The imperfections of the elder

by outsmartthesystem 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • djeggnog

    This is a repost of my previous post, to which I manually added a few remarks that were not a part of my original dictation (where indicated in red).


    [T]he 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.


    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....

    You come off as if you know the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses personally, so that [if] there are things in particular that, say, Theodore Jaracz, Stephen Lett or Gerrit Losch have said to you, [things] over which you have gripes, then why not take a pen and paper to one of them to let them know your feelings[?]


    Exactly how did I come off as though I knew the governing body members personally? Did I mention [anyone] 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.

    You made yourself quite clear, which was the reason I provided that example, especially considering the fact that you are a hypocrite that is only pretending to be in the truth because you are in fear that were your family members in the truth to learn that you wear two faces -- one face at the Kingdom Hall and the other face here on JWN -- then they would be forced to end their familial relationship with you. My point to you is that if you don't know these men personally, then it's a cowardly move on your part to be spreading your opinions of them, as gossip, to me, to the rest of those here on JWN.

    For example, if you have something against me, a complaint of some sort, and you are telling everyone else about this complaint you have against me, except approaching me directly as to the gripe you have against me as Jesus instructed us to do to gain our brother when we perceive that he has committed a sin (Matthew 18:15), then it is clear that you don't want to resolve the issue with me at all. You would rather spread gossip, slander me, disparage me, which exposes a character flaw in you, a sin on your part, a desire to magnify my perceived faults in the eyes of others in order to persuade them over to your point of view that they might also find fault in me as did Satan when pointing out one of Jehovah's perceived faults to Eve, rather than growing a spine and doing what makes for peace between us by approaching me directly.

    Your telling me and others here in this thread about your gripes against all members of the governing body, and gossiping, slandering, disparaging them without specifically naming anyone, is either an attempt on your part to solicit support from active, inactive or former servants of Jehovah for your cause to make your brothers and sisters disgruntled for the same reasons that you are disgruntled and to turn them away from serving Jehovah, and/or an act of cowardice on your part. Frankly, upon reading your gripes in this thread, I am convinced that you are a coward.


    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… 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!

    It is evident that you have a gripe with someone, that "someone" being the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, so why haven't you confronted any member of the governing body with your gripes? I don't care what your gripes might be since I believe all of them to be imperfect human beings that are doing whatever they can that is humanly possible for them to do as a central body of elders to ensure that Jehovah's Witnesses are spiritually equipped to spread the message regarding the good news of the kingdom to as many people as possible before the end comes.

    Maybe you have one or more ideas that would be an improvement on the way things are being done now, but your griping over one or more decisions on which they have signed off because you don't agree with those decisions or because you do not know the basis upon which these decisions with which you don't agree were made would make sense if these gripes were actually directed to one or more members of the governing body.

    Like, if you knew how Theodore Jaracz, a member of the governing body voted on, let's say, how disfellowshipping should be handled in the local congregations, and you didn't agree with his vote one way or the other -- perhaps because your reading of the Bible suggested an approach be taken much different than Jaracz' approach to administering discipline in the congregation – then it might not make a lot of sense for you to be getting into the face of another member of the governing body, like, say, Stephen Lett, when he may not have even voted the way that Jaracz voted on the matter, right? But if you don't know how Jaracz or Lett or Gerrit Losch or Samuel Herd or whomever voted on whatever matter that has gotten your panties in a twist, then how can you know if your gripe is being appropriately directed to the governing body member(s) with whose vote you disagreed?

    In the above, you speak of your "being still baptized" -- as if it were even possible for someone that has been baptized to be un-baptized -- "and having family still involved in this cult," which I take to be an admission on your part that you have no desire to leave the "Jehovah's Witness cult," which is, of course, your decision to make, but it does seem strange that you would be here telling me about some of the things that make you hate the very cult from which you refuse to separate yourself because you have family still in it.

    Be that as it may, my viewpoint is Jehovah's viewpoint in that he drew you to him and handed you over to his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has never lost anyone that Jehovah has given him, and I am your brother despite your apostate views that are pretty much the same apostate views that were espoused by Ray Franz as may have been cauterized by Don Cameron's Captives to a Concept, which book, along with Franz' Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom books -- were written exclusively with active and inactive Jehovah's Witnesses in mind, many of them weak-minded, but mostly those with weaknesses in their faith, which make them easy targets to be indoctrinated with what some here have referred to as "the truth about the truth." In fact, you and I are able to communicate on a level that most professed Christians cannot begin to do because Jehovah has taught us so many things.

