Last service year’s circuit assembly program contained a part with a demonstration in which an elder helped a brother who was having trouble understanding our most recent teaching regarding “this generation”. – Mt 24:34. The thrust of it was that if we don’t understand something we should just accept it as fact because it comes through “Jehovah’s appointed channel”.
There followed a reinforcement of this idea in the April 15, 2012 Watchtower in the article "Betrayal an Ominous Sign of the Times". On page 10, paragraphs 10 and 11 of that article, the point was made that doubting some point made by the “faithful steward” would be equivalent to doubting what Jesus teaches.
A few months later at the district convention of the year, in a Friday afternoon part entitled “Avoid Testing Jehovah in Your Heart”, we were told that even thinking that a teaching from the faithful slave was wrong would be tantamount to putting Jehovah to the test.
Now comes this service year’s circuit assembly program with a part entitled “Keep This Mental Attitude—Oneness of Mind”. Using 1 Cor. 1:10, the speaker stated that ‘we cannot harbor ideas contrary to God’s word or to those found in our publications’. This astonishing statement is putting what we publish on a par with the inspired word of God. Just in case you’re thinking that these may have been only the speaker’s words, I checked with the circuit overseer and he confirmed that the wording comes from the printed outline from the Governing Body. Are we seriously prepared to equate what we teach in our publications with the inspired word of God? Remarkably, it would seem so.
In the half century or so that I have been part of Jehovah’s people, I’ve never seen a trend like this. Is this in response to the growing discontent of many due to the failure of past predictions? Does the Governing Body feel their assumed authority to interpret God’s word on our behalf is under siege? Is there a groundswell of brothers and sisters who are quietly expressing disbelief and are no longer willing to blindly accept what is being taught? One might come to this conclusion considering that the most recent aforementioned circuit assembly part calls for an interview with an actual “longtime elder who in the past found a certain Bible explanation (or direction from the organization) difficult to understand or accept.” [Taken from the outline instructions to the speaker]
Think about what that means. The average circuit contains 20 to 22 congregations. Let’s assume an average of 8 elders per congregation, though that would be high in many countries. That gives us somewhere between 160 to 170 elders. Of those, how many would be considered long-time elders? Let’s be generous and say a third. So in making this assignment, they must believe that a significant percentage of these brothers are having serious doubts about some of our official scriptural interpretations. How many of these “doubting Thomases” would be willing to get up on the circuit assembly platform and express their doubts? An even smaller number, to be sure. So the Governing Body must feel that the number of such ones is high enough to allow each circuit to find at least one candidate. However, to go through this process they must also feel that a very significant number of brothers and sisters in each circuit are reasoning in this manner.
Now it should be noted that Thomas doubted when he shouldn’t have. Yet, Jesus still provided him with proof. He did not rebuke the man for having his doubts. He did not demand of Thomas that he believe simply because Jesus said so. That is how Jesus dealt with doubt—he kindly provided additional proof.
If what you are teaching is based on solid fact; if what you are teaching can be proven from Scripture; then you do not need to be heavy-handed. You can simply prove to any dissenter the rightness of your cause by giving a scripturally-based defense. (1 Pet. 3:15) If, on the other hand, you cannot prove what you are asking others to believe, you have to use other methods to obtain compliance—unchristian methods.
The Governing Body is coming out with teachings for which no scriptural foundation is provided (the latest understandings of Mt. 24:34 and Mt. 24:45-47 are but two examples) and which actually seem to contradict Scripture; yet, we are being told to believe unconditionally. We are told that non-acceptance would be tantamount to doubting the inspired word of God. Essentially, we are told that if we do not believe, we are sinning; for a person who doubts is worse than one without faith. (1 Tim. 5:8)
What is even more bizarre about this situation is that it is contradicted by the very publications we are told to believe as if they were God’s Word. Take, as an example, this excellent article in the November 1, 2012 issue of the Watchtower entitled “Is Religious Faith an Emotional Crutch?” While making many sound and well-reasoned points, it is clear the article is directed toward those in false religion. The presumption of most Jehovah’s Witnesses would be that we are already practicing what the article teaches which is why we are in the truth. But let’s try to consider these points with an unbiased and open mind, shall we? Let’s see if they might just apply to us every bit as much as they do to someone in false religion.
