A Weapon of Darkness

[This post is a follow-up to last week’s discussion: Are We Apostates?]

"The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light." (Romans 13:12 NWT)

"Authority is the greatest and most irreconcilable enemy to truth and argument that this world ever furnished. All the sophistry—all the color of plausibility—the artifice and cunning of the subtlest disputer in the world may be laid open and turned to the advantage of that very truth which they are designed to hide; but against authority there is no defence." (18^th Century Scholar Bishop Benjamin Hoadley)

Every form of government that has ever existed consists of three key elements: legislative, judicial, and executive. The legislative makes the laws; the judicial upholds and applies them, while the executive enforces them. In less wicked forms of human government, these three are kept separate. In a true monarchy, or a dictatorship (which is just a monarchy without a good PR firm) the legislative and the judicial are often combined into one. But no monarch or dictator is powerful enough to encompass the executive all by himself. He needs those who act for him to execute justice—or injustice, as the case may be—so as to preserve his power. This is not to say that a democracy or a republic is free of such abuses of power. Quite the contrary. Nevertheless, the smaller and tighter the powerbase, the less accountability there is. A dictator does not have to justify his actions to his people. Bishop Hoadley’s words are as true today as they were centuries ago: “Against authority there is no defence.”

At the fundamental level, there are really only two forms of government. Government by the creation and government by the Creator. For created things to govern, be they man or the invisible spirit forces using man as their front, there must be the power to punish dissenters. Such governments use fear, intimidation, coercion, and enticement to hold onto and grow their authority. By contrast, the Creator already has all the power and all the authority, and it cannot be taken from him. Yet, he uses none of the tactics of his rebellious creatures to rule. He bases his rulership on love. Which of the two do you prefer? Which do you vote for by your conduct and life course?
Since creatures are very insecure about their power and always fearful that it will be stripped from them, they use many tactics to hold on to it. One of the foremost, used both secularly and religiously, is the claim to divine appointment. If they can fool us into believing that they speak for God, the ultimate power and authority, it will be easier for them to maintain control; and so it has proven down through the ages. (See 2 Cor. 11:14, 15) They may even compare themselves to other men who truly ruled in the name of God. Men like Moses, for instance. But do not be fooled. Moses had real credentials. For instance, he exercised the power of God through ten plagues and the splitting of the Red Sea by which the world power of the day was defeated. Today, those who would compare themselves to Moses as God’s channel might point to similar awe-inspiring credentials such as being freed from prison after a grueling nine months of suffering. The equivalency of that comparison fairly leaps off the page, does it not?

However, let us not overlook another key element to Moses’ divine appointment: He was held accountable by God for his words and deeds. When Moses acted wrongly and sinned, he had to answer to God. (De 32:50-52) In short, his power and authority were never abused, and when he strayed he was immediately disciplined. He was held accountable. Similar accountability will be evident in any humans today who hold a similar divinely-appointed office. When they stray, mislead, or teach falsehood, they will acknowledge this and humbly apologize. There was an individual like this. He had the credentials of Moses in that he performed even more miraculous works. Though he was never punished by God for sin, that was merely because he never sinned. However, he was humble and approachable and never misled his people with false teachings and false expectations. This one is also still alive. With such a living leader carrying the endorsement of Jehovah God, we have no need of human rulers, do we? Yet they persist and continue to claim divine authority under God and with token acknowledgement to the one just described, Jesus Christ.

These ones have perverted the way of the Christ to gain power for themselves; and to keep it, they have used the time-honored means of all human government, the big stick. They appeared around the time the apostles died off. As years went by, they progressed to the point that some of the worst human rights abuses can be attributed to them. The extremes during the darkest days of Roman Catholicism are part of history now, but they are not alone in employing such methods for maintaining power.

It has been hundreds of years since the Catholic Church has had unfettered power to imprison and even execute any who dared to challenge its authority. Still, into recent times, it has kept one weapon in its arsenal. Consider this from Awake January 8, 1947, Pg. 27, “Are You Also Excommunicated?”[i]

“The authority for excommunication, they claim, is based on the teachings of Christ and the apostles, as found in the following scriptures: Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; Galatians 1:8,9; 1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10. But the Hierarchy’s excommunication, as a punishment and “medicinal” remedy (Catholic Encyclopedia), finds no support in these scriptures. In fact, it is altogether foreign to Bible teachings.—Hebrews 10:26-31. … Thereafter, as the pretensions of the Hierarchy increased, the weapon of excommunication became the instrument by which the clergy attained a combination of ecclesiastical power and secular tyranny that finds no parallel in history. Princes and potentates that opposed the dictates of the Vatican were speedily impaled on the tines of excommunication and hung over persecution fires.” –[Boldface added]

The church held secret trails in which the accused was denied access to counsel, public observers and witnesses. Judgment was summary and unilateral, and the members of the church were expected to support the decision of the clergy or suffer the same fate as the excommunicated one.

We rightly condemned this practice in 1947 and correctly labelled it a weapon which was used to quell rebellion and preserve the power of the clergy through fear and intimidation. We also correctly showed that it has no support in Scripture and that the scriptures used to justify it were actually being misapplied for evil ends.

All this we said and taught just after the war ended, but scarcely five years later, we instituted something very similar which we called disfellowshipping. (Like "excommunication", this is not a Biblical term.) As this process developed and was refined, it took on virtually all the characteristics of the very practice of Catholic excommunication we had so roundly condemned. We now have our own secret trials wherein the accused is denied defense counsel, observers and witnesses of his own. We are required to abide by the decision our clergy has reached in these closed sessions even though we know no details, not even the accusation brought against our brother. If we do not honor the decision of the elders, we too can face the fate of disfellowshipping.

Truly, disfellowshipping is nothing more than Catholic excommunication by another name. If it was unscriptural then, how could it be scriptural now? If it was a weapon then, is it not a weapon now?

Is Disfellowshipping/Excommunication Scriptural?

The Scriptures upon which the Catholics base their policy of excommunication and we as Jehovah’s Witnesses base ours of disfellowshipping are: Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; Galatians 1:8,9; 1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11. We have dealt with this topic in depth on this site under the category of Judicial Matters. One fact that will become evident if you read through those posts is that there is no basis in the Bible for the Catholic practice of excommunication nor the JW practice of disfellowshipping. The Bible leaves it up to the individual to properly treat the fornicator, idolater, or apostate by avoiding inappropriate contact with such a one. It is not an institutional practice in Scripture and the determination and subsequent labeling of the individual by secret committee is alien to Christianity. Simply put, it is a misuse of power to stifle any perceived threat to the authority of man.

A 1980 Turn for the Worse

Initially, the disfellowshipping process was principally intended to keep the congregation clean from practicing sinners so as to maintain the sanctity of Jehovah’s name which we now carried. This shows how one wrong decision can lead to another, and how doing the wrong thing with the best of intentions is always doomed to bring heartache and ultimately God’s disapproval.

Having gone against our own counsel and adopted this reprehensible Catholic weapon, we were poised to complete the imitation of our most condemned rival when, by the 1980s, the recently formed powerbase of the Governing Body felt threatened. This was the time when prominent members of the Bethel family began to question some of our core doctrines. Of particular concern must have been the fact that these questionings were based solidly on Scripture, and could not be answered or defeated using the Bible. There were two courses of action open to the Governing Body. One was to accept the newly discovered truths and alter our teaching to come more in line with divine authority. The other was to do what the Catholic Church had done for centuries and silence the voices of reason and truth using the power of authority against which there is no defense. (Well, not human defense, at least.) Our chief weapon was that of excommunication—or if you prefer, disfellowshipping.

Apostasy is defined in Scripture as a turning away from God and Christ, a teaching of falsehoods and of a different good news. The apostate exalts himself and makes of himself a God. (2 Jo 9, 10; Ga 1:7-9; 2 Th 2:3,4) Apostasy is neither good nor bad in and of itself. It literally means “a standing away from” and if the thing from which you are standing away is false religion, then technically, you are an apostate, but that’s the kind of apostate that finds God’s approval. Nevertheless, to the uncritical mind, apostasy is a bad thing, so labeling someone “an apostate” makes them into a bad person. The unthinking will simply accept the label and treat the person as they have been taught to do.

However, these ones were not actually apostates as defined in the Bible. So we had to play a little jiggery-pokery with the word and say, “Well, it’s wrong to disagree with what God teaches. That’s apostasy, plain and simple. I am God’s channel of communication. I teach what God teaches. So it’s wrong to disagree with me. If you disagree with me, you must therefore be an apostate.”

That still wasn’t enough however, because these individuals were being respectful of the feelings of others which is not a characteristic of apostates. One cannot envision the ultimate apostate, Satan the Devil, being respectful of others’ feelings. Using only the Bible, they were helping truth seekers to get a better understanding of Scripture. This was no in-your-face sectarianism, but a dignified and gentle attempt to use the Bible as a weapon of light. (Ro 13:12) The idea of a “quiet apostate” was a bit of a dilemma for the nascent Governing Body. They resolved it by redefining the meaning of the word still further to give them the appearance of just cause. To do this, they had to change God’s law. (Da 7:25) The result was a letter dated 1 September, 1980 directed to the traveling overseers which clarified statements just made in The Watchtower. This is the key excerpt from that letter:

“Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. As mentioned in paragraph two, page 17 of the August 1, 1980, Watchtower, “The word ‘apostasy’ comes from a Greek term that means ‘a standing away from,’ ‘a falling away, defection,’ ‘rebellion, abandonment. Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrine despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing. Extended, kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking. However, if, after such extended efforts have been put forth to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the ‘slave class, the appropriate judicial action should be taken.

So just thinking the Governing Body was wrong about something now constituted apostasy. If you are thinking, “That was then; this is now”, you may not realize that this mentality has, if anything, become more entrenched than ever. In the 2012 district convention we were told that just thinking the Governing Body was wrong about some teaching was tantamount to testing Jehovah in your heart as the sinful Israelites did in the wilderness. In the 2013 circuit assembly program we were told that to have oneness of mind, we must think in agreement and not “harbor ideas contrary to…our publications”.

Imagine being disfellowshipped, totally cut off from all family and friends, just for holding an idea that differs from what the Governing Body is teaching. In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 a privileged Inner Party elite persecuted all individualism and independent thinking, labeling them Thoughtcrimes. How tragic that a worldly novelist attacking the political establishment he saw developing following the Second World War should hit so close to home regarding our current judicial practices.

In summary

From the foregoing it is evident that the actions of the Governing Body in dealing with those who disagree—not with Scripture, but with their interpretation of it—parallel the Catholic hierarchy of the past. The present Catholic leadership is far more tolerant of dissenting views than its predecessors; so we now have the ignoble distinction of going the Church one better—or one worse. Our own publications condemn us, for we condemned the Catholic practice of excommunication and then set about implementing an exact copy of it for our own purposes. In doing this, we have implemented the pattern of all human rulership. We have a legislature—the Governing Body—which makes laws of our own. We have a Judicial branch of government in the traveling overseers and local elders who enforce those laws. And finally, we execute our version of justice by the power to cut people off from family, friends and the congregation itself.
It is easy to cast blame on the Governing Body for this, but if we support this policy by blind obedience to the rulership of men, or out of fear that we too might suffer, then we are complicit before the Christ, the appointed judge all mankind. Let us not fool ourselves. When Peter spoke to the crowd at Pentecost he told them that they, not just the Jewish leaders, had executed Jesus on a stake. (Acts 2:36) At hearing this, "they were stabbed to the heart..." (Acts 2:37) Like them, we can repent for past sins, but what of the future? With the knowledge we know have, can we get off scot-free if we continue to help men wield this weapon of darkness?
Let us not hide behind transparent excuses. We have become what we have long disdained and condemned: A human rulership. All human rulership stands in opposition to God. Invariably, this has been the final outcome of all organized religion.
How this present, lamentable state of affairs developed from a people that started out with such noble ideals will be the subject of another post.

[i] A tip of the hat to “BeenMislead” whose thoughtful comment brought this gem to our attention.

Archived Comments

We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-05-27 13:19:51
*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.
There are a lot of things I could say about the above excerpt, but one thing that jumped out at me when I read it not too long ago was the requirement that we believe “that there is a 'faithful and discreet slave' upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests’”. The fact that last year they decided that they had not (yet) been “entrusted with all of Jesus' earthly belongings” makes it abundantly clear that this is a human interpretation. (Not to mention the far bigger changes in 'our' understanding of its composition and appointment date.) So, the fact that they are willing to brand and expel as apostates those who disagree, not with the Scriptures but with a human interpretation of scripture, is an undeniable historical fact.
Nobody expects the Slave-ish Inquisition. If only their chief instrument of punishment were the comfy chair.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-27 14:24:54
  Thanks for sharing that excerpt. Isn't it astonishing how often we have unwittingly condemned ourselves?
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-28 19:25:39
  I'm going to have to do a post on this Question from Readers. Rereading your comment made me realize the significance of the opening phrase: "Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range...of true teachings..."
  One of these "true teachings" according to this article is "That Armageddon is near". Excuse me!? My association with my fellow Jehovah's Witnesses isn't "approved" unless I buy into the teaching that Armageddon is near??? A "true teaching" that has failed to come true on numerous occasions dating back to Russell's day. The unmitigated gall! Hundreds of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses have died of old age waiting for Armageddon to come as predicted, but woe betide them if they question this teaching. Why, the poor souls would lose their "approved association" status.
  We really are required to drink the Kool-Aid.
  - Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-05-29 11:47:16
    Here is another example of drinking the Kool-Aid:
    Notice that the Watchtower in 1955 said that Jehovah directed or “caused” these Rutherford Lies to be preached:
    “Stirring up increasing interest in them, Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” – (w55 11/15, Pg. 698, Par. 36, “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple”)
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Really? Jehovah "caused' falsehoods to be preached!!
    The following scriptures reinforce the fact that Jehovah and/or Jesus does not direct in falsehoods:
    “Into your hand I entrust my spirit. You have redeemed me, O Jehovah the God of truth.” - Ps. 31:5
    “upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting,” - Titus 1:2
    “in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to lay hold on the hope set before us.” - Heb. 6:18

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-05-27 14:11:38
Another fine article Meleti. I had never considered that application of Dan 7:25 before, but indeed this is far from the only example of changing theocratic legal frameworks for expedient purposes.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-05-27 16:54:42
Whenever you question the disfellowshipping process with brother or sister the quick response is, "but the congregation must be kept clean," and that brings the conversation to a swift end. However the article has provided much information in case we do find anyone prepared to listen. Thank you for highlighting the literal meaning of apostasy which may prove to be very helpful as most JW's only see the apostate as a bad person!

Comment by Chris on 2014-05-27 17:31:58
Thank you for another excellent, reasoned argument Meleti.
I recently listened to a radio interview about how various governments have rewritten their own history to try an expunge atrocities from public record.
This is always carried out with selective education of children with text books that ignore, spin or minimize the real history of events.
This is often so effective that, when discreetly interviewed many years later as adults, these individuals held an entirely different perspective of events to what the rest of the world knows to be undeniable.
While the WTS is not guilty of atrocities it is certainly guilty of hiding or reinterpreting their record of failed teachings to appear accurate.
In several cases they have even changed the wording of direct quotes from their own writings.
This is deceit and it doesn't matter what colour they paint it
I can't help but think of 2 Cor.11:13
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."
Or am I being too harsh?
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-27 23:31:42
  If the shoe fits...

Comment by Katrina on 2014-05-28 07:02:58
Thank you for an excellent article, you are spot on.
Another factor is many apostates are painted as being immoral, fornicators drunkards and other slanderous accusations, many JW do not know what someone gets DF for it is not announced they have stopped the local talk for this also, so those that get DF for not agreeing with the interpretation of scripture of the GB are usually judged as immoral.
- Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-05-28 09:01:03
  Yes Katrina that is so true.
  One of the reasons I stopped going out in service and turning in time is I am not going to bring somebody into a religion that does not tell people before they get baptized, that once baptized, you cannot leave without your friends and family that are witnesses being used against you. Because they would be told to shun you. Since 1980 those who have done nothing wrong, but just no longer want to be a Jehovah’s Witness were to be treated as a sinner. Treated the same as someone disfellowshipped for wrong doing. - (See 1981 Watchtower 9/15, Pg. 23, Par. 14-16, Disfellowshiping—How to View It)
  - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-05-28 13:25:21
    The last time I heard a talk about someone who was disassociated the elder used the scripture from 1 John 2:19. However, the Society can disfellowship/disassociate all they want but at the end of the day it is Jesus Christ who will decide who is a real Christian, a true follower of him based on his teachings from the Bible. Leaving the Organisation and no longer being one of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't have to be the end, in fact it could just be the beginning - it's up to us.
  - Reply by anderestimme on 2014-05-28 17:09:00
    If you were to sign up for a telephone plan where you could opt out any time, you would cry bloody murder if you later found printed on your bill that, due to a change in policy, you are now in a lifetime contract and will be fined $10,000 if you want to back out. Yet that's the kind of bait and switch they pulled on the entire brotherhood in 1980. I guess everybody was either blinded or afraid to speak out.
    Animal Farm meets Oxbow Incident.
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-05-28 17:48:14
      Hats off to you anderestimme for such a pointed and sobering illustration. Goodness me, you've nailed it!!
      How is it that religious institutions are so unaccountable in comparison to other organizations?
      It would be different if they themselves had no extraordinary rights, but that is simply not the case. They enjoy all the benefits of an enormous charitable organization (with probably a token contribution in real terms to what most of the world would understand by "charitable works"), but the way they can simply make things up as they go along, potentially damaging countless people without collective consent and without anybody being able to hold them accountable is really quite extraordinary.
      I've honestly never thought about things in this way before. It feels like I've turned another corner.
      Apollos
- Reply by on 2014-05-28 13:04:49
  Yes to katrinas comment when i got disfellowshipped there was a story going around among the witnesses that i had left my wife for another woman . It was just slander weve been together for nearly 30 years and are as strong today as weve ever been . Is it any wonder when they hold these trials in secret though .that people then begin to speculate .If it was in the open most would have realised that what i said to those elders was right .Also if the disfellowship arrangement is about keeping the congregation clean why is it they go after people who have not been to the meeting for years have no intentions of going back do not even consider themselves to be jehovahs witnesses .have had no encouragement or visit from the elders in years . And yet the elders turn up out of the blue years later
  Trying to kick someone out of the religion when they have already left years ago .in the name of keeping the congregation clean .I wish these guys would start reading their bibles properly .kev

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-05-28 09:37:06
One point from that '47 Awake article that might also be emphasized ...
"... as the pretensions of the Hierarchy increased ..."
The writers of that article identified a direct relationship between the increased emphasis on human hierarchy and the use of excommunication as a weapon.
Have we not observed an increase in the "pretensions of the hierarchy"? It is hardly surprising then that such a weapon would manifest itself, and become more extensively employed.
I know you like to refer to "1984" for parallels. I agree. But I also find that Orwell's "Animal Farm" even more closely describes the situation of our organization's progressively becoming exactly that which it once condemned.
Apollos