    You may have gripes, but I don't need to hear any of them; you are disgruntled, but I'm totally fine knowing as I do -- and as you know, too -- that we are all of us imperfect, and that we all of us have shortcomings. Following baptism, we both came to belong to a teaching organization, where some of the things that we might teach others can affect us – bite us in the butt, so to speak -- if we should ever begin to think ourselves to be superior, not just to our brothers and sisters in the faith, but to the man or woman that has no intention of obeying the word of Jehovah and getting baptized. Either write a letter and send it, and prepare yourself to deal with the consequences that could follow once the local congregation is made aware of the concerns you expressed in it to our governing body elders, but the hypocrisy you were telling me about in your still attending meetings when you are really an apostate ought to end. Why be two-faced and deceive your own family into believing something about you that isn't even true when you can be just be honest with your family and with yourself, and take a break?

    Make no mistake about it: You have been indoctrinated and there is nothing that you can do short of submitting to a lobotomy to unlearn the accurate knowledge that you have obtained as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You want to unlearn the knowledge of God by indoctrinating yourself with apostate teachings of Franz, but even these apostate teachings require that one have obtained a knowledge of God in order for them to have any success. I'm sure you didn't know this, so I'm now telling you so that you cannot say that you didn't know. You know me as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which I am, so I won't tell you that I am also a representative of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, for this might be too much information for you to digest, but I would advise you to get out of your head, move to a new town where you can attend meetings at a new congregation, and tell your family that you will be away for awhile, but you will keep in touch and let them know how you are doing. Here a few things that might give you the closure you need so that you can be what you really want to be, but without the hypocrisy that I know you must abhor:

    With your being in a new town and attending a new congregation, you will be free to come and go as you please, no one in the new congregation will ever come to see you until you should tell the elders in your new congregation that you are going to be making their congregation your congregation, in which case they will be sending a letter to your old congregation. You do not have to comment at any of the meetings you decide to attend nor should you engage in the field ministry, especially since there are things you know it would not be honest for you to teach anyone since you have doubts as to the veracity of certain things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe, such as Franz' and Cameron's doubts as to "who really is the faithful and discreet slave" is also one of your doubts.

    This "break" from whatever was your previous routine at your old congregation may give you the time you need to decide whether or not you are going to do God's will despite the fact that there are imperfect men that you do not really think to be spiritual men are serving as a central body of elders. In this way, you won't have to suffer the scrutiny of your new local congregation that you suffered at your old local congregation, nor will you be compelled by anyone to preach the word like some hypocrite when you yourself don't believe most or any of it.

    Your family ties won't be severed or be in any jeopardy unless, of course, you should give your family reason by what you say to them, either on the telephone or face-to-face, to believe you are not living as someone that is "in the truth," and hopefully you will come to realize before the great tribulation that you are much better off in the truth, even though you might have to be benched after you have introduced everyone to your two-, five- or nine-year-old daughter born out of wedlock to a pretty women you met three, six or ten years ago at a party, who hates your guts because you won't vote or you don't support the concept of gay marriage or you're not as comfortable as she is as a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Seventh-Day Adventist with tithing or with singing the national anthem or with the lyrics to the popular church hymns.

    If your "significant other," as one's unmarried lover might be called today here in the US, should be a political activist that feels she was deceived into falling in love with someone that is still one of Jehovah's Witnesses and for this reason refuses to marry you, even though you have told her hundreds of times over the years that you aren't one of Jehovah's Witnesses any longer, and that, besides she and your daughter, you have confirmed your love for only Jesus as your God, and not Jehovah, which she also refuses to believe, then you might get "benched" for a year or two if you should decide to begin actively associating with Jehovah's Witnesses again, should a reproof or disfellowshipping action follow, but at least you will have come back on your own terms, that is, because you want to be back and this time because you don't want to put your family ties with your significant other and your daughter in jeopardy being the hypocrite that your significant other won't allow you to be as a condition to her actually marrying you (finally!).

    You see, no one trusts a hypocrite and no one will knowingly marry one. BTW, if family members in the truth should want to enjoy non-spiritual fellowship with you, your significant other and your daughter should a decision be made to disfellowship you for a time, they are certainly free to do so just as they are free to say "Hello!" to a disfellowshipped person they run into at the market or at the doctor's office where their boss is your doctor, for it is only spiritual fellowship that is discouraged when someone has been disfellowshipped.

