completed in 1975". It made statements like "Does God’s rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so…..In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man’s existence and also the first 6,000 years of God’s rest day come to an end? The year is 1975…….We can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and His promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the time of the end". The May 1974 Kingdom Ministry wrote "reports are heard of brothers selling their homes to finish out the rest of their days in the pioneer service." The August 15 th Watchtower of 1968 contained an article called "Why are You Looking Forward to 1975?" A synopsis is not necessary to know what was discussed in that article. The KM from March, 1968 (p4) said, "just think, brothers, there are only about 90 months left before 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth is completed. Do you remember what we learned at the assemblies last summer? The majority of people living on earth today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out." The KM from June 1969 (p3) said, "In view of the short time left, a decision to pursue a career in this system of things is not only unwise but extremely dangerous". The Watchtower of April 15, 1967 (244) said "it is to come within the generation that has already seen two world wars and it is only a few short years ahead of us". The Awake from October 8, 1968 said "It means that only a few year, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God." There are literally dozens upon dozens of others. Talks at the kingdom halls and at assemblies persistently hinted at what little time was left before 1975. In fact, at one District Convention in Sheboygan Wisconsin in 1967, District Overseer Charles Sunutko gave a talk called "Serving with Everlasting Life in View". The grand crescendo was "We don’t have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don’t wait until 1975. The door is going to be shut before then. As one brother put it, "Stay alive til Seventy-Five".
Granted, as was mentioned before, none of these publications came out and said "this positively will take place in 1975". But like I said before….the Society didn’t have to. Jehovah’s Witnesses are carefully trained to avoid independent thinking and to rely solely on the "Faithful Slave" as God’s sole channel of communication, to receive the "sayings of everlasting life". They talk, you listen, end of story. Now, the Society will say that they never said the end was definitely coming. In fact, the Proclaimers Book (which is supposed to be a "candid" history of Jehovah’s Witnesses) brings out an article from the May 1, 1968 Watchtower as proof that it tried to give caution on the subject of 1975. The article says in part "The immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events, for this old system is nearing its complete end. Within a few years at most, the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will undergo fulfillment……Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring…….Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earth-shaking events soon to take place." Now….does that article caution that 1975 is not a sure thing? Yes…but look at the rest of it. "Immediate future". "Within a few years". "Time is rapidly running out". If anything, this article heightened peoples’ expectations for the end to come. You cannot write one little cautionary statement when the two paragraphs it is contained in are shrouded with hope and excitement for 1975 and then expect people to focus on the caution you gave. That is an absolute basic in persuasive writing. If their goal was to raise awareness and caution, they would have gotten an F from any writing instructor. It should also be noted that those paragraphs appeared in columns bordering each side of a large chart of dates, beginning with the year 4026 BCE and showing that 6,000 years ends in 1975. In this context, how "cautionary" was this article after all?
The Proclaimers book talks a little bit more about the 1975 debacle and admits that things were printed that may have inadvertently lead others to believe that 1975 was the year. But it also stresses that cautionary statements were also made. It makes sure to quote Fred Franz. The quote in the Proclaimers book reads, "Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘it could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that’".
The reader of the Proclaimers Book reads this information and says "Boy….I wonder why all those people that fell away in the late 70’s were "running ahead of the organization" or why they were so presumptuous? Franz plainly said not to look forward to 1975." But the actual article that quote was taken from was the October 15, 1966 Watchtower, page 631. It read: "'What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?' asked Brother Franz. 'Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah's witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.'"
The difference is that the 1966 original article, although including cautionary statements, also serves to excite people about 1975. By saying "Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished? It could! It could!" (notice the exclamation points) Franz is stirring excitement….only to attempt to calm it down a couple sentences later. Whereas the Proclaimer’s Book’s rendition of the article seems to paint a calm, cautionary statement without anything that might truly excite a group of people that hang on the Society’s every word. Conveniently the excitement painted just a few sentences earlier isn’t quoted at all in the Proclaimers Book. Yet another instance of selective quoting by the FDS. And further proof that the Proclaimers book is NOT and candid history….rather just another piece of Watchtower propaganda.
The point is….they produced dozens of articles and talks hyping up 1975….only to blame the hype on the brothers for "running ahead" when the hype and their perceived reality failed. Perhaps during this week, I should tell my child "how hot it will be this weekend and it sure will feel good to go swimming"….and "there are only 5 days left until Saturday and you know what Saturday means". Then when the weekend rolls around we’ll just hang out at the house. And when my child says "but I thought you said we were going swimming?"….I’ll just say. "Nope. I never actually said that. I just mentioned how hot it will be. And all I said was that it will feel good to go swimming….and….it will…the next time we go….whenever that is. And the "5 days more" comment was simply where we are in the stream of time. Ya know…what day it is vs when the weekend will start. You ran ahead of me and assumed. Why would you do that? Shame on you".