“An emotional crutch is a form of self-deception that causes a person to ignore reality and prevents him from reasoning logically.” (Par. 1)
Certainly we would not want to be supporting ourselves on an emotional crutch that would cause us to ignore reality and prevent us from reasoning logically. Therefore, if we reason on a new teaching from the Governing Body and find that it makes no sense logically, what should we do according to this article. Obviously, accepting it anyway would be to ignore reality. Yet, isn’t that precisely what we have been told to do?
“Some equate faith with gullibility. They say that people who resort to faith do not want to think for themselves or allow hard evidence to influence their beliefs. Such skeptics imply that those with strong religious faith ignore reality.” (Par. 2)
We are not gullible, are we? We are not the sort that 'do not want to think for ourselves', nor will we ignore "hard evidence" that might influence our beliefs. This reasoning is based on God’s Word, and the Governing Body is using this article to teach us this truth. Yet, at the same time, they teach us that independent thinking is a bad trait. Independent from what or whom? Jehovah? Then we couldn't agree more. However, based on the recent developments listed above, it would appear that thinking independently of the Governing Body is what they have in mind.
“The Bible has much to say about faith. Yet nowhere does it encourage us to be gullible or naive. Nor does it condone mental laziness. On the contrary, it labels people who put faith in every word they hear as inexperienced, even foolish. (Proverbs 14:15,18) Really, how foolish it would be for us to accept an idea as true without checking the facts! That would be like covering our eyes and trying to cross a busy street just because someone tells us to do it.” (Par. 3)
This is excellent counsel. It should be, of course. It is counsel taken from God’s Word. Yet, the source that is instructing us here to not “put faith in every word” is also telling us elsewhere that we must not doubt any word sounded down from the Governing Body through our publications. They instruct us here, from God’s Word, that the “inexperienced and foolish” put faith in every word they hear, yet they also demand of us to believe everything they say even if we cannot find evidence for it. In fact, as we’ve demonstrated time and again in this forum, the evidence often contradicts what we are teaching, yet we are to ignore that reality and just believe.
“Rather than encouraging blind faith, the Bible urges us to keep our figurative eyes open so that we are not deceived. (Matthew 16:6) We keep our eyes open by using our “power of reason.” (Romans 12:1) The Bible trains us to reason on evidence and reach sound conclusions that are based on facts.” (Par. 4)
Let’s repeat that last sentence: "The Bible trains us to reason on evidence and reach sound conclusions that are based on facts." It trains us! Not a group of individuals who in turn tell us what to believe. The Bible trains us. Jehovah requires us individually to reason on the evidence and reach sound conclusions based, not on what others demand of us to believe, but on the facts.
"In a letter to Christians living in the city of Thessalonica, Paul encouraged them to be selective in what they believed. He wanted them to "make sure of all things."—1 Thessalonians 5:21." (Par. 5)
Paul encouraged Christians to be selective, but were he on earth today, would not this instruction run afoul of our organization’s doctrine that does not permit us to select which teachings we will not accept? True, we must believe all that the Bible teaches. There is no argument about that. However, the interpretation of men is another matter. The Bible command is to “make sure of all things”. That direction is given to each and every Christian, not just to those who would lead us. How does each one of us “make sure”? What is the standard or measuring stick that you must use? It is God’s Word and only God’s Word. We use Jehovah’s Word to make sure that what is taught in the publications is true. There is no provision in the Bible that would permit us to accept a teaching of men unconditionally.