    You might believe that I can speak to anyone I wish whether the individual is in a disfellowshipped state or not, because you may believe that only elders are privileged to do so, but contrary to popular opinion, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun anyone that is in a disfellowshipped state unless he or she should be one that spreads apostate views in view case we won't even say a greeting to such individuals. It is unloving to shun someone that has made a mistake, but it would be wrong to treat the disfellowshipped individual as if he or she were not disfellowshipped so as to carry on conversations of a spiritual nature with them at spiritual gatherings or in our homes when such individuals are present considering that such persons have been removed from all spiritual association with us.


    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 [account] 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.


    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....

    I thought it was clear to what I was referring, considering the fact that I had not mentioned Scientology, LDS or Islam; I thought it was clear that I was referring to the growth of Jehovah's Witnesses, since it was foretold that 'the little one would become a thousand and the small one would become a mighty nation in its own time.' (Isaiah 60:22) I have faith that God has used men like Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford, despite their many faults, to take the lead in accomplishing the work that needs to be done "in its own time," which had led to the growth of God's organization, but there is no need for you to believe this to be true. No other religion on earth is preaching the good news of God's kingdom as Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing for more than 100 years, which is why I have concluded that indeed God has blessed the efforts of "the small one" and continues to bless his "little one" today.

    You asked me to provide to you "some proof that Jesus appointed Rutherford and his minions in 1919" as if such would prove to you that Jesus is the head of his congregation, as if such would be regarded by you as proof that Jesus "directs [my] organization." At an annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society that took place on January 6, 1917, Rutherford was nominated and elected to serve as president, which had been president-less since Russell's death on October 31, 1916. We believe that just as Jehovah's spirit had been on Russell until his death to champion the Bible truths that the prophet Daniel had foretold would "become abundant" during the time of the end, that this same spirit was operative upon Rutherford, Russell's successor, as well. (Daniel 12:4)

    You were taught by Jehovah, and you were formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses that is still "in" (but not really!) and are now a counterfeit Christian, but, even so, you are one of the few people that can understand what I said in the previous paragraph and what I'm about to say in the next paragraph, and it would be derelict on my part were I not to say the following:

    Those of us that have studied the Bible and are spiritually mature believe these two imperfect men -- Russell and Rutherford -- to have been anointed by and sealed with God's spirit as a token in advance of their heavenly inheritance as adopted sons of God, sanctified by Jesus' shed blood that have been taken into the kingdom covenant made by Jesus with them and with the rest of his spiritual brothers that served as "ambassadors substituting for Christ" to become corulers with Christ in the kingdom, and that these men were charged with gathering together "the things on the earth," Jesus' "other sheep." (Ephesians 1:9, 10, 13, 14; 2 Corinthians 5:20; John 10:16)

    Having said this, why did you never learn, why did you never come to understand, what Paul meant about all mankind being sinners that fall short of God's glory? (Romans 3:23) If Rutherford should have said something with which you do not agree, if the governing body has said something with which you do not agree, why is it so hard for you to forgive these men, your brothers, their shortcomings "from the heart," or don't you want God to forgive you your shortcomings? (Matthew 18:35; Mark 11:35)

    Rutherford may have misspoken several times and so have we, many times; the man we knew or read about is dead. Jesus taught us to give others their shortcomings. Paul wrote that we should be willing to 'put up with one another and forgive one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against Rutherford.' (Colossians 3:13) Ok, Paul didn't mean that we should forgive just Rutherford, but I'm sure you get my drift.

    You've allowed yourself to become indoctrinated with the trifles brought to your attention by "men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth," because of paying more attention to the opinions of Ray Franz and Don Cameron than to God's word of truth, and this penchant you have for being judgmental and expecting others to live up to standard by which it is an impossibility for imperfect humans to live really needs to be put in check. In comparing our shortcomings to "straw" and "rafters," Jesus indicated that it would be in 'the measure by which we measure out our brother's shortcomings that our own faults will be measured out.' (1 Timothy 1:4; 6:5; Matthew 7:1-5)

    Don't stop at Rutherford; forgive the members of our governing body, too, and show them some respect for they are glorious ones that aren't perfect. Stop speaking abusively of these men. (Jude 8)

    You don't believe any of these things to be true, which in my mind makes you spiritually immature, for after you had been washed clean with Jesus' blood -- precious blood -- you have come to view your baptism with disdain, have joined the ranks of those that have returned to their own vomit and are now engaged in the work of enslaving those that had escaped this world's defilements by enticing them to roll in the mire with you. (2 Peter 2:18-22)

    Now some believe that Jehovah's Witnesses ought to believe exactly the same things that Rutherford believed when he was alive here on earth as if we should ignore evidence to the contrary if any such evidence should come to our attention. It is often the case that after something has been published that the widest scrutiny is given to such published statements, and that these publications are what give rise to the many letters that the Society receives daily from readers making inquiry as to their veracity, or which expose errors that have required corrections be made.