Comment by peely on 2014-05-28 10:07:23
Such a great article with such good points to refer to if given a chance. I was disfellowshipped for apostasy and I do believe I am viewed as a very scary person, unlike someone disfellowshipped for immorality or drunkenness. I have noticed this in the eyes of those who have crossed my path; a sinner could be forgiven thus pity may be detected in the brief glance. An apostate, though, is doomed to destruction - an instrument of the devil and someone to steer clear from. That is the mass reaction but I will look for those with the questionable glance as they are the ones who may see the "faithful slave" for what the are - imposters. They have created laws in the manner of the Pharisees, and we know what happened to them.
1 Cor. 4:6 - I have used myself and Apollos above as an illustration, so that you might learn from what I have said about us not to assess man above his value in God’s sight, and may thus avoid the friction that comes from exalting one teacher against another. For who makes you different from somebody else, and what have you got that was not given to you? And if anything has been given to you, why boast of it as if it were something you had achieved yourself?
I do pray many will see how the organization PREVENTS honest hearted ones from obeying Christ. Gal 1:10
John 5:37-44
“Now you have never at any time heard what he says or seen what he is like. Nor do you really believe his word in your hearts, for you refuse to believe the man who he has sent. You pore over the scriptures for you imagine that you will find eternal life in them. And all the time they give their testimony to me!
But you are not willing to come to me to have real life! Men’s approval or disapproval means nothing to me, but I can tell that you have none of the love of God in your hearts. I have come in the name of my Father and you will not accept me.
YET IF ANOTHER MAN COMES SIMPLY IN HIS OWN NAME, YOU WILL ACCEPT HIM. How on earth can you believe while you are forever looking for each other’s approval and not for the glory that comes from the one God?
Thank you, Meleti, for exposing the candid truth.
peely

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-05-28 13:00:17
Are we still JW's?
The fact that we (on this forum) are so far removed from the teachings of the WT, are we in fact still JW's?
A relative of mine who is not a JW (but to whom I talk a lot to, and was once studying with JW's) does not believe I'm one, even though I've not be been disfellowshipped etc
I must admit, I no longer think of myself as a JW. And if anybody asks (even another JW) I just say I'm a Christian.
To be honest the name of our 'tribe' is becoming nauseating to me.
- Reply by SilverTop on 2014-05-28 20:02:57
  I don't tell people I' a JW either. I just say I'm non-denominational Christian. With all the scandals, false prophecy, deceit and outright lie the WTB&TS has told, I'm ashamed. I love Jehovah God and my Lord Jesus Christ, I love the Bible which I believe is the word of God. I also find that I 'witness' more by having uplifting TWO-WAY CONVERSATIONS with others now than I ever did going out door to door and reciting the Watchtower's prescribed speech.
  - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-05-29 10:21:05
    "But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name." 1 Peter 4;16

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-05-28 13:37:41
I'm now feeling my stomach twist and turn often at meetings. For example if a young publisher displays in zeal to an article to quit higher education. I used to think it was a good thing, but now I realize this is often done for social approval and even with the best of motives, they set themselves up for great disappointment when they will learn the truth later in life.
But I did everything for Jehovah, not for men... Even then, what did we accomplish? Did we bring anyone to Christ in our 40 year pioneer life? No, we're bringing people to men representing God.
A recent Wt illustration even omitted Jesus all together from the hierarchy: Jah, GB, branch committee, traveling overseers and elders are all we need. Jesus only function seems to be that he had to die so we have his blood for forgiveness.
- Reply by on 2014-05-28 14:51:09
  Its sickening to me alex the way they use phillipians 3 v 8 to dissuade young people from entering higher education . A close examination of the text and context shows that the things that paul considered to be a lot of refuse was the futility of his course of life in judaism his former religion which emphasised salvation by works instead of faith in christ as you will no doubt know .And this very religion that paul spoke of here is in my opinion very similar to the religion of the witnesses .i suppose its up to each individual what choices they make but why oh why when a young person chooses to get some qualifications are they condemned by others like ive seen .again its their lack of understanding of the bible . Kev

Comment by Chris on 2014-05-28 17:39:04
Like Joseph's brothers the GB seem to be jealous of Jesus special relationship with his Father.
I am not drawing some literal or prophetic parallel, merely a psychological one.
Jesus is God's "only begotten" son and he has humbly brought men into a kingdom arrangement with him and made mere men his brothers, and look how they treat him!
If they ever were his brothers?
Raises the issue of repentance, forgiveness & sin against the Holy Spirit somewhat.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 19:03:39
Chris, You made the statement
"While the WTS is not guilty of atrocities"
IMHO, they ARE guilty of atrocities. The biggest one is the two-witness rule which makes sexual child abuse a mockery. Meanwhile pedophiles are free to hide in plain sight within the congregations.
I beg you that if you have children, never leave them alone with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, especially brothers. If someone abuses your precious child, it will only be a child's word against a brother...unless of course there are two witnesses. Your child may never even have the courage to tell you someone is abusing them. If you do find out, please report it to the law and let them handle it. You can deal with the fallout from the congregation later...but take care of your child first.
There are other atrocities, if you dare to do the research, but to me, that is by far the worst.
Meleti, your words are very true:
"Let us not hide behind transparent excuses. We have become what we have long disdained and condemned: A human rulership. All human rulership stands in opposition to God. Invariably, this has been the final outcome of all organized religion."
I know in my heart of hearts, SOMEONE is going to be held accountable for all the harm done to innocent children, Jesus' own little lambs. Woe be unto those he will hold accountable.
- Reply by Chris on 2014-05-28 20:26:44
  Yes very true. I am sorry.
  I was thinking of massacres and the like but child abuse is most certainly an atrocity that needs to be exposed. And I believe trials like Candice Conti's will continue to do this.
  The WTS has nowhere to hide, but they do have fresh source of guaranteed income now with their new 'donation' scheme.
  I am sure the banks will happily loan them more money to cover these lawsuits.
  - Reply by Chris on 2014-05-28 20:32:37
    Mind you, if we examine the blood issue in it's entirety then it could also be said to be an atrocity.
    Psychologically compelling people to refuse a blood transfusion has left them exposed to blood guilt I believe.
    How many have died on their doctrinal battlefield?
    - Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 21:37:46
      I also thought of all those who were killed, raped or displaced in Malawi. I clearly remember crying over what was happening to our brothers and sisters and have wondered over the years what became of them.
  - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-05-31 06:02:59
    If you say the Society are mishandling child abuse you are told that that is slander against Jehovah's Organisation. One of the biggest problems why child abuse goes unreported is because people are coerced into silence and this is what is happening in the Organisation sadly.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 21:52:56
kev and Peely, I too am disfellowshipped. I have wondered how many of us there are on here.
- Reply by Chris on 2014-05-28 22:18:10
  Yes Malawi was utterly appalling!
  I remember reading about it and being intensely angry at the cruelty inflicted because of such blatant hypocrisy.
  To this day I wonder how much the brothers & sisters in Malawi now know about what the brothers in Mexico were able to get away with under the aegis of Nathan Knorr.
  It played out like a backroom political deal between Brooklyn and the Mexican brothers, not a decision they were proud to make public.
  They like to keep these 'little' details in the dark where their true master dwells.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 22:27:56
Chris, I wonder how many at the KH today even know about this? Had it not been for "Crisis of Conscience" I would not have been aware of the depth of the GB duplicity and deception.
Even the brothers in Mexico felt guilty....over a double standard where one side was paying with their lives and the other side was paying with bribery money. Both paying for a card.

Comment by Katrina on 2014-05-28 23:16:24
The GB has allowed atrocities, as stated here they hypocrisy of Malawi and Mexico, child abuse scandals, how many have they stumbled, silenced.
The deceit of hiding all these atrocities from the b/s, and paying out millions in gag orders to silence victims of child sexual abuse.
I like all some here feel ashamed to be called a JW, although I have been searching for around 6 yrs how, its only been the past few months that my eyes have been wide open and I am completely awake, the scales have come of, I have been fighting this for a long time, but I have come to the place now that I cannot make any more excuses for the WT.
I have come to believe that the org was set up by the devil to trap sheep to hold them hostage to the idol, I really believe that we don't know half of it, but I also believe that Jehovah is revealing these things to us, not just through the publications but also through so called apostates.
I no longer give talks as I can't agree with a lot of the information, I used to enjoy giving talks and doing the research, but of course that research was always through the WT publications.
Witnessing is also a problem I have been frowned upon by just using the bible and preaching Christ, one sister said oh your all for Jesus!
And I know I am under suspicion, I feel I can't keep going and feel literally ill at meetings, especially at prayer time, when the FDS is mentioned in just about every prayer, its all about image not love and the hypocrisy is sickening.
I cry often and can be so very lonely, but I thank Jehovah for those like here that one can come to and opening speak truth and learn help one another and have someone to talk to, its very lonely knowing what we do. What to do?
But I love my b/s and I feel so much for them, especially those that have been abused and hurt, I pray that our Lord Jesus returns soon to help free us from the bondage of this wicked organization.
- Reply by KeepOnSeeking on 2014-05-28 23:45:03
  Katrina, everything you have stated is so close to what I experience at present. My prayers are with you, my sister.
  - Reply by Chris on 2014-05-29 00:14:48
    I am running a fine line to get DFd.
    If it becomes necessary I will DA myself first, but family connections will make that a last resort decision.
    I keep waiting for something to happen to cause the penny to drop in my wife's mind. I had hoped the 'donation pledge' wrought would be the trigger, especially as I have been quietly warning her for a long time about the money games the WTS dabble in.
    Some months back, at her behest, I arranged a meeting with an elder to discuss my concerns. When I arrived I found another brother present also.
    They must have thought I was bonkers but I said I had arranged a casual meeting with one elder not two, then I left.
    I smelt a trap and I was not going to fall for their bogus application of the "two witnesses" rule.
    Of course they were just "trying to help me"
    Yeah right. Like I was born yesterday.

Comment by JimmyG on 2014-05-29 04:45:07
Very wise Chris. I too refuse to speak to 2 elders at once. You only have to listen to the Matthew Barrie judicial hearing recordings on the net to see how it plays out- information gleaned from so called shepherding calls was later used as evidence to 'convict' him
- Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-29 08:17:57
  We all walk at our own pace on our journey of defining truth (John 8:32). Those of us who remain in good standing (especially any elders) have thus far learned the art of navigating through dangerous waters. How long will these be able to avoid running into a GB placed naval mine? Each day one faces the reality that the slightest slip of tongue around the wrong (though perhaps well meaning) friend will force one's "coming out". Then one faces his friends (fellow elders) in a star chamber trial with a hot spotlight beaming on one's forehead, threatened by force to cease and desist, or face court martial and dishonorable discharge (possibly prison time). I do feel it courageous and commendable that there are undercover elders who are diligent and able to remain stealth as long as possible within the ranks. These brothers are a valuable resource to keep us informed of the "rest of the story", behind the steel curtain. At the same time, I fully grasp the challenge for these brothers of balancing the benefit with holding a clear conscience.... every single meeting.
  I'm wondering if the FDS identity change, the dukes (obey instruction even if it seems illogical), the 1+1=1 generation teaching, the CO power play, KH funding and takeover of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of congregation funds on deposit ..... I'm wondering if the boldness of such radical change (in such a short period of time) is not part of an overall strategy to hasten the fade of dissenters? To effectively "force" their coming out? Might the GB conclude (even anticipate) that this change will prove to be too much for conscientious dissenters to swallow? From the GB perspective, would not the R&F be better served (more controllable) with the dissenter element out of the picture?
  Max Smart (aka madmax)
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-29 14:02:32
    It may be that these moves are part of some overall strategy. Personally, I doubt that. It would require more intelligence than I have seen evidence of. Perhaps what we are now seeing is more akin to the self-destructive decisions of the Pharaoh that faced Moses. Pride led him to make catastrophically stupid choices. I think that pride is at work behind many of these recent decisions of the GB. The rank and file are not the only ones drinking the Kook-Aid, IMHO.
    - Reply by Stachys of Rome on 2014-05-30 08:03:39
      Drinking the Kool-Aid is a reference to the Jonestown tragedy of Nov. 1978.
      Says Wiki:
      "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a figure of speech commonly used in the United States that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. It could also refer to knowingly going along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure. The phrase typically carries a negative connotation when applied to an individual or group. The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown deaths, where members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of the Reverend Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide.
      About 918 people died together, following the dictates of their leader, Reverend Jones. Our WT dogma has gone over to the dark side, with blind obedience to the F&DS giving us instructions that may not may sense. What was not a cult in 1978 has become one now.
      http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/stop-saying-drink-the-kool-aid/264957/
    - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-30 08:08:57
      Meleti, I appreciate your response, also the research and perspective you provide on the subject is quite enlightening. Thank you.
      I suppose the strategy I refer to is the decision to "rapid fire" the release of adjustment in doctrine and policy. In my 50+ years (lifer) this seems unprecedented. Elders are receiving as many as 2-3 letters per WEEK. In recent months, letters with adjustments are being read to congregations, sometimes on a weekly basis. It wasn't that many years ago that "adjustment" letters to elders were perhaps 2-3 times per YEAR.
      The rapid-fire release of new light and policy happened immediately after the modern day GB appointment as exclusive FDS. This effectively authorized absolute control and insight. No longer could it be maintained that certain other anointed may have had special insight. Within the congregations the anointed have been reduced to just another publisher. We have been encouraged to give them little special consideration. I believe removing them from any FDS involvement was strategic to counter the increasing (and unmanageable) number of new partakers. It was also strategic in that the "recycled DO's and CO's over 70 (some of which are anointed) have been sent a clear message as to where they stand. There will be zero tolerance when these brothers are assimilated back into congregations. Remain a "yes" man, or we terminate your contract (and retirement package). How many DO's and CO's who may have concerns will stand courageously and voice them, and risk termination? Is this unity, or forced compliance out of fear?
      In my opinion, forced compliance is largely responsible for the success, growth and continuity within the organization for the last 100 years. Even at the highest level, Branch members (and GB) must comply or face termination. Every member is trained to police and turn in a friend who expresses doubts. Termination is a dreadful thought, these would then be forced to face "real world" challenges, making a living, lodging, caring for one's own medical expenses. Some have elderly parents to care for, they would now have no option (excuse) but to take responsibility and care for them. Career special full time servants have no fallback. When young, they made the decision to put all their eggs in the special full-time service basket. Armageddon was near, the likelihood of their facing old age in this system was down right ridiculous. I honestly feel compassion for some of these, however, we must all take ownership of life decisions. These remain influenced by fear. Fear of man quashes objectivity. Fear of termination is a strong-arm tool used by management to guarantee absolute compliance. Does Jehovah want obedience to be "fear" driven?
      Their self-appointment suppresses the possibility that scriptural insight could come from a source other than themselves. New partakers are totally discounted (even viewed as mentally unstable), long-time partakers now sit alongside Joe publisher. The R&F were elevated to domestics, giving them authority to correct any immodest anointed who might feel they have special scriptural insight. These are now kindly reminded they need to be content in their new role, that the GB owns license to the monopoly on scriptural insight.
      The rapid-fire release of so many adjustments is unsettling to some long-timers, too much change too quick. Speaking personally, it undermines my confidence in current light teachings, as I feel something I'm "selling" as truth today may become untruth tomorrow. It's like learning your house foundation is moving with the landslide. For some, this may prove to be their proverbial straw. I feel the GB anticipates a separation of loyalists and thinkers (by fade or otherwise). This is collateral loss, necessary to maintain absolute compliance.
      As for the intelligence of the GB, I give them credit for being intelligent men. They craft adjustments and new policy, and THEN send the draft to our in house corporate attorneys for review and modification. The attorneys are the final authority, and attorneys are always strategic.
      Max Smart
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-30 08:28:05
      Maxwell, you paint a terrifying, but thoroughly accurate picture of the status quo of the Organization.
      These many changes--and I'm sure there are more to come--are too new to have had much affect yet. But that will change. I await the effects of the very significant rise in power of the circuit overseers. D.O.s are mostly older, seasoned individuals--many of them "old school". They'll be gone soon. When Pope Paul VI wanted to change the power base of the Curia whose reactionary membership was blocking him, he issued a ruling that no Cardinal older than 80 could vote. By sending the D.O.s out to pasture, the GB has accomplished much the same thing.
      The C.O.s on the other hand are mostly young men, many in their thirties. The ones I'm aware of are all, to a man, company men. I impute no evil to them, merely the blind obedience of those who are convinced they are doing God's will. (John 16:2) Saul was such a man until Christ revealed himself to him. Jesus changed his name, indicating to the Hebrew mentality, a change of character.
      I think as you say that there will be a change of character for some of our brothers and sisters as a result of the effects of these many changes. May will be forced to see, as if by some blinding light from Jesus, that they have been diverted from the path of righteousness they thought they were walking on their whole lives.
    - Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-05-30 13:09:20
      Max-
      Thank you so much for your comment. So much food for thought……

Comment by brendaevans32 on 2014-05-29 11:48:21
If I am considered apostate (following the JW's definition) for not conforming to man's ways. Then let me spell it with a capital A!
The ways of Jehovah are for us. With Jehovah and Jesus, we have such wonderful love and teaching.
I have found that I am speaking more nowadays than when I used to attend the meetings - there is a depth and more meaning than I thought possible. And I know that there are other people posting comments on this site who share these experiences.
So thank you Meleti for opening my eyes that bit more. Thank you Apollos for your pieces too. Thank you to Kev, I'macountrygirl, Max Smart, Menrov, Chris, and I just wish I could remember everyone elses' names - but I thank you all.

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-30 09:49:40
Meleti,
Agree. Is it the case that some in the 70+ "old school" may have expressed some concerns regarding some of the recent adjustments? The GB may have felt they would have to drag some of these old brothers along "kicking and screaming". Perhaps some were not fully on board? Would there not be far less fallout and potential upset in circuits if there was a disgruntled EX DO/CO..... rather than an active one? The new retirement age of 70 should prove sobering to many CO's in their 50's-60's. If they continue on and Armageddon doesn't materialize as they anticipate, what do they have at age 70? Will they not be in exactly the same position they are in now, except older, less healthy, less able to create a life in the real world, therefore even more dependent local congregations for support? Were I in their shoes, I'd think long and hard about turning in my notice. I'd be busy working on plan B while I still had a measure of energy and time. In the past, a 70 year old DO/CO was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being put out to pasture. His 70's were PRIME time. Those forced into early retirement won't get to enjoy their golden years traveling, enjoying honor and recognition, being in the limelight at conventions, etc. and being taken care of as they had imagined. This new arrangement is undoubtedly a source of discouragement for many. Time will tell if it will simply be too much for some of these to remain silent, even though they must face loss of their medical insurance if they speak out. For those who opted out of medicare (vow of poverty) and have never paid into the system, that is HUGE risk. And the GB well know it.
As you say, the affects of these changes haven't begun to be noticed yet.
Maxwell
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-30 10:20:44
  Sending the 70+ out to pasture seems like a very short-sighted decision. Why they have made the decision is anyone's guess. Cost cutting? Power consolidation? It's hard to see a positive reason from a Scriptural point of view. The same can be said for the elimination of the district overseer arrangement.
  Someone once commented to me about the way the Organization deals with problematic situations: Complex problem, simple solutions. Perhaps "simplistic solution" would be more on the nose.
  I think that much that the GB does, it does with the sincere belief that it acts for God. I'm sure that the same can be said for many who work in the Vatican. Saul never doubted his mission was from God until that fateful day when Jesus manifested himself.
  These are complex issues and I believe the GB is following their standard MO of thinking that a simple solution will resolve a complex problem when all it really dues is add to the complexity and spawn unintended consequences. We have cut them an enormous amount of slack over the decades because we have all been convinced that this is Jehovah's Organization. That is the one thread that holds everything together. If they break that thread through these or future changes, the entire fabric will come unraveled.
  I await that day.
  - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-30 11:23:45
    I agree, it just doesn't make sense to put these aging brothers out to pasture in their prime. If solicited (mandated) congregation donations cover their lease cars and auto insurance, the corporation's out of pocket is basically the monthly stipend and an unknown liability for healthcare. All other expenses are covered by local circuits and congregations. In that for those without medicare they'll be covering their healthcare either way, what are they saving by taking them off the road? I would think that age 75, even age 80 would be a better retirement age. Again, it makes no sense, unless they feared or even felt resistance. Then it makes perfect sense.
    Resistance at the 70+ level could definitely pose a threat to the smooth transition of the Vatican like hierarchy underway. It is on record that we claim to be a hierarchy just like the Catholic church. The GB could be uncomfortable that some of these seasoned men are equally (if not more) qualified than they to do their job. Young 30 something CO's are easily groomed as factory reps who will adhere strictly to published (guide) CO protocol. There is more to the story than we know.