Given what we have been taught in this article, it is incongruous—to say the least—that we should still require unconditional belief in the teachings of the Governing Body. In an organization that prizes truth so highly that we actually use it as a designation, this dichotomy is baffling. One can only assume that we get around the contradiction by imagining in our minds that the teachings of the Governing Body are, in some way, an exception to the rule. If Jehovah tells us to do something, even if we don’t understand it; even if it seems contradictory or unscientific at first glance (as the injunction against blood seemed at first) we do it unconditionally, because Jehovah cannot be wrong.
By equating the instruction from the Governing Body with that from God Almighty, we have permitted them the status of “exception-to-the-rule”.
But how can the Governing Body, made up of imperfect humans, and with a dreadful track record of failed interpretations, take up such a seemingly presumptuous position? The reason, it appears, is that they have assumed the mantle of Jehovah’s appointed channel of communication. Jehovah, it is believed, does not communicate directly with his people, nor does he simply use Jesus Christ to do so, but rather, a group of men are in that chain of communication. Is this a biblical teaching? It is best to leave that for another post. Suffice it to say that we have clearly established here from Scripture as well as from our own publications that we are under obligation to God to reason for ourselves, make sure of all things, refuse to blindly believe every word no matter how esteemed the imperfect human source may be, review the evidence, consider the facts, and reach our own conclusions. The Bible counsels us against putting faith in humans and their words. We must only put faith in Jehovah God.
Now it is up to each of us to obey God as ruler rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Dorcas on 2012-11-01 16:40:26
Thank you again for your wonderful blog post. It can't be coincidence that so many of us long time servants of Jehovah are feeling "strange" about the things we are hearing at our assemblies and conventions, not to mention reading in our literature.
I see this latest example as an act of near desperation on the part of the GB. What does a person do when he feels he's losing his grip or his control? He tightens that grip. I don't know the reasons behind it, but I sincerely believe the GB feels threatened on some front and thus the need to keep us in line with with these types of parts.
What are the poor rank and file (like me) to do? Personally, I feel torn apart by what I see happening. Most of my life I have only wanted to serve God and please him by the choices I make in my life.
There are no human publications that are on equal footing with the Scriptures. This sentiment is truly shocking to me. I have not attended our circuit assembly yet so this is all news to me.
This smacks of the answer to a child's question of "why?" "Because I said so." That may be enough for a parent to get by for awhile but in time, those tactics won't work with the child. Will the GB's similar tactic fail in the long run? I suppose only time will tell. Yes, truly, we MUST obey God, not men.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-01 16:49:30
I couldn't agree more, Dorcas. It is like trying to hold on to a handful of sand by tightening one's grip. Doesn't work. I think your sentiments are shared by a growing number. If this tendency to tighten the screws continues, I fear we are heading for a tipping point. I don't want to think where that might lead, but I do hope the GB comes to its senses before things get critical.
Like you, I find all of this disheartening. A test of faith, to be sure.
Comment by Admitting Our Mistakes, Kinda… « Beroean Pickets on 2012-11-02 16:45:58
[...] 2) We are told we should consider the words handed down in our publications to be on a par with God’s word because they come from “Jehovah’s Appointed Channel of Communication”. See Are We Nearing a Tipping Point? [...]
Comment by hezekiah1 on 2012-11-03 00:53:55
Thanks Meleti once again. This kind of reminds me of King Rehoboam which I find very ironic given what is written about him in our publications.
*** fy chap. 7 p. 81 par. 12 Is There a Rebel in the House? ***
12 Rehoboam exemplifies the other extreme in handling authority. He was the last king of the united kingdom of Israel, but he was not a good king. Rehoboam had inherited a land whose people were discontented because of the burdens placed on them by his father, Solomon. Did Rehoboam show understanding? No. When a delegation asked him to remove some of the oppressive measures, he failed to heed mature advice from his older counselors and commanded that the people’s yoke be made heavier. His arrogance provoked a rebellion by the ten northern tribes, and the kingdom was ripped in two.—1 Kings 12:1-21; 2 Chronicles 10:19.