    For example, Judge Rutherford, who passed away on January 8, 1942, completed his earthly course believing that Pluto was the ninth planet in our solar system, but fast forwarding some 64 years after Rutherford's death, Jehovah's Witnesses today have made adjustments as have non-Jehovah's Witnesses in that we no longer accord planetary status to Pluto, viewing it as a dwarf planet. Similar, Rutherford passed away with an understanding of what Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 that was different than what Jehovah's Witnesses today speculate as to what Jesus meant by this phrase, and so, since Jesus himself didn't know the "day and hour," we cannot be 100% certain as to what Jesus meant.

    In Rutherford's day, Jehovah's Witnesses believed Jesus was referring to the lifetime of people when he referred to "this generation." Today, we now know that this was a mistaken viewpoint. The masthead in the Awake! dated November 8, 1995, proved to have unintentionally misled some into believing that, contrary to what the Bible teaches, we actually did know the "day and hour" for it read, "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away," and based on how we understood Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34, many regretfully concluded that Armageddon would have to arrive before the oldest of Jesus' anointed servants had passed away.

    Today, that masthead reads, "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things." The masthead in the Awake! wasn't designed to deceive anyone, but was designed to build confidence that the end is near, and not to make folks grab their date calculators as if, contrary to what Jesus stated at Matthew 24:36, it were possible for one to determine the "day and hour" that Jesus himself didn't know.

    Since we realize that Jesus had employed a bit of hyperbole in this verse, we now believe that Jesus' reference to "this generation" referred to the sign of his invisible presence during which his anointed brothers living contemporaneous to this generation of the sign. We cannot be dogmatic, but we believe that those of Jesus' brothers that were living when the generation of the sign began in the year 1914 as well as those of his brothers that are alive when the generation of the sign ends when Armageddon arrives is what Jesus meant when he said that "this generation" would not pass away before all of the things that Jesus indicated would occur in his prophesy about the conclusion of this system of things had taken place.


    Now then…you say that the GB (or Jehovah’s Witnesses) does not make law. Let’s go back to the whole beard thing.... 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, "....

    Of course you will not refer to this as a failed prophecy....

    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.... The bible does not prohibit birthday celebrations….but the FDS does....

    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?

    I had asked you to provide proof of something that had been added to the Bible, and you replied by telling me again about some failed prophecy articulated by my "spiritual granddaddy," and rules promulgated by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding men not wearing beards and about the procurement of raffle tickets being unacceptable and the celebration of birthdays and the fact that in the Bible, at Colossians 1:16, 17, the word "other" was added to the text within brackets, and you went on to quoted something you read in a Watchtower article, but, first, I don't regard any of these things as proof, and second, let I told you before, I don't care to discuss with you what any Watchtower article says to you.

    If I didn't write the article and no one on the governing body wrote the article – likely it was someone on the Writing Committee that did – then you would have done well to have written a letter to the Society and requested an explanation for that with which you disagree. I didn't personally assist in producing the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, but if you were able to read koine Greek, then you would know that adding "other" to Colossians 1:16, 17, in the NWT is no different than the word "he" that was added by the NWT translators and by the King James Version translators at John 8:24.

    It is obvious to me that you are clueless on this subject, but here you are pretending that you can school me on what constitutes tampering, such as Comma Johanneum found in the KJV, which is a real example of tampering with the Bible text. (1 John 5:7). This is what I do know: Elders should be accorded "double honor" by those who aren't appointed as such, and even if you should disagree with the opinion of the local elders or of the central body of elders that make up our governing body, on what basis do you reject their authority, by Christ, to carry out their duties in God's household? (1 Timothy 5:17)

    I fear that you never learned how "you ought to conduct yourself in God's household," which stands in "support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Consequently, you actually think that this kind of input – these gripes of yours – will help the local elders and the central body of elders (the governing body) to carry out their responsibilities toward God, toward Christ, and toward the flock? If the local body of elders, for example, should issue a "decree" to the effect that, when leaving the Kingdom Hall, the friends not turn left, but instead turn right in order to facilitate an orderly flow of cars leaving the parking lot and avoid the attendant delays caused by those turning left, in view of the fact that God's word exhorts Christians to "be submissive" to the elders, such a decree wouldn't be an "extension" of the Bible by any stretch of your imagination, but God's arrangement. (Hebrews 13:17) If you were to decide not to be submissive and should make the cars behind you in the parking lot wait until you are able to make that left turn, so that you ignore the decree, this would be a case of your failing to adhere to God's arrangement, even if you don't think so.

