Posts by Marvin Shilmer

this would be a good one for jw apologist who scream and panic with anyone who feels the moral direction of the wt publishing company has gone astray.

a comment at the bible highlights last night blew my mind, here is the article that was referenced.

btw this account always bothered me, remember when it was in a drama?

Marvin Shilmer

Yep! The young prophet from Judah should have seen through the older prophet. If the GB says do this, and its wrong and we go along with it, will the desert god send a lion to eat us???

I've asked many a JW about this over the years. The question boils down to whether the biblical model would have a person support/obey/follow a supposed God-appointee based on the authority the individual supposedly has as a God-appointee without regard for personal sense of right and wrong. The general consensus is that JWs should obey the GB (read: "faithful slave") because it is appointed by God, and if the GB makes a mistake in what it asks of us then we are not guilty for following that mistaken directive/teaching.

Then I ask the JW why the biblical Aaron was removed from high office and suffered premature death if not his tacit support of a mistaken act by Moses.

I ask what this biblical object lesson of Aaron and Moses tells us, if anything.

Then I get deer-in-the-headlight looks in return. Most have no response because they've been conditioned to obey the GB no matter what. They've been conditioned to accept that obedience to the GB equals obedience to God. Yet the biblical episode of Aaron and Moses categorically disputes this.

When it comes to Watchtower theology, at one point Watchtower expressed the idea that in the instance of Moses' mistaken act (at Meribah as I recall) Aaron should have acted to check Moses' actions, and because he did not then Aaron suffered loss of high office and premature death. But under current Watchtower theology for a JW (in high office or not) to act to check some mistaken act by the GB would achieve the threshold value of "apostate". (And, before I get snotty responses, by "mistaken act" I'm being gracious).

323

Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel

by _Morpheus in

so fisherperson sent me a pm asking a bunch of questions re my time at beth hell.

rather than respond in a pm i will post the q/a here as i have nothing to hide.

q:what years did you serve in brooklyn bethel?

Marvin Shilmer

I can almost guarantee he would have cherry picked...

What? Fisherman? Cherry pick?

36

Band Green Day and JWs

by hardtobeme in

a few years ago i heard of a story about two jw's being at a green day concert.

i think that the witnesses were bethelites.

the person that told me that story said that the band was about to play but they couldn't.

Marvin Shilmer

Different band; same crap rumor.

323

Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel

by _Morpheus in

so fisherperson sent me a pm asking a bunch of questions re my time at beth hell.

rather than respond in a pm i will post the q/a here as i have nothing to hide.

q:what years did you serve in brooklyn bethel?

Marvin Shilmer

One of my bethel experiences:

Once upon a time I was asked to escort a group of JWs to and through various bethal facilities in NY. While visiting the Brooklyn facilities there was one sister who wanted to go it alone and then link back up with the group just prior to departure back to our hotel. She had a daughter and son-in-law in the Brooklyn facilities and understandably wanted to spend the day with them. My advice to her was to make sure she had at least a $100 in her pocket to make sure if she missed our departure that she'd have sufficient funds for transport back to our hotel. I'm not sure what she told her son-in-law, but he sought me out during our tour and asked why I had threatened his mother-in-law. He went on and on about being a bethel elder and proceeded to counsel me, to which I said thank you very much I have a group to attend to. He didn't like this so he found a heavy he was friends with and returned. The heavy was Fred Rusk. The son-in-law introduced Rusk to me, to which I replied "Hi Fred! Remember me?" He remembered. Rusky never said a word. He turned around in silence and marched right back from wherever he came, probably that writing correspondence desk of his where he wrote more empty words, lies and hogwash than perhaps anyone else inside. I thanked the enthusiastic son-in-law for introducing Fred, but reminded him I had a group to attend to.

36

Family Reuinion and Being Disfellowshipped (sorry...but it's long)

by babygirl30 in

jw
friends

it has been a long looong time since i posted on here, but never ceased reading all the posts and keeping up on the changes that have been going on!

but it just seems that now i have a need to get something off my chest, and this is the one place that will most definitely understand the topic at hand.

i have been disfellowshipped for about 8yrs now, and have dealt with the 'consequences' of that decision: all my so-called friends in the org left and i was also abandoned by my own family.

Marvin Shilmer

...my one uncle was offended that my dad has the nerve to have me bring the food that he forgot, yet couldn't bring himself to even say 'thank you'.

Somewhere someone once cited a bit of text suggesting a time when natural affection would cease. (I wonder where that could be???) As I recall this bit of text was/is oft used by JWs in relation to "the world". Yet we see this utter lack of natural affection among JWs in the most simple of acts, like the one above.

323

Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel

by _Morpheus in

so fisherperson sent me a pm asking a bunch of questions re my time at beth hell.

rather than respond in a pm i will post the q/a here as i have nothing to hide.

q:what years did you serve in brooklyn bethel?

Marvin Shilmer

And you do not get to decide.

Decide what? I certainly get to decide what my ethical position is. I certainly get to decide what my moral position is. I certainly get to decide if, when and how I respond to whatever I chose to respond to. Don't you?

323

Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel

by _Morpheus in

so fisherperson sent me a pm asking a bunch of questions re my time at beth hell.

rather than respond in a pm i will post the q/a here as i have nothing to hide.

q:what years did you serve in brooklyn bethel?

Marvin Shilmer

Morpheus we are just having a discussion here, that is all. Relax
My impression is that _Morpheus has been relaxed throughout this entire circus of a discussion.

323

Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel

by _Morpheus in

so fisherperson sent me a pm asking a bunch of questions re my time at beth hell.

rather than respond in a pm i will post the q/a here as i have nothing to hide.

q:what years did you serve in brooklyn bethel?

Marvin Shilmer

Disclosing private communication is wrong conduct.

That's a generalization that is not always true. Sometimes disclosing private communication is unethical and/or illegal and sometimes it's not. In fact, sometimes the only right conduct is to disclose private communications!

Do things responsibly and ethically, ask the sender first.

It is a responsible act to ask a sender before sharing their communications, but it is not necessarily an irresponsible act to share a sender's communication without asking them. Sometimes the right thing is not to inform a sender you are going to share their communications.

What is your point of view Marvin?

That you've made much ado about nothing in this discussion. The original poster has done nothing unethical, immoral or illegal in this instance insofar as I can see or has been shown. My point of view is as I've said earlier, that you're showing the south end of a north bound horse. That's what I'm seeing because that's what you've shown. Just above you go on by quoting legalese. If you think anyone here has broken a law my recommendation is that you call local law enforcement and report the crime. My view is that you're making a mole hill out of flatland by forcing details into a very narrow and self-serving clump you apparently think of as "fact".