DJ, you can justify their actions all you want with technicalities….but the truth of the matter is people have been and will be misled by a man made organization. I guess to you, Jehovah doesn’t care what your leaders’ intentions were or whether or not real truth was being spoken. He just cares if they actually said the words "the end is coming in 1975". Without those words….you simply won’t be convinced. Because after all, Jehovah is not a God of truth….He is a God of technicalities. At least He is in your world.
Outsmart - Ultimately, the GB does indeed demand unity and loyalty to the organization amongst rank and file witnesses without questioning any teaching.
DJ -
Outsmart – Scroll up and kindly ask your cult leaders if you can borrow your lobotomized brain back.
Outsmart - Yet, when things go wrong such as what you just read above….they say "sorry, we admitted we’re imperfect already"….or in this case…they throw the blame back on the rank and file witness for "his own understanding" failing him.
DJ -
Outsmart – If you do not consider the written statement "young ones will never get old in this system" to be a prediction of the future (I know this is hard for you but please remember you do not have to pinpoint a precise date in order for it to still be a prediction. The weather man may predict severe thunderstorms this evening. He did not say they will be here at 5:43 pm. Yet he still made a PREDICTION). In this case, the prediction failed when those "young ones" got old. I understand at this point that you are not going to see reality for what it is.
You say that you are familiar with that 1980 WT article but your comment here proves otherwise. I will paste it again.
"
Since you have trouble focusing….I underlined and made the good parts in bold print. The Watchtower clearly blames ALL witnesses that were disappointed because THEIR OWN understanding was based on wrong premises. Remember….you guys "serve" in uniformity. You aren’t allowed to believe what you want. Isn’t it your "unity" that makes you so different? The magazine was right. It wasn’t God that failed. It was the LEADERS of your organization that hyped up 1975 to the rank and file witnesses that depend on them for proper food at the proper time. Your exact quote was "no blame has ever been cast on the rank and file witness either for taking a wrong view in understanding something that they had read, or thought that they had read in our literature." You’re right. The blame wasn’t cast on the rank and file. Rather…it was shared graciously by your gutless leaders.
Outsmart -
Dj - There are no edicts, only the truth, even if you should believe otherwise. I feel that I've been saying the same things again and again here is because you have repeatedly said the same things here over and over again.
Outsmart – You say that there is "only the truth". Here is a lovely quote of yours. "Since Jehovah's Witnesses put their faith in God's word, God's spirit may lead us to the realization that we may have gotten something wrong, that we may have drawn a wrong conclusion about something we may have understood differently in the past." IF God’s spirit leads you to the conclusion that you got something wrong in the past…..and you make a change because your organization is "progressive" then what you were teaching in the past was WRONG. It was in ERROR. IT WAS NOT THE TRUTH. Therefore what you say is a lie. Truth does not change. Only your interpretation is what changes.
Outsmart - But just as a side note…..we have never falsely prophesied, nor have we ever taught falsehoods. We just simply change our teachings when the light gets brighter to adapt to that new light. Anything we used to teach that is now obsolete is again…not a falsehood….but a "past truth"….since…you know….we have, and only teach "the truth."
DJ - What you say here is essentially correct. What we may think to be the truth today could prove to be inaccurate tomorrow, prompting that an adjustment be made in our teaching. Anything else would be a case of semantics. Jehovah's Witnesses will not knowingly teach anything that is false.
Outsmart – A case of semantics? Your leaders live by semantics. The difference between "unrealized expectation" and "false prediction" is nothing more than clever semantics. You don’t have to knowingly be a false prophet to have God’s disapproval.
Outsmart - Seriously think about the deception and cunning word play the organization uses.
DJ – What "deception" and "cunning"?
Outsmart – Try the difference between "false predictions and unrealized expectations" for one. If you were going to work for a financial services firm and you discovered a history of money laundering problems….and you wanted to get to the bottom of it before committing yourself as an employee to this organization….you might want to ask some questions. What if the boss man answered your question by saying that they weren’t involved in money laundering schemes…..rather it was more of an "unconventional way of transferring monetary values through trusted intermediaries"? Would your B.S. detection alarm go off? It should. Because it is similar to the semantics used by the FDS to try to distance themselves from accusations of false predictions.
Outsmart - Oh….let’s pretend that you sell widgets for a living. And you tell all your customers that their widgets will last for 10 years. But after 7 years….no one’s widgets work anymore so you are now standing before a judge on charges of false advertisement. The judge looks at you and asks "did you tell these people their widgets would last 10 years?" You answer "Yes, Sir". He responds with, "and that promise proved to be false, didn’t it?" Certainly at that point it would be reasonable to tell the judge, "actually it is a past truth, therefore I should not be held liable," right?