Comment by Katrina on 2014-05-30 09:56:37
keeponseeking thank you so much!

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-05-30 12:40:26
Seems to me the organization is reinventing itself with a 'the loyal will follow, the recalcitrant will leave' attitude. I would imagine the GB thinks the latter group is quite small. They may not be wrong, though I hope otherwise. As in the case of businesses that have done the same (like when Lafayette became Circuit City, or when Banana Republic went from quirky travel-ware store to a more fashionable boutique), the org probably feels that the changes are necessary to doing GoB's will and whatever losses sustained are simply an investment in the future good health of the brotherhood.

Comment by ¿Wheresenoch? on 2014-06-01 00:40:46
Hello all ! Been following this site 4 a yr. 1st time posting hope it goes thru. I was announced 'no longer a jw' almost 5 yrs ago. Ten months later my 1st letter was met with a 'just wait' answer. No scriptural reason just wait. So i did about a yr & some change. Made most every meeting. 2nd letter, wait some more. Moved 2 another city so i attend another hall bout a yr.Just turned in 3rd letter 2 months ago.bros @ old hall insist on meeting with me but have yet 2 set 1 up. Current cong havent met either. Some friends both in &out jokingly say i have a red flag by my name. Because this is my 2nd time out both times i appealed. This doesnt sound far fetched. I no im being stalled on purpose 4 challenging their decision. You guys on this site-my REAL bros /sis luke 8:21are the only thing that has kept me going this past yr. Thank you all...!
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-01 08:17:10
  Welcome to the site, ¿Wheresenoch?.
  Having served as an elder for many decades, I know that many elders take a dim view of anyone asking for reinstatement who appealed the original decision. The idea is that if you appealed, you were not truly repentant. So if you now want to come back, they wonder if you are now truly repentant. This taints the alleged purpose of the appeal process since one knows that it will only add to one's sentence, so best not to avail oneself of its very limited benefit and take your licks with the hope of shortening the entire process.
  I say alleged purpose because our appeal process is a sham, designed mostly to give the appearance of justice while preserving the authority of the office of the elders. I say this because the appeal process is heavily weighted in favor of the elders who originally passed judgment. There are two rules that constrain the appeal committee.
  1) The appeal committee must determine that a judicial offense was committed.
  2) The appeal committee must determine if there was genuine repentance at the time of the first judicial hearing.
  The process only protects the individual in the most egregious of power abuses. Only in a minority of cases was the original committee so out to lunch as to attempt to disfellowship someone without Scriptural cause. I've seen it attempted, but only rarely. Mostly, it merely gives the appearance of righteousness, for even if the appeal committee is manned by good and righteous Christian men, how are they to determine the sincerity of the accused's repentance at a meeting they never witnessed? The only way is to listen to the accused recount his story, then listen to three older men--esteemed peers--tell their side of things. It's one against three. One is the sinner, while the other are three sterling examples of Christian maturity. Who are these three brothers going to believe? Now, if our judicial hearing were open to outsiders as the courts of the land are, in all but the most oppressive of regimes, the appeal committee could learn from others with no vested interest in the outcome, what really transpired. But in a secret meeting, there is only 1 against 3. The outcome is so heavily weighted against the accused that in all but the outrageous of cases the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
  The fact is the whole process is unscriptural, so even allowing the public (rank and file JWs) into the meeting is just attempting to sew a patch on a torn garment.
  I'm sorry that you have been put through this process. It has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the government of men.

Comment by Sargon on 2014-06-01 09:12:44
Apparently current COs are poisoning the well of the laid off COs. My parents had the CO over for lunch recently. He talked about the changes and said more are coming. He also mentioned that the changes allowed the branch to retire some eccentric old-fashioned dinosaurs. I'd quote him, but it wouldn't put it past him to be reading this site. So I don't expect anyone to listen to anything an ex do/co has to say. They will be dismissed as old timers who aren't moving along with the chariot.
This new changes are making me nervous. I'm concerned about my family. They know something's not right, but they believe in the organization no matter what. The circuit overseer said it's ok to not agree, but don't speak critically of the organization. This makes me think that there will be changes coming that will really wake some people up.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-01 09:23:43
  I agree, Sargon. Something is coming. You can almost smell it on the wind.

Comment by ¿Wheresenoch? on 2014-06-01 12:42:33
Thanks Vivlon 4 confirming my thoughts from an elders point of view. There have actually been times that ive sat front & center wt studied and smiling, & felt the most intense looks of disdain as if i should be sobbing & hiding in the back of the hall! I attend meetings not out of indoctrination but 2 be abreast of any changes in policy. Ive witnessed new people awakening on this site almost every post along with countless others like myself silently observing. Some in "good standing" others not so much. We all have in common the use of our God given free will. If Jehovah disapproved of us using it 2 serve him there would be no sovereignty issue. We d be programed instinctively & no higher than animal life who praise God just by existing. (Job chap 39-41). Not speaking out against obvious injustice isnt my strong suit. Therefore im asked why do i wanna come back? My sis once told me i would either be a spiritual dynamo or apostate cause how i think. just being out makes most think the latter. One brother thinks i could help more people if i had my freedom of speech back. Thats my main reason 4 wanting 2 get the DF monkey off my back...
- Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-01 21:41:53
  I can confirm and concur with Meleti's comments above. In a court proceeding, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision. There are two types of appeals. There are "on the record" appeals, and there are "de novo" (lat. from the beginning) appeals. The JW system is an "on the record" appeal. The decision of the JC hearing the case is challenged by arguing that they came to an inaccurate determination regarding genuine repentance. The appeal committee reviews the "on record" notes and testimony of the JC. Only information which transpired during the original hearing is considered. The fact that the erring one may have been cut to the heart and repented between hearings is totally irrelevant. It is indeed rare for an appeal committee to overturn the decision of the JC. I recall it happened only a couple times in my decades as an elder.
  Were I in your shoes, I would definitely suck it up and come back. Especially if you have active JW family. I'd quietly sit at the back of the hall, I'd come in during the song and leave immediately after closing prayer. I'd submit a letter every 3 months. Our unscriptural disciplinary process has punished your family members. And they have been inadvertently employed as pawns to inflict emotional harm on you.
  This is forced isolation and it is not healthy for you or for them (Prov 18:1) After you're reinstated, you will be in the drivers seat, However, you must be very discreet who you share your thoughts with. Very discreet. You do not have freedom of speech. We will never have freedom of speech, except in a anonymous setting such as this. There will be a big bullseye on your back, and zealous elders will be suspect of you, no matter where you go. Your story will travel with you. If it becomes too difficult for you to handle, better to fade than to "out yourself" and be forced into isolation again. Whatever it takes, you stay in the drivers seat.
  Thankfully we have this forum to vent our frustrations and dismay, where we are safe to use God's Word to refute erroneous interpretation. I am so grateful that I stumbled upon this site a couple weeks ago, and for the courage and will of the brothers who have made this possible. Thank you again. This site is truly a Godsend for me. Bash JW sites are a dime a dozen.... I receive nothing spiritual or upbuilding from such bitterness and hatred.
  I can tell you I was nearing the boiling point. I found it impossible to contain myself, I was sending emails to life long elder friends. They were beginning to act concerned, which added to my anger. The outlet for free expression that this forum provides will help me remain discreet in the congregation hopefully for many years to come. Perhaps Jehovah will correct things by then? That is my prayer.
  Maxwell
  - Reply by on 2014-06-03 14:14:12
    I felt like that as well maxwell i was also an elder its so frustrating when your not allowed to express your concerns to others without fear of reprisals especially when you know your in the right and can see clear unscriptural procedures and attitudes displayed in the religion .Just made me really angry ill be honest in the end . Kev

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-01 22:08:16
I believe the collective voice of reason of those contributing on this site will touch any sincere and honest seeker of truth within our brotherhood, should they stumble onto this site. Perhaps Jehovah will bless our efforts and the truth will effect change?
MSJW

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-01 23:04:09
"Were I in your shoes, I would definitely suck it up and come back."
Maxwell, that is the advice you gave to ¿Wheresenoch?.
Welcome to the both of you!!! I look forward to future comments.
There is another side to this coin. It is that for some, myself included, going back to the KH would make me a hypocrite and would violate my conscience. I cannot knowingly beg my way to re-join an organization that is making the outrageous claim that the GB is now the FDS who speaks for God himself, along with all the other deceptions they practice.
I've already lost my family. Though I love them dearly and miss them very much, that is too high a price to get them back IMHO.
I offer no advice one way or the other as each of us must stand on our own and make our own choice. The pain and the loss are staggering if one chooses to leave or if one is DF. ¿Wheresenoch?, it breaks my heart to read your story because I know that pain of losing the love you thought was unconditional...at least from your own family. I also know how it feels to be so completely ignored, surrounded by people who treat you as if you are not even there. It doesn't feel like discipline from Jehovah God, it feels like hate and cruelty. How can they possibly think that is the way our loving Savior Jesus wants them to act?
Some do lose sight of the fact that it is possible to leave an organization without leaving our Lord Jesus and our Heavenly Father.
I am so thankful that I found this site and the love and support I find here.

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 09:48:11
Country Girl I completely understand your perspective. Were I in your shoes, I can imagine myself feeling very similar to how you feel. If I understand Wheresenoch correctly, he's already traveled most the distance necessary to qualify for reinstatement. The JC that df'd him can't hold him out forever. He's invested years attending meetings, moved to different a congregation, etc. He expresses a desire to come back, and he's been able to reconcile any conscience issue, or I doubt he would be making the effort. It does appear he has some limited contact with his sister (assumed active), and so far she hasn't "written him off" as a worthless human being. In that he's invested such effort to return and he's so near to having completed the "jump through hoops" protocol, why give up now? If he decides to follow my recommendations (showing modesty), it will allay most concerns of the elders where he attends now. To any reading this who are df'd and desire to come back, it's been my experience that it's best to remain (or to move back into) in the congregation where you were df'd if possible. If you follow protocol, the elders on your JC will gradually soften toward you, as their conscience moves them to show compassion. On the other hand, if you are out of sight (different congregation) they are not pricked by their conscience to feel any compassion, it's strictly business. It is easy for them to view you as "they did the crime, they need to do the time".
CG your situation is different. I have read some of your posts (some are so moving they have brought me to tears) and I personally have no doubt that you are a spiritual person, that you love Jehovah and Jesus with all your heart, and that they love you. I know nothing of your circumstances or what lead to your being df'd (and it's no ones business).
I speak generically here. If a person is df'd for some legitimate reason (1 Cor 5:11) and they have asked for forgiveness and ceased practicing that sin, Jehovah has forgiven them. Jehovah's forgiveness and love is not contingent on whether one steps foot back inside a KH. Sadly, misapplication of scripture and misguided leadership (with an agenda) has created a "tradition" policy which necessitates that forgiveness and love from active family and witness friends be contingent upon one stepping foot back inside the KH.
Our disfellowship policy fails in several areas to mirror the model found at 1 Cor 5, To understand how this is the case, we must first clarify what Paul meant when using the greek word "synanamignymi" (translated as "mixing in company" and "associating with" in the RNWT). This word is used only 3 times in the NT: 2 Thess 3:14; 1 Cor 5:9,11. In the three occasions where Paul uses the word, of critical note is to understand that Paul FIRST introduces this word in 51 CE. The precedent for this word that we generally translate as the act of "disfellowshipping" was first established in the Thessalonian congregation, NOT the Corinthian congregation. What Paul said to the Corinthian congregation 4 years was clarification. In fact, what Paul refers to in 2 Thess 3:14,15 is actually clarification of congregation action described in Matt 18:17.
As the early congregations were formed, handling sin required clarification. Until 51 CE, the only guidance for the congregation in handling sin was Jesus words at Matt 18:15-17. Sins of a minor nature, such as not paying back a loan, swearing, petty theft, stealing of livestock, all could be handled privately (unless the sinner did not repent - then the congregation would became involved). Sins of a serious nature such as fornication, adultery, drunkenness, idolatry, etc. would likely be known to some if not all in the congregation, therefore the congregation had to be involved in the discipline. Sins of a criminal nature such as murder, rape, kidnapping, child abuse, were ALWAYS reported to the authorities of the day. It was not the congregation's duty or responsibility to conduct their own investigation and THEN decide whether or not to report it. If it was a crime, it was to be reported in every case.
So, for about 18 years (from 33 CE to 51 CE), Matt 18:15-17 was exclusive guidance for handling sin within the congregation. Does it seem likely that Paul (in 51 CE) would have overridden or replaced Jesus guidance? Or merely added clarification? Assuming the latter, how was it that Paul was adding clarification to Matt 18:17 in 2 Thess 3:14,15? Perhaps Jesus' words at Matt 18:17 "If he does not listen even to the congregation" needed further clarification. For example, was there a probationary period allowed for the sinner to accept correction, and demonstrate repentance by turning around? Was there a period of time during which the congregation would rebuke him, with the objective of shaming him to repentance? Was there a period for the sinner to demonstrate that he "listened" to the congregation BEFORE they would no longer treat him as a brother, but as a man of the nations? If so, how was the congregation treat the sinner during the probationary period?
In 2 Thess 3:14,15 Paul alludes to a probationary period, though the length is not specified (perhaps this awaited further clarification). But Paul did spell out how the congregation was to treat the sinner during the probationary period. Our publications and leadership water down the discipline at 2 Thess 3:14 by calling it "marking" rather than "disfellowshipping". This is flawed. In that Paul introduces "synanamignymi" for the first time in 2 Thiess 3:14, and he uses the exact greek word 4 years later in Corinth, how likely is it that the meaning of the word changed in the mind of first century congregations over that 4 years? Does not Paul's explanation of "synanamignymi" in 51 CE then stand as precedent?
As mentioned, Paul does not specifically define the length of the probationary period in 2 Thess 3:14,15, however the period was apparently not long as is clearly shown in 2 Cor 2:5-8 (to be commented on later). In 2 Thess 3:14,15 Paul clearly defines how the congregation would treat one disfellowshipped. This adds some clarity to the "listening" period in Matt 18:17. During this period, the congregation would cease "mingling" in association on a social and intimate spiritual level. The purpose of the "cold shoulder" treatment was to shame the man, to make him realize what he stands to lose if he does not repent, and to shame him. Yet Paul continues in defining "disfellowshipping" stating they should not consider him an enemy, rather he remains a brother, and they are to continue to "admonish" (noutheteo lit. warn, counsel, exhort) him. Warn him? Warn him about what? Matt 18:17 provides the answer. If the brother does not "listen" to the warning given by the congregation, he loses his status as a brother, and becomes a man of the nations.
As to the length of the probationary period of disfellowshipping, the anointed brother who had a romantic relationship with his step mother was out for only a few months. There are differing schools of thought regarding the nature of the relationship between them. Some scholars conclude his father may have divorced her, others conclude the father may have died and the step son wanted to care for her. In any case, it was considered incestual taboo in Gentile culture for a man to have a romantic relationship with his step mother, under any circumstance. Assume for the sake of discussion that he had married her to support her, It would of course take time to divorce her and untangle himself from the relationship, perhaps a few months. During this probationary period, the congregation would rebuke him by ceasing close association, and by warning him that if he didn't repent, he would lose his status as a brother. Of course, he had to attend meetings to demonstrate repentance and feel the rebuke of the congregation. Only a few months passed (the probationary period), and the man performed acts that befit repentance. As a side note, these meetings were held in homes, which totally cancels any possibility that 2 John 10 can be applied to those disfellowshipped (another flawed misuse of scripture). How can one demonstrate repentance, receive the rebuke of the congregation, if he is banned from entering the home where the meeting is held? It's not possible.
In summary, our judicial process of disfellowshipping is not consistent with the established precedent set at 2 Thess 3:14,15. It is not consistent with the duration of the probationary period for one to demonstrate repentance, which is only a few months (2 Cor 2:6-10). When we disfellowship, we do not consider the sinner our brother, and we are not allowed to warn him that if he doesn't repent, he will lose his status as a brother, and become to us as a man of the nations. We are not allowed to even say hello.
Back to Matt 18:15-17. Our pubs fail to teach us that this was and is the primary guide for handling sin (all sin) within the congregation. We coin this the "3 step process" for handling defaults on loans and business matters that go south. That's really about all we refer to these verses for. Recognizing that this is the guidance given us from Jesus, head of the congregation, is not Matt 18:17 foundational for how we handle discipline within the congregation? All Paul did was clarify the "listening" period between when the congregation was first made aware of the sin, at such point they immediately ceased social and intimate spiritual association, and warned the sinner that if he failed to repent, the congregation would have no recourse but to treat him as a man of the nations. He would no longer be a brother.
One last point regarding relatives, employers, workmates of the disfellowshipped: Note 2 Cor 2:6 states "the rebuke given by the MAJORITY is sufficient for such a man". In that Paul does not chastise or counsel the minority that did not rebuke the man to the same degree as the rest of the congregation, it seems reasonable that it was understood and accepted that these had a special relationship that needed to be maintained. The congregation in general did not have such a relationship.
- Reply by on 2014-06-05 15:03:30
  Hey maxwell totaly agree with everything you said there in that comment that as far as i can see is exactly what the bible says about this subject i have also independently come to the same conclusions thanks kev

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-02 10:06:20
Hi MaxwellSmartJW,
I very much enjoyed this comment. I have an idea I'd like to run by you. Can you email me at meleti.vivlon@gmail.com?

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 10:33:43
Country Girl, I regret that you did not have this forum available to you before the congregation dealt with your situation. Had been available, perhaps things might have turned out differently for you? Having been able to openly vent, express your frustration, feeling safe to openly challenge long held beliefs using the scriptures, and especially, the comfort and peace of mind knowing you're not alone. As Meleti said in one of his posts, this is a place to let our pop-off valve release, without fear of judgment, condemnation or punishment.
Perhaps having this avenue open to you would have helped you balance the conflict we all experience between zipping our lips in the congregation, so we can maintain the status quo of family and friends, and formally "outing" ourselves in pursuit of a totally clear conscience. Is it possible we can have both..... family, friends, association at the meetings, and a clear conscience? I think being able to open your pop-off valve on a daily basis can make it possible.
I personally feel much less conflicted since discovering this site, and being able to engage my pop-off valve wide open for the first time in my life.
- Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-02 12:34:06
  Maxwellamart - I stopped attending KH some months ago and some months prior to that I stopped taking part in field service because my conscience would no longer allow me to direct people to the Organisation without warning people about child abuse, false teachings etc. OK - so you could reason that - but I wouldn't say this or that - however if you are taking part in the ministry the householder considers you as one of JW and therefore you are directing them to that Organisation. I'm not criticising anyone on this site for the way they do things, but that is how it is for me.
  - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 14:33:14
    Jannai40 thank you for sharing. So you faded, and I think that makes quite a difference. Technically, you haven't lost any active family, assuming you have any. Of course, they may treat you differently, but you do have them, they haven't written you off yet. I think this plays into the decision process.
    I ask myself, does the baby (our core teachings) outweigh the dirty bath water? (erroneous teachings). I believe our core teachings are truth, and the majority of our peripheral teachings don't really harm anyone.
    The teachings that I am most disturbed by are our blood policy, family shunning, and two witness rule for reporting a crime. These are nearly deal breakers for me. I remind myself that those responsible for such policy will answer to Jehovah, and that Jehovah is fully capable of making things right. In no way do I minimize the pain and suffering and loss, but am confident that in the big scheme, Jehovah will rectify matters.
    In addition, we have had significant change (improvement) in our internal policy regarding blood and family shunning. Accepting blood is not tantamount to smoking a cigarette, provided the person acknowledges their error (says their sorry) and asks for forgiveness. No JC, no DA, end of story. The key is in admitting it was a mistake. This might be difficult for some, but if I'm still alive, I'll have no problem apologizing and asking for forgiveness. Remember the adage "ask for forgiveness rather than permission"?
    As for relatives of df'd and da'd, our internal policy states that if it becomes known that a family is associating with df'd da'd family, they should receive counsel. If the family chooses to continue to associate, it's their choice. No JC, no elders involved, end of story. Only if leaven is somehow introduced (a stink in the congregation) might the elders have to intervene. In fact, hypothetically an elder could remain, and his wife could remain a pioneer, so long as they are discreet and the congregation is not upset.
    I'm certain Branch legal is behind these internal changes. These are sensitive teachings that could result in wrongful death suits down the road.
    Sad thing is, the R&F are unaware of the internal policy. The GB is attempting to be half pregnant, asking elders to promote the public policy, meanwhile, the internal policy mitigates potential legal exposure. Best of both worlds?
    As for the two witness rule, I'm certain that within a couple years clergy will be mandated to report in every state. The branch welcomes this, it will save them from having to publically admit (by changing our policy) our policy was flawed, which would no doubt increase leadership culpability.
    My conscience dictates that I discreetly advise family and friends of the internal policy, and let them proceed accordingly.
    While I would dearly love to throw out all the dirty bathwater and preserve only the baby, I realize that at this time it is not realistically possible. So for the present, I wait.
    Everyone walks to the beat of their own drum.
    Maxwell
    - Reply by search4truth on 2014-06-03 02:54:25
      maxwellsmartjw - It's great to having you here and thanks for yours insightful and balanced comments.

