Posts by johnamos

81

Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

by Marvin Shilmer in

this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

johnamos

Fisherman and SimonSays, it is refreshing to see that there are some out there with comprehension skills.

81

Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

by Marvin Shilmer in

this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

johnamos

In Jackson’s statement he identified that he and the other 6 members that make up the GB are the f&ds of matt 24:45 and did not use presumptuous in connection with that claim.

In Jackson’s statement in regards to God’s spokespeople on earth, he identified that YES he and the other 6 members that make up the GB are God’s spokespeople on earth, BUT went on to say that they (the GB) ARE NOT the ONLY ones of God’s spokespeople on earth, but that God’s has many spokespeople on earth…basically JW’s as a whole based on speaking to people about the bible(God’s word) and Jehovah God himself, i.e. God’s spokespeople on earth

He used presumptuous in regards to any claim in saying that ONLY THEY (the GB) speak about God and the Bible,i.e. God’s spokespeople on earth,

The run down is this…

Jackson states the GB are ALL anointed (the 7 members) and they ALONE are the f&ds and are God’s spokespeople on earth.

Jackson states that there are many more anointed ones (heavenly hope) but they are NOT part of the f&ds but they too are God’s spokespeople on earth.

Jackson states that there are many that are NOT anointed (earthly hope), and they are NOT part of the f&ds but they too are God’s spokespeople on earth.

So he says it is presumptuous to say that they (the GB) alone are ONLY God’s spokespeople on earth…but he is in no way saying that it is presumptuous for he and the other 6 members to claim to be the f&ds, while claiming that no others are unless you are one of the GB members.

[Luke 19:40 But in reply he said: “I tell YOU, If these remained silent, the stones would cry out.”]

[Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”]

[John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.]

81

Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

by Marvin Shilmer in

this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

johnamos

That is correct, nevertheless according to those verses there still is a ‘slave class’ that is doing the feeding until that future time arrives, which the GB claim to be that ‘slave class’ presently.

Here is a better view of how to understand those verses and also on what is truly the case of being ‘presumptuous’:

The ‘faithful slave/s’ are only distinguished to be so when the master comes to settle accounts with his slaves. Before such time they are all just considered to be ‘slaves’ carrying out the work of their ‘master’. At no time prior to the master coming to settle accounts with his slaves should the slaves themselves refer to themselves as being ‘faithful slaves’ (That’s for the master to determine when he arrives.) but to the contrary, the slaves are said to say of themselves that they “are good-for-nothing slaves” during the time they are carrying out their assigned work.

Please consider the following:

[Luke 17:10 So YOU, also, when YOU have done all the things assigned to YOU, say, ‘We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.’”]

[Matthew 25:14 “For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad, summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings.

19 “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’

21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

22 Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

24 “Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be an exacting man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow. 25So I grew afraid and went off and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow?]

As can be seen is that it is not determined as to the faithfulness or not of the slaves until the master arrives. It is very presumptuous for any so-called slaves to make the claim of themselves as already being ‘the faithful slaves’ before the master has even arrived.

The master does not originally appoint or give the slaves their assigned work based on having judged them for their faithfulness. The master actually judges the slaves when he arrives based upon how the salves handled the assigned work…the master will then determine as to the faithfulness of the salves. It is at that point that the salves will be judged as to being faithful or not and will be appointed over all the master’s belongings/over many things, due to them being found faithful over few things/assigned work/given food at the proper time to domestics.

The following in verse 45 is not stating that an already found ‘faithful slave’ is who is first appointed. It is asking the question of whom the ‘faithful slave’ is/or will end up being. Verse 46 answers the question stating that when the master arrives and finds 'the slave' faithfully doing his assigned work then that slave will be appointed over all the master’s belongings/over many things.

[Matthew 24:45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.]

Compare with Matthew 25:14-26 again. No talents were given to faithful slaves, nor given to wicked sluggish/evil slaves, the talents were given to “slaves” whom based on what they did with those talents were judged to be found ‘good and faithful’ or ‘wicked and sluggish’ and it is those slaves that were found to be ‘good and faithful’ that will be appointed over many things/over the master’s belongings.