DJ - No, in this scenario, you would have to tell the judge that the "10 years" was an estimate, that turned out to be erroneous. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, do not engage in false advertising, so this analogy of yours isn't applicable to anything of which Jehovah's Witnesses or the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty. We don't make predictions, period. BTW, since Bible truth is progressive, our understanding of it is going to be progressive, gradual.
Outsmart – But you have and do make predictions. Now aside from pinpointing an exact time period….what is the difference between saying that your widget will last for 10 years and "you will not grow old in this system?"
And aside from grossly misapplying Proverbs 4:18….please prove to me that bible truth is progressive.
Outsmart - Again I will ask…….how can the governing body, when they admit that teachings can and have needed to be changed, still demand strict adherence to their teachings from the rank and file witness?
DJ - How does the governing body "demand strict adherence to their teachings" from the rank-and-file Witness? I'd like to see an answer from you to this question.
Outsmart – If you disagree with them….you are subject to disfellowshipping. Do you deny this?
Outsmart - Again...imperfect men...claiming to be speaking from God.....but only until the proverbial **** hits the fan and then demanding unquestioning loyalty to doctrines that can change at any time.
DJ - Jehovah's Witnesses do claim to speak for God and we have never taken some other position in this regard whenever it is some "proverbial ****" hits the fan," whatever this "proverbial ****" happens to be. Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses have never demanded unquestioning loyalty to doctrines by anyone. You make this same statement above, but you made this up since you cannot prove this statement of yours to be true.
Outsmart –
That doesn't sound cult like?
DJ - Does what sound cultlike? Many of the people here on JWN are members of a cult, followers of Ray Franz, since these folks to whom I refer all seem to have read one or both of Franz' books, and subscribe to many of the things that Franz believed, just as one might expect any follower of a cult to do. Many of these folks tend to believe many of the same things and will often speak in agreement, with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses being their principal foe-in-chief as they put on a pretense (some of them) of being Jehovah's Witnesses when these Franzite cult members are really counterfeit Christians.
Outsmart - Does what sound cult like? How about telling the individual witnesses that to have God’s approval they must obey your edicts even though you have been and will be wrong?
DJ - There is no requirement on the part of any of Jehovah's Witnesses to believe anyone's "edicts" in order for the individual Witness to gain God's approval. Where are you getting this nonsense?
Outsmart – I am getting it from the very literature that you peddle from door to door. Ooops. I mean that you "place" from door to door. Again. "We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval". (Jul 15, 2011 WT p 24). That quote is as plain as it gets. If you want Jehovah’s approval you will listen to the slave and whatever changes they say are necessary. Sounds like you need a refresher course in your own nonsense.
Outsmart - How about telling individual witnesses that they cannot understand the bible without you?
DJ - This is a true statement; without help from someone knowledgeable about the Bible, no one can hope to understand the Bible's message on their own. The only reason that you and I are able to discuss what things the Bible teaches is because you have yourself been subjected to much spiritual instruction regarding the meaning of many Bible prophecies and many doctrinal matters during your stint as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Outsmart – Do you say this is so based on your interpretation of what the Ethiopian eunach said to Philip? Wait a minute…….I thought you said earlier that I am not and never have been a Jehovah’s Witness! Are you reneging on your judgment?
Outsmart - How about telling individual witnesses that believing something other than what we teach is punishable by excommunication and a subsequent shunning by all other witnesses?
DJ - I don't know who the "we" is, but if any of Jehovah's Witnesses should be telling individual Witnesses that believing something other than what we teach is punishable by disfellowshipping, let alone their putting their faith in something other than what we teach that is punishable by shunning, this would be a lie. Jehovah's Witnesses do not punish anyone by excommunication, and I have no idea from where this idea of yours comes. Disfellowshipping, excommunication, is meted out to those who have committed a sin, but in whom repentance in lacking. That you think of disfellowshipping as a punishment pretty much sums up for me what you know on this subject, so I'll just move on to the next part of your message since you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Outsmart – The "we" is the FDS. Remember….my problem is with them….not the individual witnesses. Honestly could you be any more naïve? You truly think that disfellowshipping is only for those that have committed a sin and yet repentance is lacking? You don’t think a repentant person has ever been disfellowshipped? What a Truman Show type bubble you live in. You have just told another lie. Having beliefs that disagree with doctrine as taught by the FDS (if you are already a JW) can indeed result in disfellowshipping.
It comes down to your viewpoint. Brain washed witnesses such as yourself refer to disfellowshipping as "loving reproof". Others may view it as punishment. One thing that does not change is that you are not allowed to speak with disfellowshipped people. If you do, the elders know about it and you were to persist in the activity….you may be disfellowshipped as well. And then no witnesses would be allowed to speak to you. Are you denying that witnesses are told to shun disfellowshipped people?