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-06-02 15:27:57
I think I speak for all when I say that in addition to the many contributors on this site and DTT it's a Truly a blessing to have you Max . I admire your grasp of the deep things of God (I am a lay person in every sense of the word :) ) I also especially enjoy your well researched comments. I am similarly very found of Bobcat for the same reason.
It saddens me that the GB would much rather greedily hold on to their illusion of truth and not tap into the knowledge of our brothers in the organization. If wasn't for this site I would have never known that there were brothers among us who held such deep knowledge.
It is such a shame. Apollos, Meleti, and all the brothers who contribute I truly thank you. Perhaps it's not best to throw your knowledge or spiritual pearls to swine anyways.
(BTW I'm not trying to insult the GB by calling them pigs or dogs. I'm referencing their lack of appreciation of the spiritual knowledge and insight of our dear brothers )
- Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 09:40:12
  GWIT, I'm humbled to be among others who have much more spiritual insight than myself. I'm learning something new and meaningful that increases spiritual insight everyday.
  I've view this site as an underground movement. Some of us are active (some elders / pioneers), some are inactive, some are df'd, some are dissed. Some are df'd and for personal reasons, feel something is missing in their life (especially family) and the need to return, and once there, then decide how they want their life to proceed. Some of us are able to take the good.... with the bad..... and even the ugly..... and maintain inner peace.
  This site is a "safe" place for us to express our thoughts. I no longer feel compelled to share my "edgy" thoughts with anyone else, including life friends and family, through my "edgy" emails. I found myself traveling down a path that was leading to a head on collision between my conscience, and forfeiting family and life friends. The underground movement IMO gives those of us in this predicament a win/win alternative. We can maintain our status quo. We can have our cake and eat it too.
  We come from different vantage points, but all share a common thread. (John 8:32)
  Maxwell
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-03 10:07:53
    In retrospect, this is one of the reasons we got this going, at least that is how I feel. I was also getting more and more irritated and had to vent my frustration to trusted friends. It turns out that some of them didn't deserve that trust. In other cases, they kept my confidences, but became upset with me. I was forcing them to look at things they didn't want to look at, so the friendship became strained. It is similar to the scenario where you see a good friend doing things to damage his marriage or his health. You speak up out of love, but instead of getting a positive response, you encounter the relationship equivalent to a snarling dog. You quickly learn not to go there.
    We all value our friendships, but we come to realize that there are times when the heart is good, but not yet ready for the truth. So we bide our time and hope for circumstances leading to a change of heart. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much to alleviate our own frustrations, so the site which we started to deepen our understanding of Scripture and meet like-minded Christians has also become an emotional protection for us. A safe place for free expression and to confess our love for Jehovah and Jesus.
    Maxwell, it is very much an underground movement. I wait with great anticipation to see where it takes us. Eventually, I hope, above ground. :)

Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-06-02 15:56:59
I feel the same as you Jannai40.
Some of the reasons I do not go out in service anymore is, I am not going to bring somebody into a religion that does the following:
1) Continues to mislead people with absolute statements that the end is “very soon”. I personally have heard this for 45 years. History shows that they have been doing this for over 100 years. The harsh reality is that they don’t know this for absolutely sure, as history testifies. So it is misleading. - (There are many quotes I could reference. See this one 45 years ago, Awake, May 22, 1969, P. 14, What Future For The Young?)
2) Requiring un-questioning obedience to 7 imperfect men whether these instructions appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. This is extremism and is cult-like! This is especially disturbing given the fact that they have been wrong many, many times in the past. - (See 2013 Watchtower 11/15, Pg. 20, Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today)
3) Not telling people before they get baptized, that once baptized, you cannot leave without your friends and family that are witnesses being used against you. Because they would be told to shun you. Since 1980 those who have done nothing wrong, but just no longer want to be a Jehovah’s Witness were to be treated as a sinner. Treated the same as someone disfellowshipped for wrong doing. - (See 1981 Watchtower 9/15, Pg. 23, Par. 14-16, Disfellowshiping—How to View It)
4) Requiring us to believe their presumptuous speculation. Things that have no scriptural support. We are supposed to just believe it because they say it is so. Case in point is the overlapping generation teaching for Matt. 24:34. There is absolutely no scriptural support given for this. - (See 2014 Watchtower, January 15 p.30-31, “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When?)
5) A religion that practices secretiveness. ( As seen from the recent BOE letter where the elders are told NOT to read pages 2 – 4 of the letter, in an effort to hide the fact that a loan is not really forgiven, but just re-named from loan to donation. )

