by OldSoul 604 Replies latest members private
OS,
Probably going to take me a while to reply to your last post, probably not until tomorrow.
Just wondering what you thought of the other examples I listed, like Simeon and Anna?
I hope that you are finding our discussion both enjoyable and worthwhile.
Best regards to you and your family,
Shadow
steve,
Thanks for the info, I understand now what you are talking about. I will reply tomorrow.
shadow: Probably going to take me a while to reply to your last post, probably not until tomorrow.
No problem.
shadow: Just wondering what you thought of the other examples I listed, like Simeon and Anna?
In my opinion, I don't think comparisons to the Jewish system are very helpful because that system represented both the earthly organization and the law of the land. That is not the case here, unless you want to refer to the "spiritual paradise" as the "Land." Which if any "paradise" works this way I don't think Jehovah would have many takers.
That law of the land, both the Mosaic Law and the traditions of men, were what Jesus released us from. It was specifically circumcision AND the Mosaic Law that was discussed at Acts 15, and James and the rest of those brothers referred to those who would impose such on Christians as "subvert[ers of] your souls." (Acts 15:24) The oral law and written law were the subjects of much of Paul's writings, and he always maintained that no one should ever trap us inside that again. In light of that, I find comparisons between the Christian headship arrangement and one used earlier to be fairly useless in any "direct application" sense.
Either Christ is my head, then Jehovah, or the congregation is. (1 Corinthians 11:3) There really is no wiggle room there. If Christ is my head, my King, and my High Priest, then he is my mediator with God. (Hebrews 5) I saw no semantic difficulty at all, I just used my perceptive powers. That is how I explained it to the woman at the door. That is what earned me counsel, I didn't even go to Timothy.
shadow: I hope that you are finding our discussion both enjoyable and worthwhile.
Indubitably. More to the point, I am encouraged to find a thinking person who seems to understand the need to use our "power of reason" (logic) to "prove to [ourselves]" (test, examine, try as if in court) "the good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
All the best to you and yours as well.
Respectfully (I do not EVER use this closing lightly or sneeringly),
OldSoul
shadow: incidentally, would you admit the possibility of error on your part as well?In this statement, I would not ever be willing to admit error: "Jehovah, the God of the Bible, would never provide holy spirit to actively support an arrangement that is hypocritical or Pharisaical."While Jehovah did not immediately correct or punish every authority figure that stopped doing his will, he immediately removed his spirit from it. I find no scriptural exception to that rule. His spirit cannot support hypocrisy. His spirit did not support the Pharisees or those from that sect who later tried to subvert the souls of early Christians.
How about the case of David? or Peter? They both displayed extreme hypocrisy in word and deed.
Paul said that he wished such men would even get themselves emasculated. (Galatians 5:1-12) He said that such men did not recognize that we were called for freedom and that we should never "let [ourselves] be confined again in a yoke of slavery" to laws and traditions of men.
True, and I have had the same sentiment about some WT articles.
{edited to add} His spirit cannot continue to support anyone who does not fully attempt do his will, witness Moses in Kadesh. Jehovah said, "YOU must speak to the crag before their eyes that it may indeed give its water." Moses did not do just so. He "struck the crag with his rod twice." As consequence, Moses was not used to bring the Israelites into the Land of Promise. Jehovah let the Israelites get water to keep his promise to Abraham.
In spite of the flaws of the elders and other members in many 1st century congregations, I don't believe any were counseled to get out of their congregations. (Corinth, Jerusalem, Jesus' message to the 7 congs., etc., etc.)