The tightening of the grip is usually the wrong thing to do. True there are those who speak injuriously of glorious ones. Such people should be rightly ignored. They have no place in Jehovah’s organization. Yet what about those who are true believers? They love the truth and the Bible. When such ones see something in the Watchtower which does not seem to sync with what is in the Bible, what then? Is the GB response to label such ones as betrayers? See April 15, 2012 Watchtower article “Betrayal an Ominous Sign of the Times”.
Are we truly testing Jehovah in our hearts? Never may that be so.
I find it peculiar though the progression we have seen over the past year. First, believe because we said so. Next, believe because what we say is equal to Jesus words. (See April 15, 2012 Watchtower article “Betrayal an Ominous Sign of the Times”.)
Now comes this part entitled “Keep This Mental Attitude—Oneness of Mind”. Using 1 Cor. 1:10, the speaker stated that ‘we cannot harbor ideas contrary to God’s word or to those found in our publications’. So we believe now because the Watchtower is on par with Jehovah’s Word?
This is truly a remarkable statement. I would like to point out that the Bible has no need to be revised from time to time, as if changing circumstances made it necessary for God to change his views on things.
Our view however has changed on a variety of subjects, several times. So which version of “this generation” for example should we believe? Or are we to believe everything that ever issues forth from the GB? Shoule we not examine the scriptures to see if these things are so? I realize the Bible shows the light continues to get brighter, and I respect the hard work these brothers put forth in getting things accurate. I have never had a problem with any mistake, misstep or other foible the GB has had. The reason for this is, well, theyre human, just like me. I know what it is to be human and can make allowances for this. However to put our publications on par with Gods Word is quite different. Does this mean that the Watchtower is now infallible, never needing revising? Is it accurate in all aspects like the Bible in prophecy, science and history? Will it give perfect counsel like the Bible in various aspects of daily life, marriage and family relations?
If we answer no to any of these questions, we are forced to ask the question: On what basis then are we to view the Watchtower equal to the Bible, such that we cannot have an idea which in contrary to what is printed in the Watchtower?
If there are any who can answer this question I would grateful to hear from you.
Comment by junachin on 2012-11-07 12:37:57
In analyzing this latest trend, I find the scriptural examples quoted below encouraging. In the first, Saul's "runners" (the king’s personal force, like a modern-day bodyguard, according to Insight, vol. II, p. 827) refused to kill the priests of Jehovah, in spite of a direct order from the "anointed of Jehovah". (1 Samuel 24:6.)
In the second, Paul discusses his reaction to when Peter, out of fear of "certain men from James" (Jesus' half brother, according to Insight vol. I, p. 1252), acted hypocritically. This account demonstrates clearly that anointed men - men who had walked with Jesus, had performed miracles and were among the apostles and older men in Jerusalem - were not infallible. But I find it especially interesting because of Paul's surprise that Barnabas went along with it. Paul apparently expected Barnabas to do what he himself wound up having to do: Stand up for what was right, no matter whose toes he had to step on.
My point in citing these two examples is not to incite anyone to disobey any part of the wealth of Bible-based counsel we receive from the organization, or to doubt any clear Bible teaching that we have learned thanks to the organization. But there is scriptural precedent for such a thing as a personal tipping point - a point at which a faithful servant of Jehovah will have to "serve God as ruler rather than" the fallible men who run the organization. This latest prohibition of 'harboring ideas contrary to those found in our publications' certainly brings me to such a point. The implications are indeed frightening. Like Dorcas commented, I have served Jehovah for most of my life under the direction of the GB. I lived through the 1975 debacle and have my share of battle scars, and I intend with all my heart to be faithful to my God till the end. And I sure hope the end comes before all hades breaks loose within our beloved brotherhood, for there is nowhere else to go. Is this what "unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved" means? (Matthew 24:22.)