Outsmart - How about telling individual witnesses that they should avoid critical thinking in regard to the organization?
DJ – Please elaborate on what you mean here.
Outsmart – Do you need pictures? We’ve been through this. The FDS tells us they alone have God’s backing….therefore we should avoid questioning the counsel they provide. The definition is "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion". Thinking critically exposes the massive amounts of false predictions, quotes taken out of context and evidence suppressed…in order to maintain control. Therefore, thinking faculties such as the ones you may have at one time possessed are urged by the Big Boyz to be shut down.
Outsmart - How about telling individual witnesses that they should avoid independent thinking?
DJ - It is true that individual Witnesses ought to avoid independent thinking since such often will be in conflict with the Bible and with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Outsmart – Independent thinking also results in critical thinking. Critical thinking when applied to the organization exposes the house of cards that it truly is.
Outsmart - You need to review what characteristics truly describe a cult. I will post a separate thread discussing mind control and propaganda as used by cults. The June 22, 2000 Awake and its self condemnation will be the focal point.
DJ - I don't care to read a book report based on any of your publications. I'd rather talk to you about these things since I don't much care to discuss with you what you may have concluded after reading any of your literature.
Outsmart – Try reading what I wrote above again….but carefully this time. It has nothing to do with "any of my publications". It is 100% completely based on literature published by your leaders. I will warn you though. Critical thinking is involved. So if you’d rather play it safe and have your ears tickled I will understand. At this point….I can see that you have not commented on the thread I started. So you either realized that every single point about propaganda THAT THE FDS BRINGS OUT applies directly to them….or you are hiding under your Watchtower blanket….afraid of the truth.
Outsmart - Let’s see…did Ray Franz start his own religion? No. Did Ray tell people to follow him if they want to be approved by God? No. Did he tell people they needed him to interpret the bible for them? No. Nobody follows Ray any more than they do any other intelligent source. I’ve read both of his books. Very insightful. Very meaningful….but in no way did he tell others what to believe. He encourages people to examine the scriptures deeply without a pre-determined mind set. I sometimes follow the advice of Steve Forbes and Warren Buffet as well. That doesn’t make them cult leaders nor does it make me a cult follower. They are just smart men with good advice and experiences to give. Kind of like Ray.
DJ -
In one of Ray Franz' books, In Search of Christian Freedom, which book you claim to have read -- "I've read both of his books," you wrote -- he attacks the very governing body on which he had formerly sat for its claim to be representatives of God's organization. Franz quotes from various issues of the Watchtower from as far back as during the Russell era, thinking that by his using them he was
Outsmart – Are you going to finish that thought?
DJ - He also is stupid enough to believe that by his quoting the words of a former circuit overseer, a man named Ron Frye that had been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for 33 years before becoming an apostate, that you, the reader of his book would have to give Frye's words the weight they deserve, that you would be convinced by the things he said that what Franz was saying were also true, that if Frye's words were credible, then it stands to reason that Franz' words were also credible. What kind of strawman is this? How stupid does one have to be to be persuaded by such "logic"?
Outsmart – Probably about as stupid as most witnesses that believe that the quotes they read in the articles that have provided to them are full and in the proper context. Your accusation here is that neither Frye nor Franz’ words are credible. Please prove to me that what Franz claims is untrue. I’d like to see the refutations you have from the FDS
DJ - On page 77 of Franz' book, In Search of Christian Freedom, appears this quote from Frye: "The organization always comes first." What then follows this statement of Frye's is the following: "In the Watchtower of March 1, 1979, the article "Faith in Jehovah's Victorious Organization" the expression "theocratic organization" appears fifteen times in just the first eleven paragraphs. 4 " This footnote 4 states that "the term 'Theocratic organization' has been used since the December 1, 1939 Watchtower in particular." So I suppose that when you read this, @outsmartthesystem, you were convinced by what you read that this was proof that "the organization always comes first," right?
Outsmart – Actually I was convinced that the organization came before EVERYTHING else long before I read this book All you have to do is be associated with the organization for long enough….be cognizant of what is going on around you and still maintain the ability to think critically….and you’ll see it to.
DJ - Tell me this: Why does Franz, who claim to be quoting Frye, alter his quote by adding the words, "that associated with," which words change the thrust of what Frys was saying to make them agree with what Franz was ostensibly quoting Frye to say? Since you have read Franz' book, In Search of Christian Freedom, then let's see if you can discern what Franz has done by adding the three words that appear in bold below:
"This kind of mesmerizing repetition is constantly used by the Society to condition Jehovah's Witnesses to think that it is wrong for them to question anything the Society ever published as truth. In contradiction to this attitude toward the organization, Russell and his early associates were actually anti-earthly organization....