shadow: How about a pragmatic look at this situation? You boldly speak out against what you see as error (incidentally, would you admit the possibility of error on your part as well?) and injustice. You are invited to a JC & df'd. At this point 99.9% of JW's (probably including at least some of your family) will no longer listen to you or have anything to do with you. Most other people you meet will not care a bit about what you have to say about JW's. Without a meeting schedule, your Bible study begins to fall by the wayside or perhaps you seek out another religion that will have its own version of corrupt human authority and likely fail on many points of essential criteria for God's approval such as Isa 2:4. Would you say that anyone's situation has improved enough to justify your actions? If, as a result of your actions, the faith in God of your wife and children are destroyed, would it be worth that price? Some of this reasoning could no doubt be spouted by individuals of other religions which takes us back to the necessity of endeavoring to perceive what the essential criteria are from God's viewpoint.I have thought down this road for the last 15 years. That is what has kept me in, the inability to wake anyone else up. "Without a meeting schedule, [my] Bible study" would be much more productive and would result in my being more in harmony with the leadings of holy spirit, because I would not have to waste mental energy correcting the wrong thinking presented in the material being considered. Most Witnesses don't do Bible study. Most don't even do WT Publication Study. They do WT Publication Reading with the aid of a few partially quoted verses from the Bible. Or they may hastily look up a verse or two at the meeting.
That's great. I must admit that in my own case, the pressures of life and the opportunites for diversion would probably result in a lessening of the time I devote to Bible study. As far as the meetings go, certainly many times much of the time is spent reading some article or book and then repeating the same statements two or three times, then going on to the next paragraph. Personally I find that my more critical outlook has sharpened my attention to really think about what is being discussed. As in most endeavors, it really is largely up to the participant as to how much benefit they derive. I know some have been in the TMS for decades and, judging by their talks, must have never attempted to actually understand anything about being a bettr speaker. On the other hand many have gained skills that rival or excel a secularly trained speaker.
I'm sure you know that is a problem addressed by every CO, but the response has been to dumb down the literature even more. This makes me think it is not seen as a "problem" at higher levels. Bible reading is stressed, while Bible study should always be along with the publications provided by the Faithful and Discreet Slave (see paragraph 11 in this past week's study article) to keep anyone from the sin of "harbor[ing] private ideas."
This is obviously contradictory and just as obviously not always complied with. If no one ever had a 'private idea', we would still be using Studies in the Scriptures.
"Would you say that anyone's situation has improved enough to justify your actions?" If I were DF'd? Yes. Mine. Each person has one relationship with God to think of - first and foremost. No one else's relationship is totally dependent upon me. In my opinion, that is not selfishness and I think it is unkind of you to paint it as selfishness. Unless that is part of how you cope, in which case, I don't consider it unkindness but I would consider it at least a little self-deluding. Understandably self-deluding, though.
You make some good points here, but allow me to play the Devil's advocate. Perhaps a writer for the WT feels similarly. 'Yes, that article I prepared was really bad and misguided, but it was up to the reader as to how to respond to it.'
I have considered fading. If I fade away, no one would be restricted from talking to me and I would have access to elders, as a "weak one," to ask questions of them. As a weak Christian, I would not be held to as rigid a standard as a mature Christian. If I am inactive and not attending meetings I will automatically be viewed as weak without ever saying a word to that effect. They would form their own conclusions and then anything questioning that I say would just reinforce that preconception.
Perhaps that is a viable option, naturally you would have to judge your own circumstances. I truly believe that there is no easy solution for someone who really wants to serve God and are there not many scriptures that tell us to expect a struggle?
shadow: the faith in God of your wife and children are destroyedIf her faith was that weak to begin with, did I do what a spiritual head should do? Did I really encourage her and help her place her confidence and assurance on solid ground? If not, could my leaving possibly be destructive to something that was never really present to begin with? I think we have much in common, but I am getting the feeling that you would recommend I play by the rules inside a system you admit is corrupt (diseased, plague-ridden) while every bone in my body daily screams, "Quit touching the unclean thing!"
Some rules don't really bother me all that much. Take beards for instance. Certainly seems to be some Pharisaical thinking evident on that, yet I don't really consider it to be a 'more important thing' (Php 1:10). However I think some have stumbled over this and in those cases I would be like Paul (2 Cor 11:29).
Shadow, obviously you do not mind "harbor[ing] private ideas" that conflict with Governing Body doctrine. I respect you very much for your willingness to help me cope with what you know is a very difficult situation. So I would like your personal opinion.
Do you think John 13:34, 35 is fulfilled by an organization, or by individuals?Individuals, with the caveat that a group of individuals can manifest certain traits in a collective sense though stemming from the traits of the individuals.