81

Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

by Marvin Shilmer in

this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

johnamos

Jackson was very careful with his words and y’all are readings them the way you want to and not the way they were actually spoken.

He made it clear that he and the other 6 members of the GB do believe and claim to be ‘the faithful slave’ of the verses in Matt…and in regards to being asked if the GB see themselves as be God’s spokespeople on earth…he said it would be presumptuous to claim that they believe that they are the only ones.

He is not saying that the GB does not feel that they are God’s spokespeople on earth…he’s clear that they (the GB) feel they are and the word ‘presumptuous’ is not used in regards with him claiming that the GB are God’s spokespeople on earth and the word ‘presumptuous’ is not used in regards to him making the claim that they (the GB) are ‘the faithful slave’…. ‘Presumptuous’ is used in regards to saying that they (the GB) are not the ONLY ones that God is using as spokespeople on earth…meaning that elders, etc…and r&f are also God’s spokespeople on earth when it comes to talking about the bible to others.

Something that I found interesting is oppostate writing this:

Guardians Of Doctrine (G.O.D.)

GJ did say that the GB were 'Guardians Of Doctrine'

43

We are not thinking folks. What is the best way to get JW's to check out the events in Australia.

by James Mixon in

tell our jw family members, door knockers, and stand sitters that you were very impressed.

by the branch overseer and other elders in australia, they gave a fine witness.. so what will happen, they will tell their friends the brothers in australia gave a fine.

witness.

johnamos

[email protected]

or

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

everyone should send an email to the above US CNN and tell them to cover the ARC...after all the headquarters of JW's is here in US.

39

Billy's comments to the RC #1 - "We always require at least two witnesses... except for when we don't."

by Billy the Ex-Bethelite in

i'm still trying to catch up on the rc broadcast posted to youtube, and i haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it.

however, there have been a few points that i wish i could submit.

repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, jcs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing.

johnamos

This was the situation that was used in my wife and I getting married. She wrote a letter based on what her unbelieving mate said to her while they were split up and based on the letter and the divorce being finalized, she was free to marry me. That was ten years ago for us. Think about all the child abuse cases in the passed 10 years that were said not to have had a 2nd witness so hey nothing we can do about it at this time…in fact think about all the child abuse cases in the passed 38 years that were said not to have had a 2nd witness so hey nothing we can do about it at this time…

[10-1-77 WT

Questions from Readers

• My unbelieving husband admitted to me that he has another woman. Is his admission sufficient ground for a Scriptural divorce?

In some cases if a Christian’s unbelieving mate admits to committing immorality, that would provide a Scriptural basis for a divorce, which, in turn, would free the innocent Christian for remarriage if desired.

Jehovah God’s law to the ancient nation of Israel made provision for divorce on various grounds. (Deut. 24:1, 2) Adultery, homosexuality and bestiality were bases for ending a marriage; the guilty person was to be executed. (Deut. 22:22-24; Lev. 18:22, 23) However, the Law set forth this important requirement: “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death. He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.” (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30) Being a “lover of righteousness and justice,” Jehovah required that such matters be determined on the basis of proof, of witnesses, not merely suspicion. (Ps. 33:5) This, of course, was stated as regards applying the death penalty, not as regards a divorce action.

Another situation dealt with in the Law also illustrates the importance of proof. What was a man to do if he suspected that his wife had committed adultery but she denied it and there were no witnesses? God’s law outlined a step that could be taken, but it was a drastic one that could have lasting effects for the wife if she was guilty or for the husband if she was innocent. She could be brought before the priest and made to share in a prescribed procedure involving drinking some special water. If she was guilty, she would experience the divine punishment of her ‘thigh falling away,’ apparently meaning that her sexual parts would atrophy and she would lose her ability to conceive. (Num. 5:12-31) Evidently in such cases the adulterous wife, though receiving this extraordinary punishment from God, because she denied guilt and there were not the required two witnesses, was not executed.

What is the situation today in the Christian congregation? Is it possible to obtain substantial testimony as to the grounds for a Scriptural divorce?

