Public W/T April 2014 "Blasphemer Or Advocate of Truth?" Thomas Emlyn

by BluesBrother 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  BluesBrother

  If there is a thread on this already, then I missed it...This article features a man called Thomas Emlyn of the seventeenth century. He disputed doctrine with the established Church . Some extracts from the article :

  "During those times, Emlyn was carefully studying the Bible. His studies caused him to doubt the Trinity , although he had originally believed in it. As he researched the Gospels, he became convinced that they supported his improved understanding. ".............................................

  he gave clear Scriptural proof as to why Jesus could not be the Supreme God. This infuriated members of Emlyn’s former congregation in Dublin. A formal complaint was filed. Emlyn was arrested and brought before the Queen’s Bench Court in Dublin on June 14, 1703..............

  When Emlyn was found guilty, the solicitor-general proposed that he retract. Emlyn refused. He was fined and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. Because he could not pay the fine, he stayed in prison for two years until a friend convinced authorities to reduce the amount. Emlyn was released on July 21, 1705. The ignominies he suffered moved him to declare, as earlier quoted: “I suffer for what I take to be his [God’s] truth and glory.”......

  WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

  Many today back off from taking a stand for what the Scriptures teach. But Emlyn was willing to stand up for Bible truth. He raised the question, “If a man may not profess the most important truths, which he finds clear and evident in the holy Scriptures, to what end should he read and search them?” Emlyn would not compromise the truth.

  The example set by Emlyn and others can move us to consider whether we are willing to stand up for the truth in the face of scorn. We too can ask ourselves, ‘Which is more important—the honor and blessing of the community or upholding the truth of God’s Word?’

  So what do we see? That the WTS lionises those who take a stand for Bible truth as they see it, and follow their God given conscience. Except that one man's truth seeker is another man's "apostate" .

  I was reminded of this passage in Ray Franz's "Crisis of Conscience".

  "The change that did come was from the realization that my way of looking at the Scriptures had been from a thoroughly sectarian viewpoint, a trap that I thought I had been protected against. Letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, without being first funnelled through some fallible human agency as a channel, I found they became immensely more meaningful. I was frankly astonished at how much of their import I had been missing."

  Can you spot a difference between Emlyn's stand and that of Ray Franz (and many others) ? - I can't
• 

  dontplaceliterature

  Great post.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  good post, BB.

  .

  In fact, what WT praises as noble conduct, in reality, condemns WT. Ideals they support in print do not translate into how things in the WT Org. actually work.

  "We too can ask ourselves, ‘Which is more important—the honor and blessing of the community or upholding the truth of God’s Word?’ "

  .

  In WT's methodology, this really translates to:

  We too can ask ourselves, ‘Which is more important—the honor and blessing of the community Watchtower and its Governing Body, or upholding the truth of God’s Word?’

  .

  he gave clear Scriptural proof as to why Jesus could not be the Supreme God.

  How many times has WT offered "clear scriptural proof" to prop up its doctrines/policies...only to abandon those "proofs" as false when they decided to take the opposite view?

  .

  As Ray pointed out in CoC, the GB's method for determining "scriptural guidelines" rarely had anything to do with scripture or consulting the Bible; doctrines and policies were based on WT policy and precedent, nothing more. Yet again, WT condemns itself by its own words.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  "So what do we see? That the WTS lionises those who take a stand for Bible truth as they see it, and follow their God given conscience."

  .

  the key phrase is "as they [WT] see it". In WT Land, a JWs conscience has no bearing on what that same JW is expected to believe. In fact, to be a JW 'in good standing', you are required to ignore your conscience in favor of the dictates of the schoolyard bully, the Governing Body. The GB is the conscience of 8 million JWs.

  .

  The hypocrisy of the WT has no limits, and what they praise as admirable conduct it hypocritically rejects by its policies.
• 

  minimus

  If the Watchtower considered him so wonderful, why have I never heard of him and his accomplishments?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  He would be DF'd for debunking the GB/FDS myth if he was a JW today.. Also, yes, it's all about how the WTBTS interprets things, right or wrong. The unsuspecting householder says," Hmmm.. maybe I have been lied to about JWs. They are praising this man for standing up against corrupt religious authority.."

  Once that householder is sucked into the fold, he must relinquish his thinking and outsource his spirituality to the Organization. He will NOT be a hero in any way, shape, or form for pointing out the errors of the GB's dogma. There is no defense against authority.

  Jwism is a brand. Like any brand, it needs recognition. This can be accomplished with a genuine quality product, or by dissing the competition at every turn and spending most of your time advertising. Do you crank out a knock-off, or do you do the right thing and let the public choose? Your choice reveals your character.

  DD
• 

  Band on the Run

  I became addicted to English history through law school and my fascination with Henry VIII and his wives. Hundreds of thousands suffered persecution in England alone. France had the massacre of the Hugenots. This is a very minor case. Ann Boelyn was a Protestant and many others at court. B/c they were literate and knew Latin and Greek, the nobles translated the scriptures into English. Sometimes Henry looked the other way. Often he did not.

  Sir Thomas More personally tortured people to make them confess. He was present to supervise people being burned alive.

  What puzzles me with the WT is why they choose these illustrative stories. Why choose a Nuremberg convicted war criminal theologican? There are so many theologians to quote. The quote supported a side issue in the article. Of course, there was no attribution. Google search provided the attribution. The WT would do better if the writers stuck to their main issue. Sometimes I think they add whatever they happened to find on wikipedia.

  When I called local Witnesses to discuss Selma and Steve, the wife beating couple, or the Nazi theologian, they had no idea why anyone would be upset with domestic violence or Nazis.

  Blashpemer or advocate for truth? There is no objective test. The party in power decides.

  Notice how they tell the story. The Reformation is not mentioned. Wasn't this after Charles I?

  Doctrines besides the Trinity are not discussed. The strain on Europe is not cited. It all happens by itself.

  How do people graduate public elementary schools without knowing about Nazis or that domestic violence is not to be tolerated?
• 

  Apognophos

  I suppose some might see a parallel here to the statement highlighted by the late Maximus in this thread that was just bumped today: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/8518/1/GB-Split-Over-Bible-vs-Policy

  The parallel being that a sentence like, "We too can ask ourselves, ‘Which is more important—the honor and blessing of the community or upholding the truth of God’s Word?’" could be taken as a veiled reference to JWs who feel that they need to follow what they read in the Bible even if it brings them scorn from their "community", i.e., the congregation.

  Personally I don't know how to interpret these kinds of remarks. Bald-faced naive hypocrisy? Subtle insider jab at the Watchtower? Who knows.
• 

  iamwhoiam

  Its funny how the watchtower is praising him for his apostasy.

  http://www.irishphilosophy.com/note/irelands-first-blasphemy-trial/