"And, in connection with the subject at hand, it is abundantly clear that Russell did not believe that God had on earth at that time an '1800-year-old faithful and discreet slave organization'—God's earthly channel of communication. He did not find it nor did it find him. He and his associates had no fellowship with any existing organization....
"But today, a hundred years later, the descendants of the Bible Students of Russell’s movement argue the other way around, that it is necessary to be looking to a visible, earthly organization, namely, [that associated with] the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. That was not the position in the beginning....
"Russell for the most part is unknown to modern day Witnesses. His writings are not recommended reading nor are his many books any longer published by the very publishing house he established and endowed with his own money.
"Yet here was a man whom, Jehovah’s Witnesses still argue, God used to revive the great teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Why don't they study his books today in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, even from a historical standpoint? Because much of it, if not most of it, would be considered heresy today."
Let's see if you were able to figure this out what Franz does to Frye's quote? Frye says that "the Russell movement" argues the necessity of look to the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. Did you get that? Ok, but did you get the connection that Franz doesn't want you to make, namely, that the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society is God's "visible, earthly organization"? If you didn't, that was probably due to the insertion of the words "that associated with" into Frye's quote, which isn't what Frye wrote at all, but what Franz would have had Frye write.
BTW, I have been here quoting all of this from Chapter 4 entitled "The Recurring Pattern," in which chapter Franz argues that God has no visible earthly organization, which is just one of the statements that makes Franz outstandingly an apostate, but Frye is attack is against the "Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society"; he does not attack himself nor does he attack anyone that may have been "associated with" the Society.
But Franz extends Frye's criticism to all Jehovah's Witnesses, something that Frye does not do, as he includes Frye's ridiculous opinion as to our reason for not studying any of Russell's books today (because the some of the contents of Russell's books "would be considered heresy today"). Jehovah's Witnesses do not study any of the books published during the Rutherford era or the Knorr era either, but our reason for not doing so is sound: We are interested in glorifying Jehovah God by the things we publish about the good news than in glorifying the writings of men, especially when we know that some of what was published in these books is no longer in line with Bible truth.
Outsmart – OK. It is plain to see that the insertion of the words [that associated with] have confused you. Franz was not including all other witnesses in his criticism. Take a look at the subject of what was being talked about. The subject was The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, not the descendants of the Bible Students. The insertion of the words [that associated with] was not intended to mean "those in association with the WBTS. The insertion of the words [that associated with] was to infer that the descendants of the Bible Students argue that an organization, namely the WBTS (AND OTHER NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WBTS THAT ARE SOMETIMES USED IN REFERENCE TO THE HEAD HONCHOS THAT ARE IN CHARGE) is necessary. In other words, {that associated with] includes "the governing body", "the society", "the faithful and discreet slave", "the organization" etc. Perhaps you don’t do it, but many witnesses use all those words interchangeably. When somebody says "the society says"…..that person doesn’t mean Joe Smith the rank and file witness. He is referring to something that the head honchos have said. The same thing with the word "the organization". When someone says that they appreciate the wonderful spiritual gift (publication) from Jehovah’s organization….again…they don’t mean that they appreciate the gift that Joe Smith has given. They mean that they appreciate the publication that was provided by the head honchos. Therefore to most witnesses, GB, FDS, The Organization, The society….etc all means = head honchos. All Franz was doing was making sure to include all decision makers….in whatever form you might refer to them as…..in the criticism.
So in reality…..neither Frye nor Franz included criticism to all Jehovah’s Witnesses. Evidently your prescribed Watchtower glasses prevent you from reading other publications logically as well.
Your reason for not studying any of the books published in the Russell, Rutherford, or Knorr era is ridiculous. It is a canned response. It is the response given by people that are afraid their followers will begin to notice that they never have had the truth and therefore God’s direction…..so long as they spend time studying your true history of teachings.
Dj -
On page 95 of In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz sets up his anti-disfellowshipping argument by alleging that it became incumbent for Watch Tower officials Fred Franz, Hayden Covington and Grant Suiter, to impose disfellowshipping as a sanction against Jehovah's Witnesses because in order to win a 1954 case that Covington was defending on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses in Scotland that involved a presiding overseer named Walsh, who sought to obtain exemption from military service for reason of his being an ordained minister as such exemption was provided by the British Selective Service.