(1 Samuel 22:17, 18) 17 With that the king said to the runners stationed about him: “Turn and put to death the priests of Jehovah, because their hand also is with David and because they knew that he was a runaway and they did not disclose it to my ear!” And the servants of the king did not want to thrust out their hand to assault the priests of Jehovah. 18 Finally the king said to Do?eg: “You turn and assault the priests!” Immediately Do?eg the E?dom·ite turned and himself assaulted the priests and put to death on that day eighty-five men bearing an eph?od of linen.
(Galatians 2:11-13) 11 However, when Ce?phas came to Antioch, I resisted him face to face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before the arrival of certain men from James, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he went withdrawing and separating himself, in fear of those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Bar?na·bas was led along with them in their pretense [or hypocrisy, note].Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-07 17:49:59
What interesting points you make!
Saul's "runners" disobeyed his order to kill the priests of Jehovah, but didn't stop Doeg from doing the dirty work. It seems their disobedience had its limits. Going that extra step would mean opposing Jehovah's anointed one.
I agree with your thought that there is such a thing as a personal tipping point. However, when enough of us have reached it, there is very likely to be a collective or community tipping point. Like you, I hope I’m not around to see that.
I'd never noticed before that the men who caused Peter to stumble were "from James". Now I’m not positive about the sequence of events, but it appears that the dispute over the circumcision issue that brought Paul to Jerusalem on behalf of the Galatians preceded this incident. Then, after this occurred, Paul went back to Jerusalem where he was imprisoned and sent off to Rome.
While there the second time, he met James and this exchange ensued:
(Acts 21:18-20) . . .But on the following [day] Paul went in with us to James; and all the older men were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving in detail an account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. 20 After hearing this they began to glorify God, and they said to him: “You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law.
So while the Jewish Christians had authorized the Gentiles to continue without the need of circumcision, it would appear that the influence of Jewish custom and law still weighed heavily upon the many thousands making up the congregation in Jerusalem. Hence, Paul’s words “certain men from James” carries with it the possibility that these influential men had the backing of, what we like to call, the first century governing body. This means that the influence of the Judaizers was still strong within that body of older men.
Comment by Harrison Webster on 2012-11-14 12:55:39
A very good , balanced estimation of what is going on at present in the Oragnization.
As a Brother born in , way back in 1950, it saddens me to see the way the men who take the lead amongst us feel the need to to use intimidation so that we loyally follow them, again, so very different from Jesus,remember when Peter pointed out the ones preaching and yet who were not of their group ? Jesus said "He who is not against me is for me" , (all this is from memory, so not word for word), today such ones would be counselled for not following the exact directions.
It saddens me that the Governing Body does not simply trust us to follow them, which we will happily do all the while we can see that they are dircting us in direct agreement with God's Word the Bible, they do not need to bully us to follow the direction of the God we love.
A number of times over the years they have told us we should obey, even if we do not understand why, but that is so dangerous, obey Jesus yes, but imperfect men? even if our inner voice, Bible trained, is warning us that something is not right ?
To do so is to go down the same route as the German nation under Hitler, we too will not be able to claim, when called to account by Jehovah God, that we were simply obeying orders, as the Germans could not.
We must always listen to our Bible trained conscience, and if it tells us we have reached a Tipping Point, we must act as our conscience demands, to do anything less is immoral, and allows other men to control our very being.
Thank you for a thoughtful and well written piece, and thank you brothers for your comments, it is good to know that I am not alone in my unease.
Comment by Mark on 2012-11-14 13:10:51
I'm a JW but you are right. Dus you hear about the comming new FDS understanding? They are become mad...
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-14 13:20:29
Thanks Mark. I get your sentiment. I, like you, am finding it difficult to understand how eight capable and spiritual men could concoct such an awkward and unscriptural understanding as is our current one on the 1919 appointment of Rutherford as the, then, FDS; not to mention the unwieldy overlapping generations that are supposed to explain 1914’s connection to Mt. 24:34. I can only believe that they are unwittingly allowing themselves to be bound by traditional beliefs and with that legacy to deal with, are trying the best they can to make things fit. Unfortunately, it just isn’t working and more and more are becoming uncomfortably aware of it. It undermines their authority.
