preface question:

by mohrb 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  StarTrekAngel

  Thanks for considering some of my comments. Many of us here are not discarding Jehovah and his promises. In my case, I was fine in the organization while my study habits were sloppy. When I decided to give it my full attention, I woke myself up. I still believe in Jehovah and I still believe that I will be saved. I just don't think that the organization is the way to salvation (you will most likely agree with this statement) but I don't think that you have seen the organization for what is full extent. Yes, any witness will agree with the fact that the org is not the way to salvation, yet if you leave, they won't think you will be saved anyway. Can you reconcile those two ideas?

  My wife thinks very much like you. I tell her that I don't think she understand God or religion for that matter. I am in good standing and I still attend meetings. Anyone who speaks in defense of the org will tell you the same things you are saying. I am not saying you are not sincere or lying. I am just saying that everyone has this same opinion, but our experiences are filled with the complete opposite. Yes, some things are up to concious... they just don't tell you who's concious they are referring to.

  If they know they don't have the absolute truth, why shun those who disagree or leave? Why are we breaking apart families for the sake of some "good intended iliterate" who thinks a prayer will make him the Einstein of bible understanding? For the sake of congregational unity? What if the dissenting brother was right? Where do we use his input to grow an polish our understanding of bible truth? Is congregational unity for important than truth? I don't think so. I have no problem kicking out a brother who continues to inflict on gross sin, like abusing a child... but even then it seems like the two witness rule weights more than all of the above.

  I think that most of the sincere and logical gripe that you will find here is about an imperfect organization that demands the obedicence that can only be due to a perfect one, which does not exist. I don't think I would have a problem belonging to an organization that pushes to progressively understand the bible, while considering everyone's opinion and making sure families stay together in faith, not conditional obedience.

  To show you I am not really ranting against you, I would tell you that I wish every other JW, not only thought the same way you do, but actually acted upon it.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Mohrb did you ever think that god never placed that food of information on the plate to give to humanity and that he never would have chosen a commercialized

  false prophet as his solemnly chosen earthly messengers ?

  Just because you place a name upon yourself (JWS) with an inaccurate Latin interpretation of Yahweh, labeled onto a group of people doesn't mean that they have been chosen or

  they are providing true bible interpretations accurately in accordance to the Gospel.
• 

  Blackfalcon98

  Im an active JW. Intending to fade, and before I saw the TTATT (thanks to you guys) I was an occassional lurker here. Just ordered Crisis of Conscience and yes this site is effective, only to those who have a reason or a propensity to search for it!
• 

  Giordano

  There's your problem. Arrogance. We work for the best interpretation of scripture we CAN. To assume an understanding is "Absolute truth" is to point a spiritual gun at your spiritual face. Learning something better seems to be a "problem" instead of something to be celebrated.

  So who are the arrogant ones Mohrb?

  I think you can find the answer in this courtroom testimony:

  http://www.witness-outreach.com/Walsh.html The Walsh trial took place in 1954

  To save you some time allow me to highlight this part of the testimony.

  Fred Franz was vice President. Hayden Covington was legal counsel for the WTBTS and a former
  vice-president. Grant Suiter it’s Secretary and Treasurer. They
  would be subjected to questioning....their answers are similar to Covington's testimony.

  Covington agreed that the Society had published ‘false prophecy’ after admitting that he had never studied the seven volumes of “Studies in the Scripture” by Russell nor the matter of 1874 promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ’s second Coming was in 1874.

  ATTORNEY: “And that had to believed by the whole of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”

  H.COVINGTON:” Yes,because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.”

  ATTORNEY: “.........A false prophecy was promulgated?”

  H.COVINGTON: “I agreed that.”

  ATTORNEY: It had to be accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses?”

  H. COVINGTON: “That is correct”.

  ATTORNEY: If a member of JW’s took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshiped?”

  H.COVINGTON: “Yes if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organization believes one thing, even though it be erroneous and somebody else starts on his own trying to put ideas across then this is disunity and trouble, there can not be harmony there can not be marching......................”