Jesus himself stated that for his followers the only ground for divorce, such as would free a person for remarriage, is if one’s mate commits porneia, gross sexual immorality. (Matt. 19:9) Would there be sufficient ground for divorce if a Christian wife merely suspected that her husband was guilty of adultery? No, for the Christian Greek Scriptures carry forward the principle of a matter’s being established by two or three witnesses, as a balanced sense of justice requires. (John 8:17, 18; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) So, if a wife merely suspected her husband of adultery, but he denied it and there were no witnesses to confirm it, she would not have sufficient basis for establishing with the Christian congregation that she had a right to divorce him and thus be free to remarry.

In some cases, though, an unbelieving mate admits to being immoral. A husband, for instance, might even boast of it to his wife as a taunt to hurt her. She might choose to overlook his waywardness. But what if she feels she cannot or should not? Is his confession enough proof?

In this situation it is not as if he professes innocence or adamantly denies being guilty of adultery. Rather, he admits it to her, though for the sake of his reputation he might not be willing to own up to it in a court of law or before other persons. What can the wife do?

Since she is part of the clean Christian congregation, she should realize the importance of handling the matter properly so that, after divorcing him, if she later remarried there would be no question about her keeping ‘the marriage bed without defilement.’ (Heb. 13:4) To that end she could give the elders representing the congregation a letter outlining her situation, stating that her unbelieving husband confessed to her that he had committed immorality. And she could state that in accord with Matthew 19:9 she wishes to put him away, obtaining a legal divorce and thus ending the marriage Scripturally and legally.

The elders would consider whether there is any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate had been immoral. If not, they could accept her signed statement.

‘But,’ someone might say, ‘is it not possible to submit a deceptive, untruthful statement, saying that her husband confessed immorality when he actually never said that?’ Actually, it would be gross deception for anyone to try that. David once prayed: “You have examined my heart, you have made inspection by night, you have refined me; you will discover that I have not schemed.” (Ps. 17:3) Conversely, Jehovah is well aware when someone does scheme and He will make sure that the person does not lastingly succeed. Hence, if a Christian woman goes on record as stating that her husband has admitted immorality, Jehovah knows the facts. As the Bible says: “There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.”—Heb. 4:13; Prov. 5:21; Jer. 16:17.

So if there is no reason to doubt the wife’s statement, the congregation elders can leave the matter between her and Jehovah. In that case she would have to bear before God the responsibility as to the actuality of her husband’s immoral course, which would be the Scriptural basis for ending the marriage even if the legal divorce were obtained on some other ground.]

23

Rodney Spinks Lies...

by iwasblind in

hi guys.

i actually have had dealings with rod and found him to be a very reasonable and "non-robotic" man in the past.. i know it should not surprise me, but i was disappointed to hear his lies and half-truths.. they know their stuff and are not easily led, but he tried to lead the royal commission to believe that 2 people could be involved in investigating a claim - which is wrong.. his lack of memory on what parts of the judicial process are biblical - hello - none are.

there are no scriptures that backup the use of 3 men, a body of elders, cutting people off from family and friends, restrictions, etc.. he also lied about the gb being involved in policy creation and changes.. his statement that in all cases, elders are told to inform parents that they can go to the authorities and get the full support of the congregation is not verifiable.

johnamos

he tried to lead the Royal Commission to believe that 2 people could be involved in investigating a claim - which is wrong.

There are no scriptures that backup the use of 3 men, a body of elders, cutting people off from family and friends, restrictions, etc.

Matthew 18:16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man… “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”

2 John 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed.

Romans 16:17 Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that YOU have learned, and avoid them.

8

Mandatory reporting of Child sexual abuse and the failure to report when it`s not mandatory.

by smiddy in

the jehovah`s witnesses are on record as saying they obey the law in reporting child sex abuse when it is mandatory in the state or territory where it occurred .. in other words where it is not mandatory they do not report such abuse.. they will only do so if the law of the land requires them to do so.. where is the duty of care ,the protection of the victim ,the support ,and the legal protection , he or she would get from the government sponsored systems in place to protect such victims.. they obviously do not have the victims welfare as a first priority , if they did they would report it to the relevant departments of concern as soon as they became aware of such abuse , but they do not.regardless of whether it was mandatory or not.. it obviously has to do with protecting their perceived image of themselves in the community of not having a problem with child sex abuse.. as has been stated many times : "you " / " we" do not want to drag jehovah`s name through the mud".