Comment by Naima on 2012-11-14 14:19:59
Unfortunately,even when a' new light ' isn't clear or doesn't make sense in our minds,we are not encouraged to question it. .questioning it is viewed as disloyalty....
truth should be able to withstand scrutiny.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-14 14:34:18
Too true!
Comment by anonymous on 2012-11-14 15:34:14
Are you df'd?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-14 16:32:55
No, I'm a long-time witness in good standing. I am happy to be among Jehovah's people.
Reply by Naima on 2012-11-14 22:38:48
I'm an active Witness, baptized 30 years ago, I spent many years in the full time ministry, most of them in Bethel in an African country.
I've conducted many Bible studies with the 'Live Forever' ,'Knowledge' ,'Bible teach'....there were so many adjustments made to the Live Forever book. .eg the separation of sheep and goats,resurrection of Sodom and Gommorah, 1914 generation etc. ..
the 'Knowledge ' book on the other hand seemed quite shallow. .many which studied it didn't grasp the deeper things, some didn't even study the deeper 'Worship ' book.
I've been having a problem with the idea of 'new light '.... I feel that truth should not change, and any 'new light ' shouldn't contradict what we understand to be true, it should only add to it.
The opening chapter of the 'Teach book' encourages the student to ask questions,...in the ministry,I,we encourage people to examine their religious beliefs....so why can't I examine mine, particularly since I was raised up a Witness,and baptized as a young teen?
Reply by hezekiah1 on 2012-11-14 17:29:28
Nor am I. I have been a witness for approaching three decades. As I said in my post, those who speak injuriously of glorious ones should not be tolerated. We love truth, the Bible and Jehovah's people here. All that we would do here is discuss truth based on the bible.
Comment by Pauline Spearing on 2012-11-15 13:02:58
With respect...
They are men... Imperfect humans... just as the apostles were... except they don't have The Lord here in person, keeping them in line... or the lovely Paul, laying down the law... (as opposed to, "The Law...")... and I suspect, they aren't all quiet and humble... there are probably a few strong personalities... and as in any Human Committee, there will be a pecking order... a status quo...
We assume so much... but we don't really, "know...", just how they go about deciding and agreeing on what's on this month's table do we...?
It must be a tremendous pressure, especially these days, with all the available information out there...
Let's pray that The Lord is patient with all of us... as we know and trust that He is... from all the examples He showed us, of His deep love and undeserved kindness...Reply by Kim on 2012-12-20 07:38:01
You say that much is assumed. This wouldn't be the case if the GB simply explained how they go about deciding and agreeing. The have written truck loads of words, it wouldn't be any problem to explain truthfully how they go about their decisions. They seem to have so much to hide.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-12-20 08:31:49
They did explain at the annual meeting that they all must agree on a point before publishing a new understanding. The speaker explained that sometimes one of them might have an idea that is presented multiple times at their meetings, but unless all agree, it doesn't make its way to print. So it is clear, as they've stated, that they are not speaking under inspiration either individually nor as a group. Since many understandings which did make it to print later were discarded, sometimes to be readopted even later, and then subsequently discarded again, as was the case of the "ten toes" in Daniel's vision, it is clear that such ideas are just the understanding of men.
Those are cold facts based on abundant and verifiable evidence. It is therefore difficult to comprehend why they demand that we view the things published in the magazines on a par with the Holy Scriptures. (See post: "Circuit Assembly Part - Oneness of Mind)
If they do not know what something means, rather than engage in speculation and then treat it as doctrine, it would be acceptable to the rank and file to simply have them tell us "we don't know how this prophecy will be fulfilled" and that would suffice.