Do you believe that "the righteous ones" mentioned in Proverbs 4:18 refers to an organization or individuals?Possibly both as mentioned above.
What about "the righteous one" of Psalm 97:11?Individuals, some of whom have at times been in a position to share it with others through means such as the WT, which at the same time has admittedly contained Pharisaical ideas as well.
Does Psalm 119:105 apply to the feet (plural) of an organization, or to a roadway provided by an organization?Same as above.
Who is "the light of the world" in Matthew 5:14, an organization or individuals?Individuals who may form themselves into a group with some organizational structure, whose authority structure may then become tainted with typical human flaws.
Applying the Genesis 2:7 rule to Matthew 5:14, do I have light or am I light?
I think we are all composed of light and dark. Even an atheist involuntarily honors Jehovah by the miracle of his existence and thus is a small source of light. Jesus followers would shine much more brightly.
I feel I am currently under a measuring basket and have felt that way for a very long time. I feel cramped for room. If you don't, I am eager to know how you cope. Is it by the mental tricks you recommend here? Is there more to it than that? Do you believe this is God's organization for the salvation of mankind, that they are truly faithful stewards of sacred secrets? (1 Corinthians 3:2)
No, I am definitely somewhat cramped. I don't believe that I have written anything in our discussion that is contrary to the scriptures, yet I am not so foolish as to use my real name. That is a sad state of affairs, yet the time for something better does not yet seem to have arrived. In the meantime I will go along with the program until I am confronted with a situation that I do consider to be one of the more important things and forced to take some action, at which point I expect that I would be deleted or df'd, depending on the situation. There are not too many situations that would put me in those circumstances and may never come up. In the final analysis we all must render an individual account to God (Rom 14).
Consider JW organization against the backdrop of what other religions offer. Would you not admit that there are some pertinent differences that fall in the favor of JW's?
Steve,
I don?t believe Jehovah has said it either, however, as a review through these AFIN 400 odd posts with show you that it is what happens. If a brother has some issue with certain teachings of the governing body then there are steps taken.
The brother is recommended to talk to an elder
Then either a stronger elder or perhaps two elders
Then maybe a letter to Brooklyn
If the brother still isn?t in agreement he will be asked to wait on Jehovah for enlightenment
However, if the teaching is of profound consequence to the brother (maybe the blood issue, authority of the governing body) that it affects his conscience because he sees no biblical justification, he will end up with three choices; 1) wait, 2) DA himself, or 3) being DF?d. Admittedly he may also slip away, which is pretty close to DA?ing himself.
Once this position of disassociation or disfellowshipment, he is seen as an apostate and spiritually dead. He will die at Armageddon.
There more than one way to wait. Example: the blood issue. The counsel to wait is a cop-out, they should certainly at least be willing and able to defend the fine points of this if they expect people to listen to them. One person may wait feeling that they need to obey the GB regardless of the consequences, while another person is waiting in the sense that he has not been confronted with the situation and thus does not press the issue until necessary. If the individual's viewpoint and actions are correct, then even if df'd or da'd I think 1 Cor 4:1-5 would apply. The real judge is Jehovah.
The reason I am asking these question is that it is of personal interest to me. I am 3 rd generation JW who as slipped away partly because of these reasons. My farther, 30yr elder, and I did many conversations and in the end I was given the three options above.
You could ask your father if these words apply:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** be study 49 p. 255 Sound Arguments Given ***
What
do you need to do?Provide satisfying evidence to support statements that you make.
Why
is it important?Your listeners will not believe or act on what you say unless they are convinced that it is true.
WHEN you make a statement, your listeners are fully justified in asking: "Why is that true? What is the proof that what the speaker is saying should be accepted?" As a teacher, you have the obligation either to answer such questions or to help your listeners find the answers. If the point is crucial to your argument, make sure that you give your listeners strong reasons to accept it. This will contribute to making your presentation persuasive.