and as the" royal commission " focusing on jehovah`s witnesses is demonstrating , children`s welfare are not being met.. smiddy.

johnamos

Doc... in line with what you have stated and with the title of this topic, here is an email that I just sent to Angus Stewart...(I saw another thread where someone here sent him a direct email so I thought hey why not I will also)

Angus Stewart,

I just want to start off saying that I am not in agreement with the WTS’s teachings, beliefs, and policies, etc… that said, this is the reality:

The elders in the Jehovah’s Witness church follow the teachings, beliefs, and policies that come solely from the governing body members (currently 7 men make up the GB at this time) of the WTS. In regards to their teachings, beliefs, and policies as it relates to child abuse, you yourself have recognized that they comply with reporting cases to the authorities whenever they occur in areas where it is the law to report such cases. In respect to reporting cases whenever they occur in areas where it is not the law to report such cases to the authorities you have pointed out that they do not report the cases and this they admit to. However, the question should be, is why is it that in some areas it is not required by law to do so??? Regardless, the facts are that the WTS/elders/GB are not doing anything legally wrong. They are following the laws of the land.

If y’all are really concerned about the children in these cases then why don’t you seek to change the laws of the land where it is not legally required to report such cases??? If this is done then the WTS/GB/elders will comply with reporting all such cases wherever they occur.

Next, as you yourself pointed out as it was read from their handbook and that is that regardless of the elders not reporting such cases, their handbook states that all JW’s are free to report crimes to the authorities. This means that the victims themselves can do so or the parents of the victims or anyone in the know about such crimes can do so. So in reality when the elders do not report cases whenever they are in areas where it is not required to do so, they are not breaking any laws and the cases going unreported are not solely due to the elders not reporting them, but if they go unreported it is because the victims themselves, or the parents of the victims or anyone in the know about such crimes refuse to report them even thou they are free to do so.

Lastly, when the legal team for the WTS ask questions in regards to the book that all JW’s would have to have studied and agreed with before they are able to become a baptized JW, those questions are showing that all those that have gone through that book are agreeing into and accepting the teachings, beliefs, and policies, etc… of the WTS/GB.

Basically, at the end of all this it will be seen that the WTS has done nothing legally wrong and that it is the victims themselves or the parents of the victims or anyone in the know about such crimes are the ones that should be the ones that report all such cases to the authorities. Also that the areas of your country (as well as around the world) that do not require it law to report, these areas should change their requirements and make it mandatory to report all such cases.

Respectfully,

John Amos

13

Is the Holy Spirit directing this testimony?

by Mad Sweeney in

if anybody can advise how to get the vid to show here, i'll edit this post.

thanks.apologies for the inconsistent sound levels.. https://youtu.be/nok514dqlti.

johnamos

you should leave off verse 18 and also start off with a few clips of when they say that the spirit appointed them...

10

ANNOUNCEMENT: Tomorrow, Reveal from the Center of Investigative Reporting is publishing a new text story on JW shunning and child abuse

by AndersonsInfo in

reveal from the center of investigative reporting is publishing a new text story on shunning and child abuse starting thursday in the early morning, july 30, 2015. revealnews.org this is the same organization that ran outstanding stories about kathleen conti last february on the reveal website and on pbs nightly news.. the reveal radio story will air on saturday, august 1, 2015, and will be available at over 300 stations in the us.

see revealnews.org .

barbara .

johnamos

How about this…

Let’s pick and settle on a TV station/network in the US, like CNN, Fox news, etc…

Next someone with input from others write out a short letter asking this TV station/network to cover this news story from Australian being that the headquarters of the WTS is here in the US in NY.

Then everyone on here (this board) no matter where you live copy and paste the short letter and send it to whatever website we use based on the network of choice.

Copy the letter just as is and send it thru email but not as an attachment. Everyone send the same letter with nothing else added and with the same subject line in subject box.

I would say that if enough emails are received in regards to, they will do a story on it here in the US…they may even mention that there were a bunch of emails from all over the world requesting that this be covered.