We respect the role they fulfill in Jehovah's organization, and it is not our place to assign bad motives to them--or to anyone for that matter--so we continue to work on the assumption that they have our best interests at heart. However, but this latest stance of theirs has no support in Scripture.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-11-15 13:09:58
Hear, Hear!
Comment by Randy Galbraith on 2012-11-17 01:10:04
Hi Meleti,
You quoted these circuit assembly part instructions: "longtime elder who in the past found a certain Bible explanation (or direction from the organization) difficult to understand or accept."
Does that not show on some level there is an understanding and toleration of those who have difficulty "accepting" ceritain Biblical explanations provided? To appreciate this I think one must separate obedience and loyalty from belief and doubt. The assumption in these instructions is the "longtime elder" acceptance issues are "in the past". So, if one has doubts, but nonetheless remains loyal and obedient they very well may find a degree of tolerance. I know such was true in my own case. When I resigned as an elder in 2005, I expressed my inability to reconcile certain beliefs and feelings with what we taught as correct Bible understanding. True, all of my privledges were removed, even being removed from the TMS. I was also asked not to accept invitations for saying the prayer at service groups and other meetings. Eventually many privledges were restored, although my doubts remained. I did leave the faith in 2007, but not because I was asked to leave.
Since I have friends and family who remain Witnesses, I still follow with interest developments within the organization -- such as the recent consoldation of websites into jw.org. I found your post both interesting and enlightening.
Kind regards,
-Randy
Comment by Catherine on 2012-11-18 04:26:35
Thank you very much for this article; it puts the changes into perspective. I shall be posting this on my FB wall and some relevant groups, if you don't mind? Thank you.
Comment by Pauline Spearing on 2012-11-18 09:16:26
With respect...
Over the years there has been much made of this scripture. (Matt 24:45-47)
Both Charles T. Russell and Judge Rutherford accepted the title, "Faithful Steward," personally bestowed on them ... by the brothers and sisters.
It was only changed later into a, "Class."
As it doesn't appear that the Christ has actually returned yet... maybe it would be a little presumptuous for anyone to call themselves, "The Faithful Steward?"
Surely that's The Lords decision?!
When He sent His Helper, at Pentecost, they, and everyone who witnessed it, were left in no doubt that He was entrusting them with feeding His sheep.
With the deepest respect and love for our Father Jehovah and His Wonderful Son, our Saviour, Christ Jesus.Reply by Pauline Spearing on 2012-11-20 01:41:16
Further, "Charles T. Russell founded what has been called The Bible Student's Association. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society only served to coordinate the activities of the various congregations. This Society was not the central authority for the Bible Students, for all cooperating congregations of Bible Students held strictly to congregational self-government. After the death of Russell in 1916 the purpose of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society changed completely. The teachings of "Studies in the Scriptures" and other writings of Russell were discarded. The Society became the central head and authority over all congregations willing to yield to their sovereignty. Basic doctrines of the Society seriously digressed from the teachings of Pastor Russell, and before long "Judge" Rutherford declared that those associated with The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society were, "Jehovah'sWitnesses," on this earth. Here is where the name emerged... Pastor Russell had been long dead and he would have either distanced himself, or been disfellowshipped; the teachings are THAT different!"
Ref: "Victory"... Review on, "Charles Taze Russell: His Life and Times: The Man, the Millennium and the Message by Fredrick Zydek (Dec 31, 2009)"
Comment by Beth Shan on 2012-11-24 08:09:44
You make a very good point about Thomas.
Comment by Joe134cd on 2014-12-28 04:43:34
Although I am an apostate, I am still willing to listen to both sides of the argument. I have to say for an apologist I have never before read such a well though out and balanced approach. Although I fully accept the human imperfection, satan, new light etc and other excuses given to explain mistakes. I do believe they have to change to having greater transparency and accountability. With the wealth of information on the Internet (and in Wt case it's all pretty much negative) now, there is just no room for secrets, or the mantra of follow me because I said so.