After Franz was disfellowshipped, he became anti-disfellowshipping. Franz goes on to make the false claim that Jehovah's Witnesses had argued in the Walsh case that we abided by a creed that was not unlike that to which other established Christian churches adhered, so that we were just as qualified to receive the same classification as had the clergy of other Christian denominations been qualified to receive:
"Watch Tower magazines of earlier times ... claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses were very different from the established religions of Christendom which had their authority structures and their official creeds. Now the Watch Tower officials tried to demonstrate that Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion were essentially very similar, that they in effect had a creed to which all must adhere, and that therefore whatever classification the clergy of the established churches qualified for, the presiding overseers of Jehovah’s Witness qualified for as well. That appears to be a major reason why the Watch Tower spokesmen, Franz, Covington and Suiter, were so positive, even adamant, that the obligation rested on all members of the organization to accept and conform to ALL teachings of the organization, on pain of expulsion for disobedience—even though these persons might rightly believe that some of the teachings were contrary to Scripture. For the legal benefits sought, it seems that they needed—or believed that they needed—to establish that type of creedal authority over members in order for Walsh to be classified as an "ordained" minister of a recognized, bona fide, established religion. 21 [Italics in text]
"Neither in Russell’s time nor even during Rutherford’s time (during whose presidencies the specific false predictions mentioned had been taught), had there been the practice of disfellowshiping persons who conscientiously objected to certain teachings. In Russell’s time there were subtle criticisms or insinuations of a lack of faith for those expressing doubt or disagreement; in Rutherford’s time such ones might come in for demotion of position, even verbal castigation, but actual excommunication used as a coercive instrument to enforce uniformity was rare. The three Society representatives evidently felt it justifiable, however, to say what they did in order to attain the end they were seeking.
Notice that one of the words that Franz emphasizes using italics is the word "creeds." This footnote 21 states that "The court decision did accord the Witness religion recognition as an 'established' religion, but it ruled against granting Walsh recognition as an 'ordained minister.'" Again, not only was this is a false claim, but as his own footnote admits, that were no connection between the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to a religious creed and Walsh's having obtained recognition by the court in Scotland of his having been an "ordained minister." Again, my question is, how stupid does one have to be to be persuaded by such a logical fallacy? Franz makes a statement that is based on his own conclusions, which he advances to explain his lie about the creeds to which all Jehovah's Witnesses adhere, and he expects the reader to believe this nonsense.
Outsmart – You have missed yet another point of WHAT Franz wrote. It was his opinion that Franz, Covington and Suiter thought that in order for Mr. Walsh to be considered qualified for classification as an ordained minister……FIRST….the religious organization he belonged to needed to be recognized as an established religion. This is why they went to such great lengths to show that their structure was similar to that of other religions including having some sort of creed. What you fail to realize is that there WAS a connection between Walsh being accepted as an ordained minister and the Witness religion being accepted as established. As mention before…….one was contingent but not guaranteed on the other. There was a 0% chance Walsh would be granted acceptance as an ordained minister if the Witness religion was not an accepted religion. Therefore the religion HAD to be accepted first…..and THEN there was hope of Walsh being accepted as a minister. Just because one happened and the other didn’t does not mean there was no connection. And Franz, Covington and Suiter knew this. In the end……the religion gained the recognition they wanted….but Walsh was not permitted to be recognized as a minister. So the connection was there….you just fail to see it. And how exactly was "this a false claim?" Can you prove this?
And Franz’ conclusions are perfectly logical especially considering that he likely discussed this event with his uncle directly at one or more times. How many first hand accounts do you have access to?
DJ - Also, on pages 123 and 124 appear the following: "So, as I stated in Crisis of Conscience, my belief is that the fundamental evil lies in the concept of divinely ordained exclusive authority vested in the Watch Tower organization, along with the view that only by the exercise of such authority can unity, order and productivity be achieved. If not all, then certainly some of the men of the Governing Body have been victimized by that concept, entrapped by its appeal to fleshly thinking." It is as if Franz has forgotten, and wants the reader to ignore, the fact that he himself was a member of the "evil" governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses entrapped by an appeal to fleshly thinking. I cannot ignore what Franz was and what he became, and IMO you shouldn't either.
Outsmart – You need to refer back to his first book, Crises of Conscience. He was well aware that he was part of the evil governing body. But he had the same struggle that every witness has. He wanted so badly to believe that this was the truth that he talked himself into it for a number of years. I haven’t ignored what Franz was and nor did he. But in the end he made the right decision. Once he was away from the interior poison he was able to think clearly and realize all the mistakes he had made and all the decisions he was a part of that affected peoples’ lives without any direction from God. In one aspect, the governing body members…including Ray Franz….are just like everyone else. They too are the captives of a concept. That is…until they realize it and do something about it like Ray did.