    Just as we read that there were "decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men" (Acts 16:4) in God's congregation back in the first century, before you were even born, there were "decrees that had been decided upon" by Russell and Rutherford, and depending upon your age, maybe even Nathan Knorr, but I fear that you never learned how to stay in your place. When you decided to join our ranks, what gave you the impression that we were in a quandary over matters having to do with grooming or with gambling or with established doctrines that were already being taught when you first joined our ranks as a publisher of the good news?

    It's really hard talking anything that you say here seriously here because of your contempt for duly-constituted authority; you are disrespectful, not just in what you say to me, but in what you say about our governing body. (3 John 9) But there you are, sitting with those who are really Jehovah's Witnesses, at meetings, a hypocrite hiding in plain sight and below the proverbial radar of the local body of elders, deceiving everyone into believing you to be someone that you really aren't, including your own blood relatives.


    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 [you] are also of the belief that our governing body believes it has authority to "'extend' the Bible."


    Why do you refuse to discuss the article with me?

    I would be delighted to defend any article that I write that should appear in the Watchtower, but you haven't identified any such article, nor would you be in a position to know who writes what articles, but suffice it to say that someone that sits on the Writing Committee writes the articles that appear in the Watchtower.


    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)


    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.

    No, no. These are decrees that had been decided upon" by the central body of elders that Jehovah's Witnesses recognize as their governing body (Acts 16:4), and these decrees are based on Bible principles, principles with which you either do not know or do not agree. It is God's arrangement that the elders in the Christian congregation would be the ones taking the lead and speaking the word of God to the congregation, and all of those in God's household ought to "be submissive" to them, even if we may not want to be submissive. (Hebrews 13:7, 17) You should already know these things, so if you don't know them, then you're ignorant and you need to get to know these things. (1 Corinthians 14:28) You may wish to dispute for some other arrangement, but the congregations of God have no other arrangement. (1 Corinthians 11:16)


    That last post of mine printed a whole lot of stuff at the end which is nothing more than a repeat of previously posted stuff. I'm not sure how to delete it now that it is posted. Sorry

    No worries. Recall that I dd tell you in a previous message that I wouldn't be responding to repetitive questions, and many of the questions in your last message made your message ridiculously lengthy due to such repetition. I also told you that I will not discuss something you read and thought you understood in our publications. I think we're done.


  • outsmartthesystem

    You appear to be having some posting issues as well.

    At least I'm not the only one

  • djeggnog


    You appear to be having some posting issues as well.

    At least I'm not the only one

    Actually, no. What I do know is that, relative to myself, you are the newbie here, but there is really no need for you to have to speculate about this. Just make sure when making an inquiry that it is in the form of a question.

    I believe I indicated in my repost that there were a few remarks that weren't included in Post 457; Post 461 is a reposting of Post 457, which contains these added remarks. I'm sure I don't know why your Post 41 was so chock full of repetitive text, but I do know that despite the mea culpa in your Post 42 as to "a whole lot of stuff at the end" of your Post 41, I think many people were annoyed when they tried to read your Post 41. I plowed through it anyway and hope that the lurkers here will appreciate my responses to your Post 41, even if it should turn out that you don't or won't appreciate them.

    The three posts (458, 459 and 460) that contained the words, "(Duplicate message)," were intentional so that my repost would appear at the top of Page 3 of this thread instead of at the bottom of Page 2 of this thread, since I'm pretty sure no one would enjoy scrolling down past your lengthy Post 41 just to read my response to it. (Well, @cskyjw.sun, who introduces the concept of "mental depression," and @cantleave, who picked up on your comment about Muslims and Mormons, didn't seem to mind scrolling down past both your lengthy message and mine, but it's clear to me that neither of them bothered to read and/or couldn't comprehend what things I had written in response to your message in mine.)

    Since you're the newbie here, you could have just asked, rather than assumed, whether I had experienced "posting issues," but just so you know, I had none of such at all; to my knowledge you're the only one that did. If such issues persist on your end, then you might want to send a PM to @Simon or @Lady Lee. If you should decide not to post a definitive response to my Post 461, that's fine. Like I said in my previous message, I think we're done anyway.


  • Listener

    There is really not much more to say when DJeggnong does not want to explain the difference between being inspired by God and being directed by God through his Holy Spirit.

    To confirm, this is from post 447 -

    Outsmartthesystem asked

    "If you have not already done so, please list and explain the contrasts between the two:"

    DJEggnong's reply

    "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,"

Share this