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-06-02 16:35:26
Maxwellsmart, there seem to be two replies from you - I'll reply to the first one. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood anything you have said, but I will do my best.
Regarding accepting blood - you say the key is admitting the mistake. I say - how can a deliberate act be a mistake? You say, the key is in admitting the mistake and then you say this might be difficult for some and I would certainly agree with you there!
With regard to disfellowshipped relatives - you go on to say, no JC, no elders involved, end of story. For me that would not be the end of the story.
As for the two-witness rule, we will have to wait and see. However, what about in the meantime?
However, having said all that I don't have close family members in the Organisation as some do and it must be so hard for them to know what to do and so we leave the judging up to the real judge, Jehovah God. I can only tell you how I feel.
Please forgive me if I have said anything out of place.
- Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 08:17:57
  Sorry Jannai, my earlier reply landed above your post.
  What I'm trying to convey is that there are options available in these two sensitive areas for those of us with active witness family. Those with active family who view our blood policy as flawed do not relish the thought of being forced to sacrifice family ties, in exchange for what? That we can later say we stood our ground and publicly rejected an unscriptural policy? Is the satisfaction worth the cost? Is there another way to skin the cat, win/win?
  In my opinion, this is not an issue that involves conscience, It involves strategy. Is one open to employing strategy which allows us to navigate around a flawed policy..... versus ramming into it head on? Avoiding the object in the road means we don't have to sacrifice our family along the way. In my opinion, it's win/win.
  For myself, I've decided the best way to approach this is to not carry a blood card. I have it signed off on (so elders are not suspect) but keep it in the drawer. As for elective surgeries, I discuss privately my position with the surgeon. No blood unless something goes very wrong and it's life-threatening. Even then I want consultation. I want to make absolutely certain they understand I will hold them and the hospital liable for any unlawful disclosure of medical records. I will make certain they understand the predicament I am in, that while I do not embrace our no-blood policy, at the same time, I strongly desire to maintain ties with family. Thus far every professional I've spoken with regarding my position has been very sympathetic and commended my strength and courage.
  As for an emergency, absent any no-blood card I will be given the very best medical attention available, in the ambulance and immediately upon arrival in the emergency room. If it becomes known that blood was administered, I will apologize for having been forgetful and not putting my blood card back in my wallet. My wife is on the same page. If we are together in an accident, we are both at peace keeping silent. If blood is deemed critical, and it becomes known to others, I (we) will advise elders that we were in shock, under great duress, and medical professionals said death was imminent. We were not thinking clearly. Which by the way, would be very accurate.
  As for association with df'd and da'd family, knowing that internal policy permits even "undue" association should allow any in this situation to maintain a measure of normalcy within their family. Rest assured, the elders can do nothing judicially unless one is indiscreet, and attempts to justify the association and influence others in the congregation. Again, using strategy instead of ramming head on.
  If the df'd or da'd party "is" practicing sin, I think they are benefited if we let them know we do not approve of their lifestyle, which will likely involve limiting association. Our reason for doing so is not due to unscriptural JW policy, it's because it's Christian and the right thing to do.
  Maxwell
  - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-03 15:52:23
    Maxwell, Thank you for conveying to me your opinion.
    My apologies if this reply lands in the wrong place - comments seem to be out of sequence.
    - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 18:26:55
      Thank you Jannai, yes things are a little out of sequence.
      I wish to apologize to any who may have been offended by my rather passionate opinion on the blood policy. I go on record that I hold the same sentiments as Apollos shared in the "Blood Section of this forum". I haven't yet opportunity to consider Meleti's thoughts.
      I've shared my personal plan of action not to impose my conscience on anyone. I respect that others may yet hold our blood policy is scriptural.
      In the end, we each carry our own load.
      Maxwell
      - Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:27:31
        Or is it the other way around? about comments, I mean.
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:32:04
        It would appear I am close....just vice versa. My first comment about replying, landed way up in the list. The second time, I clicked on REPLY, which opened a new box. After this comment "Or is it the other way around? about comments, I mean."
        Now I am posting my comment at the bottom of the page. I still get confused even now.
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:33:13
        Now if I can only remember which way it is..............
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 21:29:30
        I believe this discussion is about much more than the Blood issue. It is about disfellowshipping, A Weapon of Darkness.
        Meleti himself said "Like them, we can repent for past sins, but what of the future? With the knowledge we know have, can we get off scot-free if we continue to help men wield this weapon of darkness?
        Let us not hide behind transparent excuses. We have become what we have long disdained and condemned: A human rulership. All human rulership stands in opposition to God. Invariably, this has been the final outcome of all organized religion."
        Reading all these comments leaves me confused as to what Jesus means by these scriptures:
        Matthew 10:32-39 ESV " 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
        Luke 12:51-53 NIV "51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
        Then i read these Scriptures about hypocrisy, since some have mentioned that:
        Matthew 23:27 - 28 "27 27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
        Matthew 6:1 ESV "6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."
        This is what hypocrisy means according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
        Full Definition of HYPOCRISY
        1
        : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
        2
        : an act or instance of hypocrisy
        We are all hypocrites at one time or another because we are all human and thus sin. Our Heavenly Father gave us all a conscience, to tell us right from wrong.
        The definition of conscience according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
        Full Definition of CONSCIENCE
        1
        a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
        b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts
        c : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego
        2
        archaic : consciousness
        3
        : conformity to what one considers to be correct, right, or morally good : conscientiousness
        4
        : sensitive regard for fairness or justice : scruple
        1 Peter 3:14-17 (NIV) 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."
        Brothers and sisters, in the end we each must decide what our individual consciences tells us to do or not do. I cannot violate your conscience, just as you cannot violate mine. Each one of ours is different and we have only our Saviour Jesus to answer to. I feel we need to remember that we all have choices, each of which has consequences, which is why we need to count the cost of each choice.
        I believe a case had been made for being honest, to ourselves and to others. I think about how Jesus views our practicing deceit and living double lives or whether he views it as being as cautious as serpents and innocent as doves. None of us is qualified to answer for Him. Regardless of where we are, I do feel that Our loving Lord and Shepherd knows his own sheep and that he never leaves us.
        John 10:27-29 "27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
        IMHO, this is not a game as in win/win, though some may view it as such. This is not about strategy, it is about being a Christian and pleasing Christ Jesus; unless you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses and are required to believe all of their doctrines. I honestly don't know...can we be both at the same time? Perhaps we can and it would solve my dilemma. I hope someone can provide scriptural proof so that I can adjust my understanding. I am more than willing to listen to Scripture and bring myself in line with it.
        Reply by peely on 2014-06-04 10:56:52
        Hi imacountrygirl2, I appreciate this post; and you are right, it IS about being a Christian, and pleasing Christ. Pleasing Christ pleases the Father. I thought of these scriptures which you are no doubt already recalling since writing your post:
        1 Tim 6:20,21 - "O Timothy; Guard this hope and turn away from all the worldly babbling as well as all that is falsely referred to as 'knowledge;' 21 for, it's through [such things] that some who once showed promise in the faith have been turned aside".
        Luke 16:3 - “No servant can serve two masters. He is bound to hate one and love the other, or give his loyalty to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and the power of money at the same time.” JB Phillips
        Romans 14:8, - "So if we live, we should be living for the Lord. And if we die, we should die to the Lord. Because whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord! 9 And the reason why the Anointed One died and came to life again, was so that he could be the Lord of both the living and the dead. " An American English Bible
        2 Cor 4:18 - "So, don't pay any attention to the things that you can see, but to the things that you can't see. For the things that you see are temporary, while the things you don't see are age-long." An Am. Eng. Bible
        As you say, it is not about strategy, but pleasing our God. It is not a matter of sitting on a fence and juggling wrong in one hand and right in another. (I always picture a barbed wire fence - such pain going through that chosen course!) It is instead a matter of grabbing hold of the "simplicity" that is Christ.
        2 Cor 11:3 - "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ".
        Can you be a witness to Christ and Yahweh? Yes, through that pure devotion, without corruption of doctrine laid down by a manmade organization. After all, Christ said his kingdom is no part of this world. Those scriptures you site in your post shows that, indeed, Satan is sifting us all as wheat
        Luke 22:31 - 'Simon, Simon; Look! The Opposer has demanded to have each of you so [he can] sift you like wheat!" Am. Eng. Bible
        Reply by peely on 2014-06-04 11:53:07
        correction - Luke 16:3 was meant to read Luke 16:13. Hope there's no other mistakes!
        Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-04 15:09:08
        imacountrygirl2, just posted reply and again it landed in the wrong place! Here it is again: Thank you for the scriptural references especially Matthew 10:32-39 and Luke12:51-53 - these were my thoughts too.
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 16:12:27
        NOTE: For all those who keep having problems with positioning comments in relation to an ongoing conversation - this is part of the reason why we have the discussion forum at http://www.discussthetruth.com.
        Here on Wordpress the comments facility is not ideal for keeping track of multiple threads and responses. The discussion board lends itself much better to that. And you can of course refer back to any article here via a link so that things can be referenced.
        [EDIT] Just a suggestion only. Please don't think I'm criticizing you posting here. That's good too. I'm just thinking that some longer conversations might be more easily conducted there.
        Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-04 17:15:46
        Perhaps others are feeling exhausted at this moment as I am. Whenever I feel like this I try to think of the kindness of Jesus. Matthew 11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light."
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 17:53:44
        I hope it didn't come across like I was saying you were doing it wrong. I was just making a suggestion to help. There's no right or wrong place. I edited my comment just in case.
        Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-04 18:12:55
        The reason I feel exhausted is because of the arguing that has been going on in some of the comments in this article and it's been going on for too long. Galatians 5:22,23. I just hope no one suffers from high blood pressure!!
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 18:43:05
        Oh, okay. I didn't pay enough attention to the detail. "A tranquil spirit revives the body" (Prov 14:30, NET)
        Peace to you all :)
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-04 19:55:01
        "Do we have to jump ship, forfeit our family, businesses, and life friends to grab hold of the “simplicity” that is Christ?"
        Maxwell, You and others keep speaking of "jumping ship", as though leaving the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses means that you have to "jump" into another religion.
        May I suggest another alternative? If one should "jump ship" as it were, I would think you could land on your own two feet and be individually accountable to Jesus....and still hold the baby in your arms, next to your heart. No organization is going to protect us or save us. Our families cannot protect us or save us. Our only salvation is Jesus, who has the authority granted him by Our Heavenly Father to judge our heart. In looking at our hearts, he can see our true self.
        Do we live a Christian life of Love of God and Love of Neighbor? Are we developing the fruitages of the Spirit? Do we recognize who our neighbors are? Are we showing Christian Love to all of our neighbors?
        I made the choice to leave the Watchtower organization, knowing full well I would also be leaving my closest family. I could have played games, stretched the situation into something passable and plausible, perhaps even lied. But that thought never even occurred to me. Above all else, I had to follow my conscience. I said earlier that a conscience is individual to each person and that none of us has the ability to judge anothers conscience. A conscience can only be violated by the one whose conscience it is. Something that violated my conscience, is not the same as what would violate anothers conscience.
        I also get to have the gathering of ourselves together with other Christians, even though there are only 2 or 3, Jesus is still in our midst, for the purpose of encouraging and building each other up.
        I have never on this forum advised anyone to leave the organization. You my brother on the other hand, are encouraging individuals to stay in the organization. You have a much greater burden than myself. You are unintentionally and perhaps innocently, probably motivated by looking out for the interests of your brothers and sisters, you are helping them through devious, manipulating and misleading actions to remain unbeknownst to others around them in an organization that everyone so far has agreed does not have God's backing.
        There may in fact be no danger to remain as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you are a baptised person, you ARE one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The thing is, can you also call yourself a Christian, a follower of Christ, Our Redeemer, Our Shepherd, Our Savior, Our Judge, Our Brother? Can you serve two masters at the same time, the Governing Body who is the spiritual leader of Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christ Jesus?
        I am in no position to say that you cannot do both. That is between each individual and Jesus.
        I can, however, tell you with certainty, that the view is different from Outside than it is Inside.
        I am right where I want to be....on the Outside looking In.
        You, my dear brother, are on the Inside looking Out.
        As the saying goes, "The view only changes for the lead dog".
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 21:16:18
        This is in response to CG:
        "You my brother on the other hand, are encouraging individuals to stay in the organization. You have a much greater burden than myself. You are unintentionally and perhaps innocently, probably motivated by looking out for the interests of your brothers and sisters, you are helping them through devious, manipulating and misleading actions to remain unbeknownst to others around them in an organization that everyone so far has agreed does not have God’s backing".
        Pretty strong comments my sister, I must say, I'm disappointed. This makes me wonder if there might be a bit of sour grapes? Might you feel regret that you, perhaps in a highly emotional state of mind, allowed yourself to make a life altering decision of long reaching ramifications, cutting ties with your family and life friends? Are you bothered that some of us choose not to follow that path?
        Yes, after the fact, when there is no undoing of the carnage, it could be expedient for one to self-righteously justify ones actions by claiming ones conscience dictated their actions.
        Are you bothered that some of us are able to have a clear conscience and also have our businesses that may employ brothers, our family and friends too? Are you bothered that we can somehow manage our issues with flawed WT theology (dirty bathwater) and at the same time manage to remain in the ship for the sake of the baby?
        And so a brother comes along, with the courage to share the "internal" policy with others so that these can make an informed decision in a matter that could involve the life and death of themselves or a loved one, and you call it manipulation, devious, and misleading? Again, I'm very disappointed.
        Where is the compassion? Are you asserting that there is some honor in allowing oneself to be wrongfully penalized over not adhering to a bogus doctrine? Does that make any sense? It seems you are saying the honor lies in DA'ing yourself and forfeiting your family and life, instead of maneuvering around the minefield? I contend that in the case of forced adherence to a bogus doctrine, all is fair in love and war.
        How quickly one can forget how it felt when they were in our shoes.
        Maxwell
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 19:51:52
        Bro Apollos,
        This is how I understand the deity of Jesus doctrine:
        Now the Christian meaning of the term "deity of Christ" is fairly clear. The Christian believes that there is a personal God, Creator and Ruler of the universe, a God who is infinite, eternal and unchangeable. So when the Christian says that Jesus Christ is God, or when he says that he believes in the "deity of Christ," he means that that same person who is known to history as Jesus of Nazareth existed, before He became man, from all eternity as infinite, eternal and unchangeable God, the second person of the holy Trinity.
        If this is what you hold to be truth, I am very sorry my brother, I am absolutely certain in my mind you are wrong. This will be a deal breaker for me. My conscience will no longer allow me fellowship in this forum.
        If your definition of the deity of Jesus is something different than the above definition, please clarify.
        Your brother,
        Maxwell
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 21:17:09
        Hi Max
        First of all I'm not sure why your fellowship in the forum would depend upon my personal view on this. I am but one voice. I do not claim absolute truth. And I do not run this forum. Neither do I personally consider it to be a place where consensus is mandatory for fellowship. But if you do then that's of course a matter that I would not wish to dictate.
        I hope though that you will be more open to free discussion whereby we both might consider one another as iron sharpening iron.
        Even though your comment isn't long there is still a lot for me to address right now. I would want to be very careful with some of those points and fully support anything I say with scripture.
        Nevertheless the short answer is no, that is not exactly what I hold to be truth. I will make the necessary time to explain why, and to more fully define my actual belief as soon as possible. In the meantime you will find many of my thoughts in articles and comments on this site and DTT.
        I don't doubt that regardless of whatever comes out of this there will still be some things we don't see eye to eye on until we stop looking through the metal mirror. We have to be realistic about that, unless we revert to some unscriptural uniformity. I would not consider breaking fellowship with you unless you were to deny our Lord. This is my personal understanding of the scriptures. But I cannot force anybody to maintain fellowship with me, and neither would I wish to do so.
        Apollos
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 21:47:28
        Bro Apollos,
        I understand that consensus is not mandatory for fellowship on this site and I am fine with that. In that I highly respect your knowledge and understanding of scripture, I admit I was a bit taken back if in fact you held to what my understanding of the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus.
        I debated Phil 2:6,7 with a university scholar, and in that month long debate research that specifically convinced me that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah is in the definition of "harpagmos" as defined in the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, In short, harpagmos (and it's roots) NEVER suggest that one owns something before seizure. The act of seizing or robbing in itself suggests that one did not own the item seized before he stole it.
        Christ never gave consideration to a seizure (harpagmos) that he should be equal to God Christ never considered seizing equality with his Father, and equality was something he never owned.
        Are we on the same page with the above? If so, I'm very open and would welcome open discussion. At this point, I don't think there is much wiggle room with the high probability meaning of harpagmos.
        yb Maxwell
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-04 21:55:04
        Maxwell, I do sincerely apologize if I have offended you.
        I merely offered my opinion, as you voiced yours.
        Yes, I admit I do get a bit over-emotional when I think of my dear brothers and sisters who are in the organization.
        It is love and concern for them that motivates me. I feel pity for all those blinded ones being led by blind guides. They are all Jesus precious sheep and I fear there are wolves within the flock seeking to devour them, as those same wolves attack me.
        I do not have sour grapes. I don't for one instant regret my leaving the organization, it was my choice to do so. I did not leave God, I only left the Watchtower and what it stands for. I do miss my family and think about them and wonder how they are. I did not cut them out of my life, they cut me out of their lives. I love them and I forgive them. I accept that they are doing what they believe is the right thing for them to do to honor Jehovah...and comply with the rest of the congregation.
        We are all raised differently and have different life styles and make different choices. I respect your choices and your conscience, and I am truly sorry if I showed you disrespect.
        In the end, we are still brother and sister and we both love Our Lord Jesus and want to honor his teachings. Everything else is just "stuff".
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-05 07:41:53
        Thank you CG apology accepted.
        I have no doubt that you are sincere when you say you have love and concern for your dear brothers and sisters who are in the organization, including your JW family. Please understand that for some of us, especially those of us with extended witness family and with businesses which employ witnesses and/or have mostly witness cliental, comments that imply we are hypocrites and juggling between right and wrong, that we are sitting on the fence, that seem to imply that we are unapproved by Jehovah and Jesus unless we jump ship, are just plain discouraging, if not offensive.
        Think of this: What if the underground movement quietly gains momentum, what if the safe haven it provides allows those of us with issues who are still onboard the ship..... to be patient? To hold our tongues, to be encouraging in areas our conscience allows, to zip our lips in areas that we are in conflict with, to lay low? To feature truth, and discreetly put a disclaimer on untruth, buyer beware.
        If time allows many to remain within (active or inactive) and not be forced to forfeit their family, businesses, life friends, life culture, how is that not a good thing? Our lives are not turned upside down, we are saved from the horrific emotional trauma of being shunned, which has led some down a very destructive path, even suicide. If we use strategy, we don't give the organization that power over our lives. I honestly do not see it as a matter involving conscience. Why should I allow my family and business to suffer due to misapplication of scripture, unscriptural punishment and abuse? Am I not playing into the organization's hand if I allow them take such control over my life, my business, to wield such a big stick?
        The recently adopted "sorry" clause in our internal blood policy is a very positive step in the right direction, but it's only positive if elders discreetly leak the internal policy with family and friends. I believe the HLC is aware the sorry clause has been leaked. I know elders who serve on the HLC and I assure you some are truly devastated when one of our brothers or sisters (or worse a teen) die and the blood issue was involved. It's tragic.
        In the matter of blood, JW's now have three options instead of two:
        1. Refuse blood - take a huge risk (if an emergency - statistically you will likely die)
        2. Accept blood - stand your ground you are auto-DA'd
        3. Accept blood - rely upon hospital confidentiality - but if that fails, the sorry clause is the fallback)
        The recent "removal of imposed sanction" in our disfellowship policy allows even "undue" association with DF and DA relatives, and this too is a very positive step in the right direction. But again, it's only positive if elders discreetly leak the internal policy with family and friends.
        In the matter of association with DF/DA relatives, JW's now have three options instead of two:
        1. Cut ties - only necessary family busines
        2. Associate openly, justifying it in the congregation - and face DF
        3. Enjoy even undue association - doing so discreetly, using strategy
        The two witness rule remains, but I can tell you many elders do not agree with the unscriptural application of this rule when it comes to reporting a crime. They, as myself, are prepared to resign if involved in a judicial case involving child abuse and are told by Branch legal not to report it. These same elders (I'm certain there are more) are also prepared to speak very openly to any family with children in the congregation, whether or not Branch legal has so advised. So while the GB is standing their ground with the two-witness rule for legal reasons (they do not want to appear they recognize our policy has been flawed), several elders I've spoken with are going to report the crime and resign.
        So CG as you can see, there has been some positive reform in organizational policy since you left, still much is needed. I am personally certain that if not for the HUGE legal liability, the blood ban would have been abandoned years ago, maybe even the 1960's. It was a blunder of monumental proportion to allow this form of self-suicide to continue. The current GB has inherited this nightmare. What are they to do, lift the ban and the organization goes bankrupt, or continue to pray for a blood substitute?
        Please excuse me for saying so much, I wanted to share this for those here to share with their family. My future is somewhat tentative right now.
        Thank you again for the apology, I feel better.
        Sincerely,
        Maxwell
        Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-05 10:18:35
        Bro Max,
        First off let me say that I am not doubting what you are saying about:
        1) The recently adopted “sorry” clause in our internal blood policy.
        2) The recent “removal of imposed sanction” in our disfellowship policy.
        I very much appreciate you sharing this information. But I know I always like to show or reference proof of what I say.
        So can you show or reference proof of these recent changes in policy?
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-05 14:33:21
        BeenMislead, I want to commend you for your very brave stand to abide by your conscience. Our Saviour is watching us all and no doubt sees the sheep-like nature you display as one of his flock.
        Your attitude seems to be balanced, carefully reasoned out and reveals the nature of your conscience in regards to Scripture..
        My brother, I know what a struggle this is for you. I want to offer my Christian love and support for you no matter what the outcome. Our Lord gives us unconditional love and in gratitude for that, I give you the same.
        If ever I can be of any assistance in any way, please feel free to pm me.
        Much Christian love, support and encouragement from you sister
        Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-05 14:56:21
        To imacountrygirl2:
        Thank you for those encouraging words!
        They mean more to me than you know.
        Dido on the Christian love, Support and Encouragement.
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-05 15:26:52
        To Been Mislead, have you joined the Discussion Board available to Borean Pickets readers? http://www.discussthetruth.com/index.php
        Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-05 15:46:01
        No I have not Joined the Discussion Board yet.
        I will get around to it soon.
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-06 00:07:32
        This is in response to BM,
        "I very much appreciate you sharing this information. But I know I always like to show or reference proof of what I say.
        So can you show or reference proof of these recent changes in policy?"
        BM, I'm glad that you appreciate what I shared regarding the "sorry" clause and the "removal of imposed sanction" for undue association with DF/DA relatives.
        I regret I am not comfortable providing the exact quotation or reference from the elders guide. I don't believe Meleti would want that either. To be candid, I steer clear of anything that could result in legal consequences. If my identity was ever somehow discovered, nothing I've said (or will say) in any post will provide a basis for suit claiming slander or damages. I intend to keep it that way.
        Having said that, I feel the matter is of such importance that I my conscience allows me to share it here, speaking only in generalities. There are members here who are/were elders who if the so wish, can confirm what I say is accurate.
        Furthermore, if I were to provide the quotation, how could you could verify it's accuracy?
        Perhaps you'll find a guide floating around online and you can verify it for yourself. Or if you have a "thinking" elder relative that's open minded.
        Let me say that if you speak to just any elder about this, I doubt he will divulge that this reform exists. They certainly will not recognize the term "sorry clause" nor "removal of imposed sanction". These terms do not appear in the elders guide. I submit many elders may not even know the clauses are there.
        I will allow this, the key word in the sorry clause is "repentance".
        The key words in avoiding the sanction for undue association is being "dicreet" having no "spiritual" association nor "openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision" in the congregation.
        The adage "ask for forgiveness instead of permission" applies with regard to blood, Just being discreet, not advertising association, not trying to influence anyone else is key with dealing with DF/DA family.
        Hope this is helpful.
        Maxwell
        Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-06 08:25:31
        To Max:
        First off thanks for the reply.
        When you say “elders guide”, are you referring to the “Shepherd the Flock of God” book?
        Or is there some new elders guide out there?
        If it is the “Shepherd the Flock of God” book, then wasn’t it published in 2010?
        So how could these be “recent changes” in policy?
        Thanks.
        BeenMislead
        Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-06 10:27:39
        The “Shepherd the Flock of God” book was published in 2010.
        So I am not sure if this is what ” maxwellsmartjw” is referring to when he says “the recently adopted sorry clause in our internal blood policy” or not.
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        But here is what it says in Chapter 9 of the “Shepherd the Flock of God” book:
        “Willingly and umrepentantly taking blood.
        If someone willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the individual's attitude. If he is repentant, the committee would provide spiritual assistance in the spirit of Galatians 6:1 and Jude 22, 23. Since he is spiritually weak, he would not qualify for special privileges for a period of time, and it may be necessary to remove certain basic privileges. Depending on the circumstances, the committee may also need to arrange for an announcement to the congregation: "The elders have handled a matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance.” On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant they should announce his disassociation.”
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also, I am not sure if this is what ” maxwellsmartjw” is referring to when he says “the recent removal of imposed sanction in our disfellowship policy” or not.
        But here is what it says in Chapter 10 of the “Shepherd the Flock of God” book:
        “If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures. Review with them information from the "God's Love" book, pages 207-208; The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, pages 26-30; or the article "Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped'' in the August 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry. If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, it may be that he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision.”
        Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-06 13:53:00
        Been Mislead, thank you for this information from Shepherd Flock of God book - it's good to know.
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-06 14:00:30
        BM that didn't take you long. To ease your mind I'll respond.
        My use of the term recent was generally speaking, in the last 4 years. Of note is that the prior paragraph in chapter 9 specifies the "committee" involved for one joining another religious organization is not judicial. Therefore it is investigative in nature (2 elders vs 3) In that there is no mention of "judicial" in the blood paragraph, a similar "investigative" committee would be involved (not judicial).
        Accepting blood is not listed as an official disfellowshipping offense in chapter 5, Smoking and drunkenness are DF offenses, however if the smoking or getting drunk happened only on a few occasions, it is not necessary to form a judicial committee. If the party admits their error and asks for forgiveness the matter is closed.
        If one is not repentant (stands his ground) for accepting blood, he automatically DA's himself.
        The clause inserted by Branch legal to arrange for a meeting to determine repentance (rather than immediate auto-DA) was added to our DA policy in 2010. This is what I have coined the "sorry" clause. One can read between the lines and and act upon their own conscience.
        Maxwell
        Reply by max on 2014-06-06 16:16:52
        BM one last thought:
        Of note in the paragraph involving "undue" association with DF/DA relatives, of significant note (to me anyway) is that one who "violates the spirit of the disfellowshipping and does not respond to counsel" MAY no longer qualify to be an elder/pioneer. The term MAY is quite astounding. Wouldn't one assume if an elder violated the spirit of DF he at minimum automatically forfeits special privileges? Not so.
        What is being said here is that, depending upon how discreet the association is kept (the congregation doesn't get all unraveled) it may possible for an elder continue, especially if he's a valuable contribution on the body. When I read this for the first time, that DA were not excluded from association, it blew my mind. What happened to not even saying hello?
        I contend these changes are CYA inserted by Branch legal to avoid sticky legal issues. The GB does wants if both ways, they want to control with the appearance there is a sanction if one associates with even D/A relatives, when in fact, it it is kept discreet, there is absolutely no sanction.
        This has been a source of major conflict for my conscience, I'm happy that I've been able to share this with the members of this room.
        Here's a strategy I've imagined. What if this information started circulating among the R&F? It's certainly not apostate literature. For what it's worth, I can verify that what BM has posted is true and correct.
        The circulation has to come from a source other than elders. An elder caught circulating this information will be removed for breach of confidentiality, possibly DF'd. Say the word got leaked through other sources, and that it was circulating among R&F via emails, all around the world. This public knowledge of internal policy would embarrass the GB and "force" Branch legal's hand. They and the GB know they can't go back to the way it was. If they were tighten things back up, they open the door to major legal consequences, and being ordered by the court to lift the blood ban and the shunning element of disfellowshipping.
        A religious teaching which imposes a severe automatic sanction for any citizen of the US who concedes to accepting blood, in a near death emergency, under great duress, under heavy medication, and following the pleading of their doctor, is likely to be found unconstitutional. Likewise, religious teaching which threatens a severe sanction should any citizen of the US choose to associate with their blood relatives, is likely to be found unconstitutional. To revert back to this would get very sticky for Branch legal if challenged in court. These would certainly constitute a viable cause of action for a damage suit. The supreme court. In my opinion, would be less than sympathetic toward a religious group which forces its members, under penalty of severe sanction, to effectively cause their own premature death. The same is true for any religious group which forces it's members, under penalty of severe sanction, to shun their own blood relatives. Very serious issues.
        If the "internal" policy became widely known within the R&F, imagine the effect that would have? Oh how that would smack of bad faith on the part of the GB, to be known to have been maintaining two different sets of books? I believe many elders would resign realizing they've been used as pawns to hurt their brothers and sisters..
        As said previously, I'm very passionate about these issues. If I could sit across the table from the GB and speak openly without fear of reprisal, I would tell them they really need to be proactive and transparent before the cat is let out of the bag. If they don't act first, they stand losing the confidence of even the R&F.
        Far too many have suffered. It's time this madness ends.
        My conscience is clear.
        Maxwell
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-05 05:46:41
        Bro Apollos
        I will be traveling today away from my computer, I wanted to offer you a point for consideration regarding Phil 2:5-7. Perhaps you could move this over to DTT as a topic and respond?
        I have understood you to say that you do not fully embrace the commonly held view of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, therefore at this point I'm not sure exactly what you do embrace. For the sake of discussion, I submit the following for consideration. I mentioned in an earlier comment that I intended to provide information to refute the commonly held "Deity of Christ" doctrine, aka the "two nature" Christology. The specific focus in my study was the meaning of the greek verbal noun "harpagmos". I am aware that you are familiar with greek, therefore I realize (and hope) that my words will be found preaching to the choir.
        I refer to the rendering of the RNWT as it has been recognized by recent greek scholarship to contain the least bias in word selection at Phil 2:6 compared to major translations (Jason BeDuhn, Truth In Translation).
        Phil 2:5,6 reads: "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure (harpagmos), namely that he should be equal to God".
        The word "harpagmos" is used only one time in the NT. It is a noun based upon the root verb "harpazo".
        Liddell & Scott dictionary provide the following meanings for "harpazo": (1) snatch away, carry off; (2) seize hastily, snatch up; (3) seize, overpower, overmaster; (4) seize, adopt; (5) grasp with the senses (6) captivate, ravish; (7) draw up.
        Also in this word family is the noun "harpage". It is used for (1) seizure, robbery, rape; (2) thing seized, booty, prey; (3) greediness; as well as for a hook, grappling iron,or rake.
        According to the Dictionary of New Testament Theology, the noun "harpage" means robbery, plunder, the forcible confiscation of Christian property, what is plundered (Volume 3 p604)
        Similarly, the noun "harpagma" means booty, prey, or windfall. The meanings of other words formed from this root are robber, greedily, rapacious, thievish, robbing,
        The Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "Harpagmos" is a thing plundered or seized, and so spoil, booty, or a prize of war (Volume 3 p604).
        It is clear from the forgoing that harpagmos, and all other related words, are all connected with the seizure of something NOT YET ONES OWN. "There is not a single word derived from harpazo that is used to suggest holding onto something already possessed". (Jason BeDuhn Truth In Translation p55)
        Jesus did not even think of seizing, robbing, ravishing, plundering, grabbing at equality with God, but instead emptied and humbled himself to self-sacrifice. The idea that Christ owned equality with God (which is foundational for the "Deity of Christ and Christology doctrine) and then chose to give up that equality, would clearly be the opposite of the meaning of words derived from "harpazo".
        When a robber breaks in and steals property, did he possess the property before? When an army overtakes a city in battle and seizes booty as spoil, did they possess the spoil before they overtook the city?
        Clearly, Paul's use of "harpagmos" in Phil 2:6 left no question in the minds of the Philippian congregation, and should leave no question in our minds as to Christ's rightful position in heaven before coming to the earth. He did not possess equality with God. He gave no thought to a harpagmos (seizure) of equality, he did not consider grabbing at being equal.
        Jesus was not equal with God. If Christ was not equal, then he must have been created by God. He could not have come from all eternity as infinite, eternal and unchangeable God, the second person of the holy Trinity.
        My dear brother, I pray that we are in harmony on this, the most foundational core teaching of truth. If we are, then whatever truth you wish to share which honors Christ as God's created Son is welcome and appreciated.
        Maxwell
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-05 17:48:44
        You've focused in on a very specific scripture here Max.
        I'm happy to address that one, although I think in reality the jury is still out as far as a perfect translation is concerned.
        I respect BeDuhn's work, but I have personally moved on from treating “Truth in Translation” as a new gospel as some seem to have done at times. It is a valuable and scholarly piece of reference work, but there are still valid alternative views on some of the passages that he covers. I treat Greg Stafford's work the same way, whereas I admit that I used to like having my ears tickled whenever I heard something scholarly that strongly supported JW theology. My mind is more open now, and I try to consider all sides of an argument rather than just looking for evidence to support what I already believed.
        Meanwhile back to Philippians 2. I tend to agree on balance that “harpagmos” likely indicates grasping or snatching at what one previously did not possess. (Ironically it is the KJV that actually manages to reconcile this sense of the verb with the Trinity doctrine.) Even if the verb form is just as you say, the grasping at something not possessed would mean something very specific in context. To me the subsequent verses indicate that he simply did not attempt to avoid the task of emptying himself, becoming a man, and enduring the humility that followed. It's a bit like someone on a cliff top making no attempt to grab onto something in order to prevent their fall. Any reading of the scripture still has to harmonize with John 17:5.
        Anyway, it's all a moot point for me in the sense that I do not consider Jesus to be equal with his Father. Neither do I consider him to be the second person of a Trinity.
        However I think you are making an unwarranted leap when you state:
        
        If Christ was not equal, then he must have been created by God.
        