  ATTORNEY: “Unity at all costs?”

  H.COVINGTON: Unity at all costs..................”

  ATTORNEY: “And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?”

  H.COVINGTON: “That is conceded to be true.”

  ATTORNEY: “And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong and was disfellowshipped,that would be wrong, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?”

  H.COVINGTON: “That is correct.”

  ATTORNEY: And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?”

  H.COVINGTON: “ I think-“

  ATTORNEY: “Would you say yes or no?”

  H.COVINGTON: “I will answer Yes, unhesitatingly.”

  ATTORNEY: “Do you call that religion?”

  H.COVINGTON: It certainly is.”

  Freddy Franz and Grant Suiter echoed this belief that it didn't matter if something turned out to be false the only thing that mattered was unquestioning obedience.
• 

  Ocean1111

  The less you go on the Web, the less likely you will discover Bethel is the apostasy.

  Example, the society warns about the dangers of the internets... and this site evolves out of protest, proving that exact point that seemed so unreasonable.

  So just maybe the danger is Bethel's apostasy will be exposed to JWs. Many Bethel policies are two edged swords, they say one thing, yet they serve another purpose. The Web has sources exposing Bethel as the apostate central development of our times.

  The less JWs "cease becoming unreasonable" (Eph5:17) and stay in the one sided information Bethel smokescreen, the less they will see Bethel's truly lawless record gone global.

  Bethel wants you to stick around for their big judgment. But Christ suggests you should NOW be on your way OUT of the organization. (Matt24:15)

  This is because there is no helping congreagtions who are worshiping the Bethel "man of lawlessness" principle, the "reform" required is now beyond human, Bethel must be eradicated first, and they are themselves aiding that process, imo.

  The internet contains the Bethel exposing "red pill", Bethel provides JWs the regular "blue pill" lobotomy, and Bethel is the "JW Matrix" central server.

  Plain and simple: Bethel is the main "apostate" you should be considering. Their apostasy will bring ruin to the WTBTS in time. I suggest the whole bottle of red pills, you can never overdose on the truth, as bitter as it may be, believing the Bethel modern lie is going to be more dangerous in the long run. The Bethel blue pill is the real spiritual coma. (2Thess2:11-12)
• 

  Blackfalcon98

  The whole: "Listen only to us, or ELSE!" Things brings up a scripture

  "The first to state his case seems right; until another comes and questions him." -Proverbs 18:17
• 

  prologos

  mohrb, your hope seems to be reform from within. on doctrine/teachings?

  There used to be a supposed venue: "Question from reader" often giving interesting answers " the Great Crowd can not be really spoken of as existing now, before the great tribulation" wow, wt 19195 4/15. yet they keep writing about the ever increasing great crowd now.

  !@ tribes of Israel (of God) are the sheep on EARTH. wt 2009 8/15. still silence on all that, it's ramifications.

  There is stiff resistence to doctrinal reform from within, particularly the plebs.

  please stick around. mohr is sticky but great is the clean feeling as you get out of the suction, washed. The stickiness is deeper than you now realise.
• 

  Vidqun

  Mohrb, I must commend you for your positive attitude, unrealistic though it is. First of all, you seem to have a problem with the word “arrogant.” Allow me to clarify its meaning. According to above posts, who do you think fits the following definition to a T?

  ar•ro•gance

  14th century : an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions[1]

  Within this context, there’s three things you can clear up for me. 1) Who is the ultimate judge and who did he appoint to judge? When will Jesus’ brothers start judging? 2) What is your understanding of two phrases, a) “the disgusting thing causing desolation” and b) “the beast that ascends out of the abyss.” What is the definition of Christian neutrality? How do you view the UN/OSCE? 3) Lastly, is the “two witness rule,” originating with Mosaic law. Are Christians bound by the Mosaic law? Thanks in anticipation for you attention.

  ---

  [1] Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.