The apostle Paul used persuasion. By sound argument, logical reasoning, and earnest entreaty, he sought to bring about a change of mind in those to whom he spoke. He set a fine example for us. (Acts 18:4; 19:8) Of course, some orators use persuasion to mislead people. (Matt. 27:20; Acts 14:19; Col. 2:4) They may start with a wrong premise, rely on biased sources, use superficial arguments, ignore facts that disagree with their view, or appeal more to emotion than to reason. We should be careful to avoid all such methods.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you looking for the official version? or comments on the official version?
This seems to be a rather problematic teaching to me. There really weren't 144,000 faithful Christians over a period of 1,900 years?
Anyway, you know the official story is that the anointed are the underpriests serving in the Holy compartment of the spiritual temple and thus are the only ones qualified to be giving direction accompanied by the idea of the FDS charged with giving spiritual food at the proper time. Even if we stipulate these points to be true, we have to recognize that the bulk of the Bible was written down by non-anointed individuals, so why really couldn't other sheep be used in that way now as well?
Shadow,
Thank you for you response and your honesty. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, we've all got to work sometime. I'll respond after some thought.
Steve.
Since os has been persistent in trying to get me to quote scriptures to back up the societies policies ... and it has been more than obvious I have reasurred him he should go the official website or speak to an elder.
He then said that was what he was doing. At the time I felt he was going to interact with an elder in his congregation. Since then, I see it is shadow, on this site who he was reffering to. Originally he could do this in a pm with os because as far I know os is still a witness.
Having now read shadows personal opinions, and his personal slant on his quoted scriptures, everyone reading here should know that he is neither following scriptural advice or the policy of the society by doing so. If indeed he is an elder in good standing, he would not quote sacred scriptures to admitted apostates or those who agree with them.
Obviously here many are pleased shadow is finally giving scriptural answers, but keep in mind, he is mainly trying to please you rather than give a true witness.
If indeed he is an elder in good standing, he would not quote sacred scriptures to admitted apostates or those who agree with them.
I am continually amazed at your arrogance.
It seems presumptuous to make a statement like this, and telling an elder (in your own organization) who he can and cannot "witness to", smacks of audacity on your part madam.
Do you tell elders in your own KH what they can and cannot do? To their face?
Wow....................
Annie
Having now read shadows personal opinions, and his personal slant on his quoted scriptures, everyone reading here should know that he is neither following scriptural advice or the policy of the society by doing so. If indeed he is an elder in good standing, he would not quote sacred scriptures to admitted apostates or those who agree with them.Obviously here many are pleased shadow is finally giving scriptural answers, but keep in mind, he is mainly trying to please you rather than give a true witness.
The "policy of the society" - how quaint. Jesus witnessed to lepers, prostitutes, and others considered "off limits" to those looking down their noses at them. Jesus sets the example to walk in his footsteps. Do you honestly think Jesus himself would refuse to share his Father's message with OS? Do you really think that Jehovah would not want his "sacred word" to be shared with everyone? IMHO shadow is doing exactly as the Bible instructs by imitating Jesus' example.
Let's see ... you go out in the ministry to preach the "good news". You have no clue what kind of person you will meet at each door - yet you are willing to share scriptures with them freely - even if they tell you point blank "I do not believe in God". But you cannot share scriptures with someone who has been labelled (it's just a label used to induce fear, you know) an "apostate" because they have renounced the WTS - regardless of the fact that they still believe wholeheartedly in God and want a better understanding of His word. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
Jehovah warned people against associating with those ones who deny HIM and the truth of HIS WORD - the WTS came along and twisted things so that renouncing Jehovah and leaving the WTS would be one in the same - which would require one to buy into the WTS being Jehovah's one and only "spirit directed earthly organization". And I would not blindly buy into every single word that comes forth from the GB's collective mouths if their collective tongues came notarized thankyouverymuch. How quickly we forget that Jehovah reads the heart, and he is the final judge.
And by the way, that's a real fine way to speak of someone who went out on a limb to defend your sorry @ss. I hope shadow now sees your true colors.
Do you tell elders in your own KH what they can and cannot do? To their face?Wow....................
My thoughts exactly, Annie. Last time I checked, the Elders are allowed to speak to whomever they feel needs their assistance - DF/DA ones, "spiritually weak" ones, etc. Isn't that the point of a Shepherding call??