        Adam was created by God.
        Adam was created through God's Son who became Jesus of Nazareth.
        God's Son - the Logos - on the other hand, was originally begotten of God.
        I believe there to be a distinction between “created” and “begotten”. I have written about this elsewhere, and have yet to find someone who will challenge the distinction. To JW's “begotten” is just another way of saying “created”. I do not believe that to be true.
        Apollos
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-05 17:57:21
        Max - I hope my last reply gives you a better insight into my current position on this. If you wish to continue the conversation do you mind if I transfer it over to DTT under the topic of "Philippians 2:5-11"? I ask for your permission because I would need to copy your last comment which opened up the specific subject, and also my response.
        Apollos
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-05 22:51:16
        Bro Apollos, thank you very much. Before saying yes to continuing this discussion at DTT, may I ask you two questions? Do you feel the Logos had equality with his father? Do you favor modalism, that God is a singular person that acted in different forms and at different times?
        I concur that one needs to remain open regarding scholarly works, I have referred to many other theological works in my studies. I quoted BeDuhn mostly because of his particular focus on accuracy in translation at Phil 2:5-7. I think we both agree his findings clearly fly in the face of mainstream theology.
        You mentioned the joy of tickled ears with something that supports JW theology, I certainly agree it can do that. At the same time, I want to be careful that I do not swing the other way, The very same argument could be made that one could be looking to have his ears tickled when referring to mainstream scholarly works. Is it not true that most mainstream scholars held a particular bias prior to performing their studies? Were they not aiming to support their bias in their documented opinion?
        For this reason, I welcome scholarly works produced from a source not heavily prejudiced by a particular religious dogma before producing their work. Would not giving undue credence to the scholarly work of a theologian biased in mainstream be much the same as giving undue credence to Stafford’s works, given his JW background? Like you, I tend to lean away from his work for this reason,
        However, I am not aware that BeDuhn had any particular religious background. Therefore, I feel it reasonable to conclude that his work may very likely be less tainted by any desire to support a particular religious dogma.
        Perhaps I misunderstand, but I get the impression you tend to discount his work? If I’m reading you correctly, I would hope that your reason for discounting BeDuhn’s work has nothing to do with the fact that some of his work happens to align with certain JW theology?
        I like your analogy of the Logos jumping off a cliff and not grasping on his fall, However, in my opinion, this analogy fails to convey the scope of harpagmos. While grasping is certainly within the scope of available meanings, it remains ambiguous. For example, is one grasping for something never possessed, or grasping to hold onto (cling to) something already possessed? For this reason, I hold that that the words such as seizure (NWT) robbery (KJV) and onfiscation of property, more accurately convey the flavor of harpagmos. Of course, none of these words align with the analogy you presented.
        As for my “leap” when took the liberty of connecting “inequality” with the Jesus (Logos) “being created”, perhaps this will add some clarity. I completely concur that Jesus is the “only begotten” of God (John 1:18)
        Only begotten is translated from “monogenes” which roots are “monos” (only, solitary) and “genos” (birth, born, offspring, race, stock, kind). The word definition of “monogenes” seems to harmonize well with “prototokos” (firstborn) at Col 1:15. “Prototokos” roots are “protos” (first) and tokos (childbirth, offspring).
        The reference to the Logos being in God’s form (morphe) at Phil 2:5 harmonizes well with Col 1:15 (the image of the invisible God – God’s form – an invisible spirit being).
        Now here’s where the leap comes in, and I think you’ll find it really isn’t a leap at all. I don’t even think it’s hop. Col 1:15 says that Logos was “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all “creation” (ktisis)
        “Ktisis” is defined as creation, creature, a product, which conveys the act of creating the thing created, “Ktisis” at Col 1:15 is reinforced by “ktisis” at Rev 3:14 where Logos (faithful and true witness) is said to be “the beginning of the creation (ktisis) of God”
        These 4 texts (Phil 2:5, John 1:18, Col:1:15, Rev 3:14) allow me to connect the dots to make the claim that Christ’s inequality with Jehovah was a direct result of the fact that he was created.
        The Logos was created, birthed, born, the first of God’s offspring, He then existed in God’s form, in the image of the invisible God (a spirit being). He then humbled and “emptied” (deprived himself, made void, laid aside) his invisible spirit body and presence and took the form of flesh, a human being.
        My brother, I realize I’ve said quite a lot here, Not being certain if this may be one of my final comments, I wanted to be certain I expressed the basis for my belief that the Logos was created.
        If you’re answer to the first two questions no, then I’m very happy with moving this discussion over to DTT.
        Maxwell
        Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-05 23:18:27
        This is a duplicate comment I posted at the wrong place. Ooops.
        Maxwell, are you implying that if yours and Apollos views are different, you are not open to further discussion? You do realize there are 84 members on the discussion board, don’t you?
        Apollos is very learned. But there are also many others with knowledge and intelligence..
        If your mind is that closed, how did you ever see the truth about the GB? I’m merely curious as those two views seem counter-intuitive.
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-06 01:03:54
        CG,
        As shown in some of my posts, my personal and prayerful research has revealed that some, not all, of JW teachings are scripturally flawed. I'm especially disturbed with the blood ban, extreme shunning, and the two-witness rule applied to child abuse. As I've said often, these effect human life and cause unnecessary suffering. I am most outspoken regarding these teachings. As I have spent hours posting in this room, there has been "internal" reform in the blood ban. And further, nearly every state will now court order blood on a JW child if necessary. Elders have been advised there is nothing that can be done, just console the parents to not feel guilty that their child received blood. The age of majority is different in states, but I think about age 15 is pretty common. So any JW child that needs blood in the US under age 15 will be given blood by court order. This gives me GREAT relief.
        The removal of threat of judicial action for discreet family association with DF/DA is welcome. The two witness rule will be soon be moot as all states will mandate reporting. Honestly my sister, I believe I can live with this. For me, the bad is not worth the horrible experience you went through. I don't want to throw away my family, life friends and my business.
        These are basically my core "beefs" with the organization. Yes, I have at ;least a dozen other things I disagree with, But can I wait it out?
        But my dear sister, the core truth I hold so dearly in my heart is that our Lord Jesus is the Son of God and that he was created.
        I simply can't bear the thought of debating this core truth with a fellow brother, and someone whom, in the very short period I've known him, I so deeply respect, It just feels wrong to me.
        I'm not able to handle this at this time. I feel like I should be preaching to the choir.
        If I ever were to moderate a room, this would be one truth that all members had to embrace,
        your brother,
        Max
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-06 07:48:43
        Hi Bro Max
        Although the answers to your questions are no, I've decided it would be best to drop the conversation for now. I'm not a huge fan of it being so conditional. You've made clear to that it's a very sensitive issue for you. Each person has their hot buttons I guess.
        There would be some out there who would not fellowship with either you or me because of our stance on blood. And that's fair enough. Everybody should be allowed to choose what conditions they put on their friendships.
        You may have been surprised to find that my understanding of the nature of God's Son was not as far apart from yours as you seem to fear. However I sense that even a slight deviation from your fixed belief might not be acceptable to you.
        All the best,
        Apollos
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-06 08:41:55
        Bro Apollos,
        Thank you, Yes, I admit this is my one hot button. I would hope that I wouldn't have been too rigid regarding the possibility of a slight variation, I just don't know what that variation might be. I need to say that when I became involved with the group, I assumed that all were on the same page and held this one core truth to be true.
        If Greek word definition is compelling, and scriptural support is compelling, I have no option but to accept change.
        I consider the original language the gold standard for establishing the basis of my faith. If I were to construct a particular belief based upon the inaccurate word selection of biased translators (rare or low probability word choice) my entire body of belief on that doctrine would be built on sand.
        Accuracy in translation and high probability word choice is I believe the most crucial component of our "gold" testing equipment.
        Know that I sincerely appreciate the research you, Meleti and others have prepared and shared. Many thousands of hours of sacrifice. Well done.
        I too wish you, and everyone here all the best.
        your brother,
        Maxwell
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 15:32:27
        Peely said:
        "As you say, it is not about strategy, but pleasing our God. It is not a matter of sitting on a fence and juggling wrong in one hand and right in another. (I always picture a barbed wire fence – such pain going through that chosen course!) It is instead a matter of grabbing hold of the “simplicity” that is Christ"
        Peely: I believe how one views much of this recent discussion depends upon whether one's vantage point is from standing within, or outside the organization.
        I very much respect your comments, and I respect your personal decision to jump ship some time ago. I do not judge you for this, I do not attempt to imply you are lost if you don't get back into the ship.
        I would hope that those who have chosen to jump ship would respect the consciences of those who have to date, chosen not to jump ship, and who do not wish to be forced to jump ship, though avoiding the penalty of not adhering to erroneous theology involves strategy.
        I disagree that those still aboard the ship are juggling between wrong and right. How can that be when the wrong of JW theology is being commented upon and openly challenged in this forum every single day? How can it be said that we approve of the wrong? Just because we've not challenged the GB outside the walls of this forum? What does Jehovah see?
        Do we have to jump ship, forfeit our family, businesses, and life friends to grab hold of the "simplicity" that is Christ?
        Maxwell
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 13:37:35
        Country Girl said:
        "IMHO, this is not a game as in win/win, though some may view it as such. This is not about strategy, it is about being a Christian and pleasing Christ Jesus; unless you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and are required to believe all of their doctrines. I honestly don’t know…can we be both at the same time"?
        CG: The discussion involving strategy and win/win involves brothers/sisters who find themselves in the position you were some time ago. We remain inside..... we have much at stake, it is not an easy road for any of us to navigate. I would imagine you went through a similar struggle as you weighed your personal options back then?
        Let's not lose sight of the fact that there may be hundreds of thousands of active/inactive within the organization who are waking up to the blood issue, specifically in how they would deal with an emergency that involved them, their spouse, a child or a grandchild. I hold that the "strategy" I've mentioned is absolutely relevant to the topic of disfellowshipping. Simply put, if one accepts blood and it becomes public, when questioned by elders if one stands his ground, it's automatic DA. You go directly to jail without collecting $200. One forfeits family and friends at a time they most need the support.
        Think of why it must be this way. Should the GB allow anyone to openly and publicly accept blood,and NOT impose the sanction, the door is WIDE open for wrongful death suits. It could be easily argued that our policy has changed. That members 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, who refused blood and died, were not given the option that they could choose to accept blood with no sanction imposed. If there is no imposed sanction for breaking an assumed law, is it a law at all? If there was no penalty for driving 80mph in a 50mph speed zone,who would drive 50mph? What would it matter if I broke the law?
        From your vantage point, and if I were in your shoes, I can see how it might be easy for me to judge those on the inside. Though they may disagree with certain doctrine, they may remain confident that other doctrine (specifically core) is scripturally supported. My dear sister, I have conducted a very thorough search of the more than 3,000 mainstream Christian denominations in the US, and found that for all but a handful, the deity of Jesus is their cornerstone doctrine. Of the handful (single digits) that remain, the Bible Students hold our core teachings, but I have studied their peripheral teachings, and I don't see their overall package an improvement over JW. Certainly not enough to jump ship over.
        Not to say that something new might come along. Actually, I long for the day that I can be involved with a group that teaches truth that I can embrace.
        I'm sad if you feel that I and others on this site who remain on the inside are living a double life, We go to great lengths challenging certain JW doctrine and policy and present our research for all to see out of love, Speaking for myself, this clears my conscience. At the the same time I continue to carefully weigh ALL factors. I suspect that most, if not all who are active and commenting here (or quietly lurking) want something better than what we currently have, or we wouldn't be here. If we have found no viable ship to jump onto, would it not be prudent that we (a) allow time for the JW ship to reform, or (b) wait for a ship that teaches more accurate truth to come along, before jumping off the ship?
        If I jumped ship today, and I wanted hands on fellowship, I'd have to start attending the local Bible Students meetings. That is not appealing. Incidentally, speaking of conscience, my conscience will not allow me to fellowship in a group where the deity of Jesus is core. I have personally conducted an extensive study on the greek phrasing of Phil 2:6,7, and am 100% convinced in my mind that Jesus is not Jehovah. In intend to share this in time.
        CG, I've used the analogy of the "baby" and the "dirty bath water" Using it in a little different light, let's say the baby is our core teachings of truth AND our active family and life friends. The dirty bath water is JW theology and policy which we believe is scripturallly flawed. For us "thinkers" on the inside, we would love nothing more than to dump the dirty water. In that we have no ship to jump onto, we must patiently take things in stride, else we risk losing the baby too.
        With warm brotherly affection,
        Maxwell
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 15:32:32
        Hi Bro Maxwell
        Just to pick up on one point ...
        Jesus is not his Father. That much is true. But once you come to accept the deity of Christ you will have a much broader search on your hands. (Assuming that you still wish to search for an organization with custody of "the truth")
        Apollos
        Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 15:47:37
        Bro Apollos,
        The doctrine of the deity of Jesus that I am referring and familiar with definitely infers that Jesus exists inside of Jehovah's form. I'm very open to learning a different way of looking a this.
        And yes my brother, I'm searching.
        Perhaps you could start thread on this in the discussion board?
        Maxwell
        Reply by maxwellsmartjwx on 2014-06-04 16:07:35
        correction - that he existed in Jehovah's form (inside of Jehovah's spirit being) before emptying himself. Those I've had discussions with on this topic have been firmly fixed in the trinitarian camp.
        Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 16:08:07
        "infers that Jesus exists inside of Jehovah’s form"
        With a little tweak that would be "Jesus exists in God's form". Which of course as you almost certainly know is entirely scriptural (Phil 2:6). So you probably not as far away as you think you are.
        Apollos
        Reply by maxwellsmartjwx on 2014-06-04 16:12:21
        correction - that Jesus existed in God's form (inside the actual spiritual being of Jehovah) before emptying himself. The discussions I've had on this topic have been with those in the trinitarian camp, so that may have skewed our discussions and left me with the wrong understanding of the doctrine.
        Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-06-04 15:53:03
        Maxwell-
        I appreciate your post regarding the blood issue. You have given me so much to think about. Your advice is practical and it’s not unscriptural IMO. I would never want to bind another brother’s or sister’s conscience with mines.
        I was disciplined for this very issue years ago. My strategy was ill advised and had so many holes. I wish I had you years ago. The elder’s meeting was a horrible experience and I felt backed in a corner. I had to make concessions ( or compromise depending on the way you look at it ) so that I would not lose my family . Privately,however, my immediate family knows my views and I am very adamant about them . In hindsight I wished I never even went to the elders in the first place .
        I was surprised to learn very recently that my husband’s views on blood has changed . Since his mind is a bit more open I am going to run some of the ideas you have presented by him. I have already told him that he better not ask me to sign a blood card or DPA and he needs one in place. Because if the decision left to me….. well…. he gets the idea. I would never infringe on his conscience and will uphold his wishes (if it is in writing). Our views are far apart but we agree on one thing… this matter of blood is entirely up to the conscience of each individual Christian.

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 18:33:32
Yes I thought the first was lost, so I did a redraft.