Dj - These are but two examples, but I note that you have here described what things you've read in Franz' two books this way: "Very insightful. Very meaningful….but in no way did he tell others what to believe." How naive are you? Franz' books are neither insightful nor meaningful. Clearly, Franz' two books were written with only one audience in mind: Those who are presently associating with Jehovah's Witnesses. They weren't written for Catholics or Baptists or Adventists of any stripe. They were written for people like you whose faith was already weak in the first place and who were looking for an excuse on which to base their decision to leave the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is for this very reason that our publications discourage Jehovah's Witnesses from reading apostate literature, for such preys on those lacking the mental acuity to be able to discern that which is deceptive and designed to destroy whatever faith one might have had.
Outsmart – If you don’t think having a first hand account of behind the scenes operations of a secretive "governing body" is insightful then I don’t see how you could consider any information whatsoever on any topic you do not know well to be insightful. Yes….his books were written with an audience in mind. Those that are entrapped either directly or indirectly by the long tentacles of the Watchtower Society. Is my faith and that of others weak? I suppose. Weak in the belief that a man made organization preaching man made ideas should receive any support at all. Your publications discourage the reading of apostate literature because the purpose is to shield witnesses from the painful truth of your history and lack of Godly direction. But I will agree that the purpose of such material is indeed to destroy one’s faith. If destroying one’s faith in a cult that destroys happy families is the goal of a particular "apostate" then that is a worthwhile goal to pursue.
DJ -
You asked me if Ray Franz started his own religion? Yes, he did. In his book, what he teaches is not in accord with healthful doctrine; he teaches another Christ, not the one that he had formerly claimed to follow and represent as one of Jehovah's Witnesses when he used to sit as a member of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. The principles of his religious viewpoints are not God-centered ones, not in accord with Bible principles, but contrary to what things the Bible teaches.
Outsmart – This is exactly why Witnesses are so reviled. "Healthful doctrine" is defined by you as whatever is currently being taught by your leaders. He believes and "teaches" in the same Christ that the rest of us do. Only without the JW spin. The principles of his religious viewpoints are completely God-centered. Your problem is that they are Watchtower centered. If he isn’t involved in doing mental gymnastics to force scriptures to mean something they weren’t intended to mean……or re-writing the bible to fit his own theologies….then he must not be God-Centered. That’s the problem with your leaders. Throughout time…..they’ve made God become Organization-centered. BTW – what is the name of the religion that Franz started?
DJ - You asked me if Ray Franz told people to follow him if they want to be approved by God? Yes, he did want people to follow his lead, and he knew that his way was not the way that had been approved by God, so when he advanced his apostate viewpoints, he did so deliberately, knowing full well what he was doing. Lastly, you asked me if Ray Franz would tell people of their need to have him interpret the Bible for them. Yes, he certainly did this, too, for he includes quotes from the Bible and interprets them according to his own viewpoint.
Outsmart – Please show me somewhere in his books where Franz said that he and those that listen to him "alone have God’s backing" (Watchtower 2001, June 1, p16). Please show me anything even remotely close to the presumptuous statements of your leaders. Franz obviously printed his books so that they would have an affect on others. But nowhere did he say that you must listen to him in order to be approved by God. Those asinine statements are reserved for YOUR cult.
Did Franz quote from the Bible and give his interpretation? Of course. But never once did he tell people that they needed him and only him to interpret the Bible for them. If you have proof otherwise….please show me. There is a big difference between quoting the bible and giving your interpretation and TELLING others that YOU are the only one able to understand the Bible’s message.
DJ - Again, he wrote his two books for the express purpose of turning folks away from Jehovah, in order to persuade those who are currently associating with Jehovah's Witnesses into believing that they have been deceived so that they might save themselves and their family from the falsehoods taught by Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyone that obeys Ray Franz in this has become a follower of Ray Franz, a Franzite, for many of Franz' followers have read his books and quote from them as if Franz actually articulated Bible truths in them.
Outsmart – He wrote the two books so people could have first hand accounts of just how inept your organization is. Nobody "obeys" Ray Franz….as he does not have a list of do’s and don’t’s that are enforced by excommunication for failing to heed the counsel given. Please answer this question. I listen to advice given by Steve Forbes. Does that make me a follower of him?
Outsmart - The only thing the people on this forum "tend to speak in agreement about" is that the governing body is the self-appointed mouthpiece of a destructive cult. Aside from that, the beliefs are quite varied.
DJ - This is not true. Many of the folks here on JWN tend to speak in agreement with respect to the teachings of Ray Franz; many of the folks here on JWN sound like a disciple of Franz, just like you do.
Outsmart – And Franz testified that the GB is basically a self-appointed mouthpiece of a destructive cult. So yes….we are in agreement. You cannot be a disciple of somebody unless that person has his own unique teachings. Please list the teachings that Franz told other people to follow. And don’t be evasive.
Outsmart - That sounds like God's smooth, flowing direction?