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 19:24:27
I'm sorry about the two replies, my first got lost in the shuffle so I re-wrote, and then the first surfaces. Oh well.
Say a person has researched for themselves and come to the conclusion our blood doctrine is scripturally flawed. They have prayerfully decided in advance that they would accept blood if in a life threatening situation. If one has close JW family and does not want to be forced to become estranged from them, knowing one has the option of asking for forgiveness after the fact.... instead of pressing the issue during the fact and dissing oneself..... just might seem pretty appealing. All I'm saying is the option is there, and for some it might be a much better outcome.
Say a person has close family that is df'd or da'd. Say there are grandchildren involved. Say that the grandparents are active JW, and they would love to baby sit the grandchildren while the children's da'd mother is at work. But they are led to believe they should not have association with their daughter, so, the grandchildren are raised in a daycare. Knowing that one has the option of choosing to be more involved in their grandchildren's lives, and even enjoy a family meal(s) with their da'd daughter, just might seem pretty appealing.
Regarding child abuse, there are about 15 states (US) that do not currently mandate reporting. All we can do is pray change will come soon.
Yes it is very hard for all with close witness family. I hope that sharing the "internal" options may bring some peace of mind and the ability to maintain status quo and keep your family.
Maxwell
- Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-03 12:14:08
  maxwellsmartjw said:
  “They have prayerfully decided in advance that they would accept blood if in a life threatening situation. If one has close JW family and does not want to be forced to become estranged from them, knowing one has the option of asking for forgiveness after the fact…. instead of pressing the issue during the fact and dissing oneself….. just might seem pretty appealing. All I’m saying is the option is there, and for some it might be a much better outcome.”
  Sorry Max but I have to strongly disagree with your above statement.
  It would be hypocritical and deceitful to say “oops I am sorry, please forgive me” after the fact, when you had already made up your mind to accept blood beforehand.
  Job 11:11 -
  “For he knows when men are deceitful.
  When he sees what is evil, will he not take notice?”
  Proverbs 3:32 -
  “For Jehovah detests a devious person,
  But His close friendship is with the upright.”
  - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-03 13:18:38
    When I saw Bro Max's comment I knew that it would elicit a response like this sooner or later. And I can completely understand why someone would respond this way.
    However I would like to give my support to what Bro Max wrote.
    I don't have time to write a comprehensive response just now, but anyone familiar with this site and my articles will know my position on the blood doctrine. If not (and assuming you want to know) then you can find them under the category of "Blood" on the left hand column.
    We should open a discussion about this on DTT. I will do so later if nobody gets to it first.
    Apollos
  - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-03 13:29:25
    What I will say, since it won't be central to a general discussion, is that in order to judge this stance as deceitful you have to have taken a position on the doctrine in the first place.
    The organization deceives people and governments frequently when they deem it to be in "theocratic interests".
    Rahab lied. But it apparently wasn't wrong.
    Sometimes we have to be "cautious as serpents" and it doesn't count as deceit. But in order to determine the validity in any particular situation you must already have decided if one of God's laws is being broken either way.
    This needs to be fully determined before one brother judges another in this situation.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-03 14:06:17
      I concur Apollos. Often it is not the action but the motivation that determines right from wrong. The difference between fornication and lawful intercourse can be as simple as a spoken vow. Deceit carries a negative connotation in our culture, but it is merely an action which may be good and may be bad depending on the circumstances. For example:
      (1 Kings 22:20-23) . . .Jehovah then said, ‘Who will fool A′hab, so that he will go up and fall at Ra′moth-gil′e·ad?’ And one was saying one thing while another said something else. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I will fool him.’ Jehovah asked him, ‘How will you do it?’ 22 He replied, ‘I will go out and become a deceptive spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ So he said, ‘You will fool him, and what is more, you will be successful. Go out and do that.’ 23 And now Jehovah has put a deceptive spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, but Jehovah has declared calamity for you.”
    - Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-03 14:21:21
      The reason why it is deceitful (or dishonest and misleading if you will) is the whole notion that you are saying I am sorry, when the real truth of the matter is you are not sorry because you had already determined ahead of time that you would take blood.
      Sorry, but my conscience would not allow me to do that.
      It is not for me to judge anybody else if they decided to do this though.
      But I just had to put my two cents worth in.
      - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-03 14:45:48
        Hi BeenMislead
        I understand, and you've made me think twice about this. I was previously thinking about the planning in advance what you might do without saying so, rather than what you would say in hindsight after doing so.
        I don't know what your stance is on blood, but let's say for arguments sake that you were absolutely convinced that it was morally wrong to sacrifice life over this doctrine, what would your plan be? Would you just tell people now? Would you wait until the situation arose? And if so would you prepare yourself in advance that you would then just be blunt about your decision and give up friends and family under the arrangement that goes contrary to your conscience? Or in reality would you be more likely to follow Max's path?
        I think it's easier to be judgmental over someone who makes a decision in advance like Max if one is still on-board with the doctrine to some degree. And I was approaching this from the opposing angle. But I admit that I don't know the best answer in terms of making a firm decision as to what I would say in hindsight if that exact situation unfolded.
        Apollos
      - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-03 14:52:57
        I have to add after rereading my own last comment that it's difficult to suppress a degree of ire that such a decision has to be encountered at all.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-03 15:56:01
      This doesn't address the principles you've all expressed. However, with regard to the specifics of blood transfusions, since it is a medical procedure, the medical staff is under strict rules to keep confidence. So whatever decision a brother makes is between him and his doctor. If the brothers tried to get involved, perhaps through the HLC, the brother simply has to say that it's taken care of and refuse to discuss medical decisions. That is his prerogative.
  - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 15:36:33
    BM note my comment below to Jannai
    "What I’m trying to convey is that there are options available in these two sensitive areas for those of us with active witness family. Those with active family who view our blood policy as flawed do not relish the thought of being forced to sacrifice family ties, in exchange for what? That we can later say we stood our ground and publicly rejected an unscriptural policy? Is the satisfaction worth the cost? Is there another way to skin the cat, win/win?
    In my opinion, this is not an issue that involves conscience, It involves strategy. Is one open to employing strategy which allows us to navigate around a flawed policy….. versus ramming into it head on? Avoiding the object in the road means we don’t have to sacrifice our family along the way. In my opinion, it’s win/win".
    (end of quote)
    BM, let's not forget we are dealing with two unscriptural "traditions". As such, they do not have Jehovah's approval. With regard to the blood ban, as Apollos mentioned in his discussion on Blood, leadership has zero wiggle room. They have done all as is legally possible at this point. Anything further will risk opening the floodgates of class action wrongful death lawsuits. I sincerely hold that leaderships is very aware of this fact, and that they realize that each day perhaps hundreds of our members face the blood issue. Sadly some die prematurely.
    A religious organization that creates policy which demands by threat that members refuse medical treatment that would, statistically speaking, very likely save their life in an emergency situation..... is EXTREMELY dangerous policy. The risks involved for such policy being the cause of wrongful death are HUGE. Branch attorneys are very aware of the potential exposure that any change in policy will bring, so they remain stuck with antiquated 70 year old BAD policy. Even Prov 4:18 can't save the day on this one. It's a major doozie.
    I submit that Branch legal inserted the "sorry" clause in the elders guide replacing the automatic DA sanction previously held, to avoid negative publicity. It's incredibly negative for a headline to read "Jehovah's Witness shunned by friends and family for accepting life saving blood transfusion". Publicity like this sounds pretty cult like and attracts the attention the media and even class action attorneys. Especially when the JW was a mother who hemorrhaged delivering her child. The last thing leadership wants is for our family shunning policy to be in the media spotlight, and challenged in court. The favorable decision upholding our df policy (1988) may very well be overturned by a much more liberal supreme court. I think they know this and fear this.
    If I'm on track, I am certain leadership actually sleeps better at night knowing the "sorry" clause is there. Don't you think they trust that thinking elders will discreetly let the word out to family and close friends? I certainly have.
    So.... one says they are sorry, the matter is handled the same as someone smoking a cigarette. Private counsel. If the congregation should become aware, an announcement is made that the matter involving so-in-so has been handled and they have accepted loving counsel.
    No one dies, no memorial, no grieving family and friends, no headlines, no media.
    I say this is a good thing, my conscience is totally clear.
    Maxwell
    - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 16:21:36
      A further thought, in a short time we've traveled from the penalty for accepting blood being automatic DA, with no benefit of a judicial hearing to determine if one was repentant....
      To the erring sinner needing only minor counsel, similar to if one got drunk or smoked a cigarette.
      What does this tell us?
      It tells me the GB know that our teaching is flawed. They can't change our official stand for legal reasons, but they can, through the back door reduce the penalty for accepting it to basically a slap on the hand.
      Now, here's the clincher for me: I can't conceive how is it that Jehovah changed his mind on this. How is it that for decades this sin was so grave in Jehovah's eyes it merited automatic DA (go directly to jail) without the benefit of a judicial hearing? For decades, this sin was so grave it was classified alongside joining another religion, or joining the military.
      Our only conclusion can be that recently Jehovah decided that he got this thing wrong for decades, at the end of the day he's now decided it's really no worse than smoking a cigarette.
      What about those who were auto-DA'd the year before Jehovah changed his mind? Boy would they have a legitimate beef with Jehovah.
      Maxwell

Comment by peely on 2014-06-03 01:16:15
Besides many others, two interesting statements were made here.
Katrina – I am so sorry for your pain. So many of us can understand completely as we have been through it. Courage and prayers to you, sister.
You said: “I have come to believe that the org was set up by the devil to trap sheep to hold them hostage to the idol”
I give you this scripture to consider:
2 Thess 2:9-12 - The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, 10 and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, 12 so that all will be condemned—those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness.
Maxwellsmartjw – you have incredible insight and many points to consider. If I may I would like to comment on what you said,
“I ask myself, does the baby (our core teachings) outweigh the dirty bath water? (erroneous teachings). I believe our core teachings are truth, and the majority of our peripheral teachings don’t really harm anyone.”
Rev. 8:10,11 - The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from heaven. It fell on a third of the rivers and springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood, and a third of the waters became wormwood. So, many of the people died from the waters, because they had been made bitter.
Rev. 9:1 - The fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to earth. The key to the shaft of the abyss was given to him.
A star (anointed are always considered stars in the scriptures) falls from heaven poisoning waters of truth – a THIRD of those waters. Could those waters these be considered “ erroneous teachings?”
If we bring anything but pure truth to individuals, in the Father’s eyes would that truth be considered as “not really harming anyone?”
James 3:17 - The wisdom that comes from God is first utterly pure, then peace-loving, gentle, approachable, full of tolerant thoughts and kindly actions, with no breath of favouritism or hint of hypocrisy.
There are beasts out there to consider; beasts have always been trouble for God’s people. You paint a very clear picture for me to envision. Two separate beasts; one empowering the other – that “other” who will eventually turn on the first (too many rapid-fire changes). The identity of the first wild beast would be that “fallen star” who has been given the key (authority) to the abyss by none other than the devil himself.
Changes are coming and Christ will make them happen. As Meliti said, “you can almost smell it on the wind.”
My two cents worth.
peely

Comment by ¿Wheresenoch? on 2014-06-03 01:39:40
Countrygirl2 & maxwellsmart both of you are spot on! Theres no way 2 return without biting my tongue. Theres just 1 problem- biting my tongue! (prov 15:4) therein lies the conflict. The more i make strides 2 return, the more hypocritical i feel knowing what i know & looking the other way so 2 speak. I do however appreciate both of your responses. As far as family is concearned, i have extensive active members. Most of whom deal with me when convenient because i am reliable. But as i have engaged in this unscriptual form of psychological warfare over the past few yrs.(2 cor 10:3, 4), ive found this df'd state 2 be nothing short of a blessing. For had i not been disqualified as a jw i would never had the courage 2 look @ anything past jw. Org. Im no longer crippled by fear of men. I can attend meetings & choose 2 believe what i believe based off personal bible study-not 'spiritual milk-laced liturature' (heb5:12-14)passed off as solid food. And the FREEDOM - not turning in time & feeling like im going 2 end up in some elders cross-hairs or feeling guilty of 'robbing Jah'. Not juggling conflicting thoughts of "being a jw makes one better than everyone else" while claiming 2 have lowliness of mind & humility of Christ. & most important, being able 2 carefully examine scripture daily w/o interpreter like a true beroean acts 17:11. As far as returning, i honestly only miss contact with a handful of people. Jesus kept a tight circle of about a dozen hand-picked friends-& 1 of them u couldnt trust fully. Truthfully, I dont need 7 or 8 million brossis whom i CANT count on in my times of need & lowest points in life. You guys on this site will do just fine:) (phil 2:14-18) warm Christian luv 2 all of you!
- Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 08:47:08
  Wheresenoch.
  So, using strategy, what if you were to give it a few more months, follow protocol, and get the DF monkey off your back?
  If you still feel the same as you do today, change congregations and then simply fade..... wouldn't that be win/win?
  If you faded, zealous family will judge you but still include you in family gatherings. Less zealous family will hang out with you.
  The only reason I suggest this is because of the investment you've made.
  Maxwell

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-06-03 03:28:51
Imacountrygirl2, You say, some lose sight of the fact that it is possible to leave an organisation without leaving our Lord Jesus and our Heavenly Father.
Since leaving the Organisation, after serving for many years as a JW, I have now come to know Jehovah God as my Heavenly Father and have discovered the teachings of Jesus Christ and I have learned so much more about the Good News of the Kingdom and what it really means. Admittedly being in the Organisation did give me a head start but I knew that for me it was time to leave. And like you I am so grateful that I found this site which helped me through many a dark hour on my journey.

Comment by ¿Wheresenoch? on 2014-06-03 10:59:55
In all actuality Maxwell, returning & fading is exactly the strategy i had in mind. For i promised myself once back i will let no man (or group of men) play God with my life again. (Col 2:18 Psa 56:2, 4)

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-06-03 14:53:07
I concur BeenMislead. Let's hope none of us ever need a blood transfusion!

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:25:31
The reason comments are out of sequence is due to whether you REPLY to an individual, under their name, or whether you "LEAVE A REPLY".in the big box at the bottom of the page by clicking on POST COMMENT..
If everyone were to LEAVE A REPLY in the big box, the comments would remain in sequence. Just start your reply by saying the name of who you are responding to and they can see your response is to them..
It took me a while to catch onto that. I almost wish we did not have a REPLY option at all because using it throws comments out of sequence and causes confusion because you "lose" a comment.
in case any moderator is listening.........

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 09:15:12
This is in response to Peely's comment:
"If we bring anything but pure truth to individuals, in the Father’s eyes would that truth be considered as “not really harming anyone?”
Thank you for your perspective, it appears sound, though I admit I need to do more research on this.
You mentioned "pure" truth, may I share an analogy? I liken "pure" truth to pure 24k gold. I do believe that certain core teachings within the JW belief system are 24 carat. I also contend that there are teachings that are diluted by NWT translator bias, expedience, and leadership agenda. Some are 14k gold, some are 9k "junk" gold. And yes, there are teachings which contained no gold whatsoever. On my list of "fools" gold are the 7,000 year creative day, which was foundational for the 1975 end times debacle. Also the misapplication of the "generation" in Matt 24:36, the teaching that organ transplants are tantamount to cannibalism, just to name a few. Also on my list of "fools" gold is the position, despite overwhelming scientific and historical evidence, that the flood of Noah's day was global in scope. My list could go on.
If we begin from a position that CT Russell discovered (given his Second Adventist background) certain 24 carat core teachings, and if we believe that Jehovah blessed the efforts of the early IBSA movement, notwithstanding several "fools" gold teachings (pyramidology comes to mind)....... then I can accept that Jehovah might choose to "tolerate" the dirty bath water surrounding the baby.
Here's my huge issue: The testing equipment available to the IBSA movement was antiquated, unreliable, inaccurate, and often gave misreads. I believe Jehovah allowed them a measure of "slack" and still his spirit blessed their work. Fast forward to today, we have the most sophisticated, reliable testing equipment ever available (discovered manuscripts, archaeological finds, scholarly and critical translation studies, scientific advancement, geological understanding, medical advancements) and yet, our leadership continues largely to test our teachings using the antiquated equipment. Equipment which they themselves know can be inaccurate and unreliable.
Our marketing materials clearly make claim that as an organization, the products we are selling are absolute, 24 carat gold. Yet leadership acts irresponsibly and is remiss when they fail to avail themselves of modern state of art testing equipment. Is it because they fear that if they test our products using the modern tester, they will find many inferior items that must be removed from the shelves? Does pride prevent them from acting prudently?
But what position does that leave us, the sales team in? We carry a big smile to the those at the door, proudly claiming all products in the catalog are produced from 24 carat gold, when in fact, when tested with modern equipment, some have proven to be "fools" gold.
Many on this site have purchased our own modern testers, and have conducted our own test. When history has shown that time and again we cannot trust the reliability of the organizational "mark" of gold content in a particular teaching, honestly and integrity dictate that we conduct our own personal test, and then decide if we can feature that product as 24 carat, or..... if we must provide a disclaimer and advise the product is suspect, buyer beware.
Anything less would be fraudulent and a misrepresentation in advertising.
So Peely, I believe it comes down to personal conviction. Can I feature items which I've personally tested and have affirmed to my satisfaction that they are indeed 24 carat? At the same time, can I place a disclaimer on any item suspect and wait for leadership to begin testing with updated equipment?
That's my current MO, I'm able to use discretion and not feature suspect items in the offering. So, in my case the clock is ticking. Will leadership act responsibly and scrap out the old equipment and begin getting accurate reads on our suspect teachings? Or do I feel the heat in the kitchen and have to quit or get fired?
Maxwell

Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-06-04 10:02:50
maxwellsmartjw said:
“this is not an issue that involves conscience, It involves strategy.”
Sorry Max, but this is where we disagree.
My conscience would be involved if I had to basically LIE saying I am sorry to keep from getting disfellowshiped, when the real truth of the matter is I would not sorry because I had already determined ahead of time that I would take blood.
I understand the “I am Sorry” policy that the GB has put in place in an effort to protect them against a class action wrongful death lawsuit. But I am not going to play their game and compromise my conscience just to keep from getting DF’ed.
maxwellsmartjw also said:
“I say this is a good thing, my conscience is totally clear.”
And that is fine for you Max, but as you can see my conscience would NOT be totally clear.
I think what I would do, is try to keep it on the down low as much as possible. Nobody else needs to know. Do as Meleti suggests and simply say that it has been taken care of and refuse to discuss my medical decisions.
- Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 11:52:08
  BM said:
  "I think what I would do, is try to keep it on the down low as much as possible. Nobody else needs to know. Do as Meleti suggests and simply say that it has been taken care of and refuse to discuss my medical decisions".
  BM, the strategy approach I shared is used ONLY as a last resort, if some well meaning friend or family member became aware, and divulged the confidence to the HLC or local elders. Meleti's suggestion is by far the best option. So how do we handle it if the cat is out of the bag?
  May I use a simple analogy? Imagine you're in field service, a police officer drives up and says you need to leave the neighborhood immediately, that what you are doing is against the local city ordinance, it is against the law. Of course you are aware that the governing law (the constitution of the US) guarantees your absolute right to anonymous free speech and to be doing what you're doing.
  At this point you have a choice: Leave, which is in effect a statement that you agree what you were doing was against the law, or...... to stand your ground, tell the officer you refuse to leave, be handcuffed and taken directly to jail.
  Of course we would just leave, correct?
  But say one leaves, is he not confirming in the mind of the officer and the neighborhood that he agrees he was breaking the law? If in reality, he does NOT believe he is breaking the law, wouldn't his leaving be disingenuous? So he leaves, perhaps returning an hour (or perhaps the next day) and continues on. Why does he return? Because he is completely certain that governing law guarantees his right to do what he's doing.
  If he is so certain of governing law, why didn't he not push the issue?
  If we're strictly dealing with conscience, I feel to be completely honest he would need to stand his ground and go to jail. Do you agree?
  Now let's compare this analogy to the "sorry" clause. If one has done extensive research, prayer, and has arrived at the position that accepting blood is not be breaking God's universal law, when faced with the "officer" (blood policy) threatening to take him to jail (DA - lose family and friends) what do we do? We know we are not breaking God's universal law. But do we need to push the issue, and go directly to jail? Or is it prudent to just stand down, giving the appearance we agreed we were breaking the law, and move on with our life?
  To the officer, we can give the appearance that we are abiding by the local ordinance to avoid confrontation.
  Should it bother our conscience that we acted a bit disingenuous?
  Maxwell
  - Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-04 12:33:06
    I don’t think that being deceitful and or lying and playing their “sorry” game, in order to not get DF’ed, is something I could personally do.
    I do not recognize their (the GB’s) authority over me. And by taking a stand and not playing their game, I would hope that would be a good example for others my family and friends included to not be followers of men.
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-06-04 12:58:36
      BM, as far as I could see you didn't directly answer my earlier question as to what you would do. But I guess your last comment makes it clear enough. It suggests that you would simply accept DF'ing under the circumstance.
      But if you are taking a stand by "not playing their game" in order to provide an example, then why not just tell friends and family now? Under your line of reasoning would it not be a measure of deceit to have them believe that you would follow the doctrinal rules, but knowing that when it came to the crunch you would not?
      This is not to judge your position at all. I'm still trying to work it out in my own mind.
    - Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 14:11:35
      BM if it is your "strategy" to follow Meleti's advise (which by the way I completely concur with), how is it that not being revealing your strategy to family and friends would not be considered deceitful? I too am attempting to work this out in my own mind.
      If I understand what you're saying correctly, if your strategy (maintaining confidentiality) should fail, your acceptance of blood became public knowledge and elders came to meet with you, you would stand your ground and DA yourself?
      So, you feel family and friends would view you as a good example if:
      1. You DA'd yourself? or
      2. You kept your real actions secret?
      Which of the two options would you feel is a good example for them?
      I'm just trying to understand your position.
      Max
    - Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-06-05 08:54:57
      First off I would not DA myself. They would have to DF me if they saw fit to do that.
      Not telling someone how you feel about or view something now is not deceitful. Everyone has a right to their own thoughts and views. When and if the time comes that you have to reveal those things then so be it.
      A good example would be set by not following men and their man made rules when the time came. A good example is set by not compromising your conscience. A good example is set by NOT saying “I am sorry” when in reality that is not true.
      One thing is for sure is IMO, “playing their game”, would NOT be setting a good example if I had to lie to keep from getting DF’ed.
      But like I said before, I am not judging anybody else. It is just that I personally could not do it.

Comment by bystander on 2014-06-04 14:58:59
Max,
"...the anointed have been reduced to just another publisher."
"...long-time partakers now sit alongside Joe publisher."
Is there something wrong with 'just' being a publisher?
"...immodest anointed..."
Perhaps the humility of the anointed is being tested. Perhaps they are being given the assignment to nurture their local congregation. Are they doing this? If not, why would Jehovah give them even more responsibility?

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-06-04 15:00:24
imacountrygirl2, thank you for the scriptural references especially Matthew 10:32-39 and Luke 12:51-53 - these were my thoughts too.

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-04 15:27:44
Peely said:
"As you say, it is not about strategy, but pleasing our God. It is not a matter of sitting on a fence and juggling wrong in one hand and right in another. (I always picture a barbed wire fence – such pain going through that chosen course!) It is instead a matter of grabbing hold of the “simplicity” that is Christ"
Peely: I believe how one views much of this recent discussion depends upon whether one's vantage point is from standing within, or outside the organization.
I very much respect your comments, and I respect your personal decision to jump ship some time ago. I do not judge you for this, I do not attempt to imply you are lost if you don't get back into the ship.
I would hope that those who have chosen to jump ship would respect the consciences of those who have to date, chosen not to jump ship, and who do not wish to be forced to jump ship, though avoiding the penalty of not adhering to erroneous theology involves strategy.
I disagree that those still aboard the ship are juggling between wrong and right. How can that be when the wrong of JW theology is being commented upon and openly challenged in this forum every single day? How can it be said that we approve of the wrong? Just because we've not challenged the GB outside the walls of this forum? What does Jehovah see?
Do we have to jump ship, forfeit our family, businesses, and life friends to grab hold of the "simplicity" that is Christ?
Maxwell

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-06-04 16:00:21
“This doesn’t address the principles you’ve all expressed. However, with regard to the specifics of blood transfusions, since it is a medical procedure, the medical staff is under strict rules to keep confidence. So whatever decision a brother makes is between him and his doctor. If the brothers tried to get involved, perhaps through the HLC, the brother simply has to say that it’s taken care of and refuse to discuss medical decisions. That is his prerogative.”--Meleti
I wish someone would have pulled my coat tail and told me this. In my case I would have been discreet.

Comment by BN on 2014-06-04 16:29:01
Didn't He say we should worship in spirit and truth? JW's tell others that a drop of poison in a glass of water is lethal ..but not for them/us ? What about Rev 8.10, 11, 'many men died from the water' ..I personally haven't left physically do to my circumstances but mentally I probably left years ago. 2012 was my first year without attending at least the memorial. ( I stopped getting the publications in the end of last year.) But where to go? Surching the net didn't give me anything until last year. And it has been quite a journey. I can't stop thinking about what I'm learning, and my love for Jehovah and the Anointed has grown so much deeper. I'm physically all alone, but I don't feel alone. I agree that we all have our own journey and we all have to decide if or when we leave,Things will happen, and I don't think anybody can sit on the fence too long. I pray for people to wake up! Who do we choose - Christ or family, friends etc Matt 10:32-39. It's hard,but nobody said it would be easy ..

Comment by peely on 2014-06-04 16:49:29
Thank you, apollos for that reminder. I'll just finish up here :)
Maxwell -
Oh, brother, I know your struggle within and I realize the thought of stepping totally out of the organization can bring the pain of losing family and friends. I am not criticizing anyone for staying put; but I’m giving scriptural guidance that helped me personally see the need to give God exclusive devotion and not through the guiles of an organization supposedly blessed by Jehovah.
Christ didn’t say following him would be easy but warned whatever happened to him would happen to those who put faith in him. I don’t disconnect disfellowshipping on the grounds of striving for pure worship as part of that – thus the real meaning to the scriptures that Jannai40 and imacountrygirl2 have come to ponder on – the real meaning of that divisive sword. We cannot slave for two masters; it’s a hard choice and it’s painful, but giving devotion to God that is as James 1:27 states, also James 3:17 is what I strive to do.
Christ taught his followers to search for the “fine fruit” and not to settle on second best. I have turned my back on tainted spiritual dishes and have found the fine fruit. Leaning on holy spirit to guide me is the only way I have found it….and I’m still learning.
I’ve mentioned before, prophesy has always been directed toward God’s people; and Christ comes as a thief in the night. (Matt 5:13; Ezek 3:4,7; Matt 24:15,16) How much is strategy to stay comfortable within and how much is getting the ducks in order before Christ comes seems to be pretty much a priority. I’ve got to live with my conscience, as we all do, and I truly want to be obedient solely to the Father and Christ.

Comment by peely on 2014-06-04 20:55:32
I agree with you on many points imacountrygirl; somewhere above is a reference I made regarding your scriptures sited early on, and much your answer coincides with my thoughts. Guess I didn't post the right way to answer Maxwell.
I love and fear for all my brothers and sisters making individual choices according to one's own conscience. Dealing with the organization has presented a choice of truth or lies. There is nothing in between - my opinion, of course. Col 2:20-22; 1 Cor 7:23.
Isn't it the path of salvation the important thing?
Psalm 146:3 - Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Really, I am wrapping it up this time.
Love to all,
peely

Comment by Katrina on 2014-06-05 01:45:39
It is all about headship, Jehovah is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the congregation, he is also a king, Adam was Eve's head, that is how I see all this, to my knowledge this has always been the case from the beginning, this creates unity, Satan did not respect God's headship his right to rule, he being the creator of all and the giver of laws that govern the universe.
- Reply by Anonymous on 2018-07-11 01:02:50
  Your still in

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-05 07:16:15
At moments like this, I always find it beneficial to go back to basics. What do we know? What can be explicitly understood from Scripture? These are things we can all agree upon. The things which are not so clear are the things in the metal mirror. (1 Cor. 13:12) When discussing things we cannot know for certain, it is best to be "quick to listen, slow to speak".
One of the things that makes me angry still is to see the effect of a lifetime of indoctrination in my own self. I see it in the knee-jerk reaction I experience when someone teaches something I've been told is unscriptural. I have to mentally grab myself by the shoulders and give myself a good shake so as not to react in a pre-programmed manner. I have been re-programming myself for a couple of years now, and there are still program bugs to be eradicated. However, I find if I'm quick to listen and strive to understand, then slow to speak, I fare far better and so does everyone else I speak to.
I understand that some ancient map makers would write in areas of the map that were uncharted, "Here Be Dragons". So it is with Bible speculation. It has its place, but if we take it too far, it can cause harm. The Organization has long promoted speculation as "verifiable fact" and woe betide anyone who tried to verify it. As long as we treat speculation for what it is, we'll be fine.

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-05 22:49:41
Bro Apollos, thank you very much. Before saying yes to continuing this discussion at DTT, may I ask you two questions? Do you feel the Logos had equality with his father? Do you favor modalism, that God is a singular person that acted in different forms and at different times?
I concur that one needs to remain open regarding scholarly works, I have referred to many other theological works in my studies. I quoted BeDuhn mostly because of his particular focus on accuracy in translation at Phil 2:5-7. I think we both agree his findings clearly fly in the face of mainstream theology.
You mentioned the joy of tickled ears with something that supports JW theology, I certainly agree it can do that. At the same time, I want to be careful that I do not swing the other way, The very same argument could be made that one could be looking to have his ears tickled when referring to mainstream scholarly works. Is it not true that most mainstream scholars held a particular bias prior to performing their studies? Were they not aiming to support their bias in their documented opinion?
For this reason, I welcome scholarly works produced from a source not heavily prejudiced by a particular religious dogma before producing their work. Would not giving undue credence to the scholarly work of a theologian biased in mainstream be much the same as giving undue credence to Stafford's works, given his JW background? Like you, I tend to lean away from his work for this reason,
However, I am not aware that BeDuhn had any particular religious background. Therefore, I feel it reasonable to conclude that his work may very likely be less tainted by any desire to support a particular religious dogma.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but I get the impression you tend to discount his work? If I'm reading you correctly, I would hope that your reason for discounting BeDuhn's work has nothing to do with the fact that some of his work happens to align with certain JW theology?
I like your analogy of the Logos jumping off a cliff and not grasping on his fall, However, in my opinion, this analogy fails to convey the scope of harpagmos. While grasping is certainly within the scope of available meanings, it remains ambiguous. For example, is one grasping for something never possessed, or grasping to hold onto (cling to) something already possessed? For this reason, I hold that that the words such as seizure (NWT) robbery (KJV) and onfiscation of property, more accurately convey the flavor of harpagmos. Of course, none of these words align with the analogy you presented.
As for my "leap" when took the liberty of connecting "inequality" with the Jesus (Logos) "being created", perhaps this will add some clarity. I completely concur that Jesus is the "only begotten" of God (John 1:18)
Only begotten is translated from "monogenes" which roots are "monos" (only, solitary) and "genos" (birth, born, offspring, race, stock, kind). The word definition of "monogenes" seems to harmonize well with "prototokos" (firstborn) at Col 1:15. "Prototokos" roots are "protos" (first) and tokos (childbirth, offspring).
The reference to the Logos being in God's form (morphe) at Phil 2:5 harmonizes well with Col 1:15 (the image of the invisible God - God's form - an invisible spirit being).
Now here's where the leap comes in, and I think you'll find it really isn't a leap at all. I don't even think it's hop. Col 1:15 says that Logos was "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all "creation" (ktisis)
"Ktisis" is defined as creation, creature, a product, which conveys the act of creating the thing created, "Ktisis" at Col 1:15 is reinforced by "ktisis" at Rev 3:14 where Logos (faithful and true witness) is said to be "the beginning of the creation (ktisis) of God"
These 4 texts (Phil 2:5, John 1:18, Col:1:15, Rev 3:14) allow me to connect the dots to make the claim that Christ's inequality with Jehovah was a direct result of the fact that he was created.
The Logos was created, birthed, born, the first of God's offspring, He then existed in God's form, in the image of the invisible God (a spirit being). He then humbled and "emptied" (deprived himself, made void, laid aside) his invisible spirit body and presence and took the form of flesh, a human being.
My brother, I realize I've said quite a lot here, Not being certain if this may be one of my final comments, I wanted to be certain I expressed the basis for my belief that the Logos was created.
If you're answer to the first two questions no, then I'm very happy with moving this discussion over to DTT.
Maxwell

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-05 23:16:00
Maxwell, are you implying that if yours and Apollos views are different, you are not open to further discussion? You do realize there are 84 members on the discussion board, don't you?
Apollos is very learned. But there are also many others with knowledge and intelligence..
If your mind is that closed, how did you ever see the truth about the GB? I'm merely curious as those two views seem counter-intuitive.

Comment by Anonymous on 2014-06-06 06:30:00
This is really nice of the brothers in the responsible positions that they inserted this clauses in the internal policies that nearly nobody from the rank&file know's about, just to protect themselves or the mather org from the potential lawsuit. How this could be right? Fatc is that these rules are nonsensical and harming. We are told that we are the only true religion on this planet, but in fact we bring reproach on God by imposing these pharisaical rules on people. Many people who are aware of the true nature of our teachings actually think that we are not so much another christian denomination but we are cult that is dangerous no so much to people outside but to the own members.This certainlly does fine witness to our God, no wonder thinking people are reluctant to join Jw ranks. I am still, not so active Jw and I am forced to navigate around this rules to keep my family intact. My life has been seriously damaged and my family split in half because some people who are already dead created in their foolishness this burdesome rules and current leadership is too afraid to do right thing and prove to people that they will stand for what is just no matter what, same like our leader Jesus Christ would certainly do. Money and the power seem to be what drives all this madness and I hope soon somebody will expose this cruelty and many will have to realize that they put trust in the earthling man instead in our only leader Jesus Christ.

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-06-06 10:33:30
I hope I do not cause anyone to be unnecessarily agitated by the following comment.....
“I need to say that when I became involved with the group, I assumed that all were on the same page “
This seems to be a recurring theme in the last few weeks. Are those who read Meleti’s and Apollos’ works on this site (Beroean Pickets~ Striving for unbiased Bible research) or participate in the DTT Board considered part of a group? The people that visit this site.... do they believe that it is some type of break off group for the JW’s ? I am not being facetious at all ... what am I missing?
“.....and held this one core truth to be true.”
As to core truths about Jesus ... what core truth ? That Jesus Christ is the Son of God , that he died for all and that he is the only way to life? What other “truths” are there besides this ?
Are (mis)translations of Greek/Hebrew words considered core truths? :/ Ah well ... what do I know anyway ? :)

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-06-06 13:50:18
BeenMislead, Thank you for the information from Shepherd the Flock of God book - good to know this.

Comment by Labeling the Apostate | Beroean Pickets on 2014-06-11 09:46:18
[…] [This post continues our discussion on the issue of apostasy – See A Weapon of Darkness] […]

Comment by WT Study: We Must Be Holy in All Our Conduct | Beroean Pickets on 2015-01-12 18:03:41
[…] Under the guise of a call to holiness, the agenda here is to beg support and compliance for the disfellowshipping arrangement. Without it, the Organization loses its most powerful weapon to enforce obedience and conformity. (See A Weapon of Darkness) […]

Comment by Help Us Spread the Good News | Beroean Pickets on 2015-01-30 16:12:30
[…] use the weapon of excommunication, aka “disfellowshipping”, (See Awake Jan. 8, 1947, pg, 27 or this post.) to carry out […]

Comment by on 2015-03-02 18:07:30
I'd like to thank Meleiti and Maxwell for their insightful comments and sound reasoning. I am no longer serving as an Elder. The "donation" policy was the nail in the coffin for me. The Elders in my congregation sent the Branch quite a few thousands of dollars and the R&F had about 10 minutes to chew on the logic during a local needs part. It was first announced that our loan was "forgiven", and everybody, (excluding myself) clapped. I then raised my hand and said that we would still be paying the same montly amount in perptuity, (forever). The brother handling the part pushed right on ahead with the agenda and the brothers voted to send the money. That was the last straw. How dare they make us pay back funds already donated. Thanks, Meliti and Maxwell, for giving us a forum to express how we really feel.

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2015-03-03 01:55:38
Anonymous, I appreciate your sincere and heartfelt comments. I share your outrage at the way the "donation" policy was so easily set up, whether it made any sense from a logical human standpoint or not.
I know only too well how you must be feeling.
In time, you will come to appreciate what real freedom you can have when you no longer allow yourself to be controlled by a group of men who claim to speak for God himself and who seem to so easily disregard our true Saviour, Jesus.
If I may, I would like to suggest a book that changed my whole life. It's "Crisis of Conscience" by Raymond Franz. It is available online for free download. It is written in such a kind, frank and loving manner that it's Truth shines through. You may find it beneficial in this stage of your spiritual journey.
We are each of us on our own personal spiritual journey. I say personal because it is an individual journey as Jesus considers our hearts individually. I pray that Holy Spirit will guide you to find your own truth, you will know it when it resonates with your heart.
Your loving sister

Comment by katrina on 2015-03-03 02:41:41
wonderful post sister imacourntrygirl.

Comment by on 2015-03-03 15:21:08
Nicely explained, Maxwell. I found it interesting that Paul says, at 1 Cor. 3:9, "in my previous letter". So, it appears that 1 Corinthians is actually his second letter written to this particular congregation. So, would you say it's possible they wanted clarification of what was in the "previous" letter?

Comment by Sheepdog on 2015-11-09 14:27:19
John Dalberg-Acton said : "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." This is of course quite true but another and more sobering facet of this thought comes from an other writer : those desiring power are corruptible and desiring absolute power are absolutely corruptible. Since religion has enormous power we should be very careful about any who reach for that power: Satan is the foremost example.
Only God and his appointed ruler Jesus can not be corrupted as power is there natural possession. Rev 4:11

Comment by 2016, Dec 19-25 – Our Christian Life and Ministry | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-12-22 15:57:24
[…] of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society constitute false teachings. If the teachings on blood, disfellowshipping, 1914, 1919, the overlapping generations, and the other sheep are false, how can Jehovah’s […]

Comment by Why Modesty Still Matters | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-03-13 09:36:44
[…] that there is no repentance comes from the persecution they visit upon any who dissent, using the weapon of disfellowshipping as a tool to silence any voices raised in protest. This presumptuous course creates unnecessary […]

Comment by Tori Te on 2019-12-22 15:58:03
Excommunication aka Disfellowshipping aka Cherem is in the Bible!! John 16:2 (ASV) says "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God."

Notice Jesus Christ condemned this act as being done to his faithful followers by their mislead leaders!! And how vicious a thing it really is:

"Put you out of Synagogue" is the modern Bible translator's interpretation of the Greek word APOSUNAGOGOS.
Strong's Concordance:
Aposunagógos: expelled from the congregation
Original Word: ἀποσυνάγωγος, ον
Transliteration: aposunagógos
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-oon-ag'-o-gos)
Definition: expelled from the congregation
Usage: away from the synagogue, expelled from the synagogue, excommunicated.
Orthodox Jewish Bible:
Yochanan 16:2 (OJB) "They will put you under the cherem ban in the shuls. A sha’ah (hour, time) is coming when everyone who kills you will suppose they are offering avodas kodesh to Hashem".

CHEREM {kheh'-rem}; from charam; physical (as shutting in) a net (either literally or figuratively); usually a doomed object; abstr. Extermination -- (ac-)curse(-d, -d thing), dedicated thing, things which should have been utterly destroyed, (appointed to) utter destruction, devoted (thing), net.

I learned this from this video series & highly recommend it for ALL exjws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnyCJezP8Qw

Comment by The Branch Response to the Letter from Felix's Wife - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2020-06-01 17:40:57
[…] the article “A Weapon of Darkness” we find this delicious quote from an 18th century […]

Is Disfellowshipping/Excommunication Scriptural?

A 1980 Turn for the Worse

In summary

Archived Comments

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-05-27 13:19:51

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-27 14:24:54

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-28 19:25:39

Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-05-29 11:47:16

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-05-27 14:11:38

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-05-27 16:54:42

Comment by Chris on 2014-05-27 17:31:58

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-27 23:31:42

Comment by Katrina on 2014-05-28 07:02:58

Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-05-28 09:01:03

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-05-28 13:25:21

Reply by anderestimme on 2014-05-28 17:09:00

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-05-28 17:48:14

Reply by on 2014-05-28 13:04:49

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-05-28 09:37:06

Comment by peely on 2014-05-28 10:07:23

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-05-28 13:00:17

Reply by SilverTop on 2014-05-28 20:02:57

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-05-29 10:21:05

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-05-28 13:37:41

Reply by on 2014-05-28 14:51:09

Comment by Chris on 2014-05-28 17:39:04

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 19:03:39

Reply by Chris on 2014-05-28 20:26:44

Reply by Chris on 2014-05-28 20:32:37

Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 21:37:46

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-05-31 06:02:59

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 21:52:56

Reply by Chris on 2014-05-28 22:18:10

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-05-28 22:27:56

Comment by Katrina on 2014-05-28 23:16:24

Reply by KeepOnSeeking on 2014-05-28 23:45:03

Reply by Chris on 2014-05-29 00:14:48

Comment by JimmyG on 2014-05-29 04:45:07

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-29 08:17:57

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-29 14:02:32

Reply by Stachys of Rome on 2014-05-30 08:03:39

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-30 08:08:57

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-30 08:28:05

Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-05-30 13:09:20

Comment by brendaevans32 on 2014-05-29 11:48:21

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-30 09:49:40

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-05-30 10:20:44

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-05-30 11:23:45

Comment by Katrina on 2014-05-30 09:56:37

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-05-30 12:40:26

Comment by ¿Wheresenoch? on 2014-06-01 00:40:46

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-01 08:17:10

Comment by Sargon on 2014-06-01 09:12:44

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-01 09:23:43

Comment by ¿Wheresenoch? on 2014-06-01 12:42:33

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-01 21:41:53

Reply by on 2014-06-03 14:14:12

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-01 22:08:16

Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-01 23:04:09

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 09:48:11

Reply by on 2014-06-05 15:03:30

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-02 10:06:20

Comment by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 10:33:43

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-02 12:34:06

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-02 14:33:14

Reply by search4truth on 2014-06-03 02:54:25

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-06-02 15:27:57

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 09:40:12

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-06-03 10:07:53

Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-06-02 15:56:59

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-06-02 16:35:26

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 08:17:57

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-06-03 15:52:23

Reply by maxwellsmartjw on 2014-06-03 18:26:55

Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:27:31

Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:32:04

Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 19:33:13

Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-06-03 21:29:30

Reply by peely on 2014-06-04 10:56:52