DJ - Huh? If you don't mind, please rephrase your question.
DJ - You didn't rephrase your question. What were you saying here exactly?
Outsmart – I was saying that your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries. Honestly there is no point in rephrasing it. It was simply saying that God wouldn’t direct such a mess.
Interestingly…..back on the 7 th , you indicated that any question that I should ask of you that I have already asked will not be entertained by you. Then I threw in a snippet back on the 13 th that had nothing to do with any of our previous arguments. To which you responded "I don’t intend to respond to any more of your questions until you have responded definitively to my last message" So which is it, you Schizo? First you say you don’t want replies to old questions. So I bring up something new. And then you respond by saying that you won’t respond to the new until I’ve addressed the old? Seriously….you are frickin nuts.
So here is the basic message from the boys in Brooklyn. "Yes we may have been wrong. Oops…I mean greater light has been shed on this subject. As such we are changing the meaning and we now believe THIS instead. BUT, we are still God’s only mouthpiece and he is still directing our organization, so all you 7+ million witnesses out there need to begin believing the new, changed meaning. This edict will remain in force until the new, current meaning also becomes outdated. Then it too will be replaced by a newer interpretation that, yes, as a Jehovah’s Witness, you will be obligated to follow without question.There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated. In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated ‘If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises’. In saying ‘anyone’, the Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that dateI didn't read anything above, because you didn't provide anything in your message to the effect that Jehovah's Witnesses or the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses have ever made predictions that had gone wrong, and no blame has ever been cast on the rank-and-file Witness either for their taking a wrong view in understanding something that they had read, or thought that they had read, in our literature. If you can provide prove that what you say here is true, that would be great.Again, you make this statement, except it isn't true and I need you to do more than assert this nonsense. I am requested you to provide proof that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses demands unity and loyalty to God's organization without question. I know that you cannot prove such a thing, but I've left the proverbial door open so that you may provide such proof, if you are able to do so.What went wrong and how? What predictions did the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses make that "went wrong"? What predictions did Jehovah's Witnesses make that "went wrong"?Governing Body consists of a group of anointed Christian men. These preside over the worldwide activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are not inspired by God and hence are not infallible." (JW – Unitedly Doing Gods Will p26). So the governing body makes whatever doctrinal changes they feel they need to make throughout the years…..and the rank and file witness is obligated to follow along without questioning God’s mouthpiece.
What "other position"? Jehovah's Witnesses are God's spokesmen. Since this is a matter of faith, xsomeone lacking faith would not be expected to believe many of the things that the Bible states, such as at 2 Corinthians 5:20, which scripture I quoted earlier. I believe that Jehovah is God, whereas there are some professed Christians that believe that Jesus is God. When such Christians join our ranks, they come to learn many things that the Bible teaches that contradicts their belief system, because their faith wasn't based on Bible truth. Before anyone can become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they must become acquainted with the "primary doctrine about the Christ" (Hebrews 6:1, 2), and over time they will come to learn the body of truth that Jehovah's Witnesses teach.DJ - Yes
Outsmart - So that means you are speaking for him but without His approval.
So close is it that people who were alive in 1914, and who are now well along in years, will not all pass off the scene before the thrilling events marking the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty come to pass". (Survival into a New Earth – 1984 p 184-185). avoid independent thinking. Then the magazine goes on to give an example of independent thinking. That example is in the form of questioning the counsel provided by God’s visible organization. The point being…..questioning the counsel provided by your cult leaders is a form of independent thinking……which the magazine tells you to avoid. Plain and simple. And you already know that disfellowshipping results in being shunned by everyone including your own family so I won’t even go down that path.Again, repeating the same thing you just said is not the same as proving that what you said is true (and what you say isn't true).Where in the Bible did you ever read such a thing? This is not something that Jehovah's Witnesses teach, but I suppose you read something in the Bible that led to such a conclusion.No, what is the context of this quote? Please answer and do not take this comment out of context.I agree with you: If anything that we are teaching today turns out to not be the same thing that we teach 20 years from now, then what we are teaching right now cannot be the truth, but we know this. For many years, there were teachers that taught kids in school that Pluto was a planet, and after 76 years of teaching that Pluto was a planet, it turned out that Pluto was not a planet, so what these teachers had taught for 76 years wasn't the truth, even though every one of them believed Pluto to have been the ninth planet in our solar system.Why do you insist on dropping references to books (like the Proclaimers book) that you do not understand as if you understand what's in them? I don't care to hear your gripes about not understanding that whatever a "generation" turns out to mean isn't at all relevant to our putting faith in the ransom of Christ Jesus, since whatever a "generation" does mean isn't a requirement to gain life. At Mark 16:16, Jesus stated that "he that believes and is baptized will be saved."