Identifying the Faithful Slave – Part 3

– posted by meleti
[Click here to view Part 2]

In Part 2 of this series, we established that there is no scriptural evidence for the existence of a first century governing body. This begs the question, Is there scriptural evidence for the existence of the current one? This is critical to addressing the question of who the faithful and discreet slave really is.  The Governing Body members have borne witness that they are the slave Jesus was referring to.  They claim that the role of the slave is to be God’s appointed channel of communication.  Let’s not mince words here.  That role entitles them to be called God’s spokesman.  They have not gone so far as to actually say that, but if they are the channel by which Almighty God communicates with his servants, then they are for all intents and purposes His spokesman.  When Armageddon comes, Jehovah’s Witnesses expect that any direction from God as to what we are to do will come through this channel of communication.
So again we return to the question: Is there scriptural evidence to support all of this?
True, Jehovah had spokesmen in the past, but he always used individuals, never a committee.  Moses, Daniel, the apostle Paul, and foremost of all, Jesus Christ.  These spoke under inspiration.  Their credentials were established by God himself.  Their prophecies never—NEVER—failed to come true.
Let’s review:  1) Individuals, not committees; 2) Credentials established by God;  3) Spoke under inspiration; 4) Prophecies never failed to come true.
The Governing Body meets none of these criteria.  This is why when someone challenges a teaching of the Governing Body, the average Witness will not use Bible references in coming to their defense.  There simply are none.  So instead the defense runs something like this.  (To be brutally honest, I’ve used most of this reasoning myself in the recent past.)
“Look at the evidence of Jehovah’s blessing on His Organization.[i]  Look at our growth.  Look at our record of integrity-keeping in times of persecution.  Look at the love of the worldwide brotherhood.  What other organization on earth is even close?  If the Organization isn’t being blessed by Jehovah, how could we be accomplishing the worldwide preaching work?  If we are not the true religion, then who is?  Jehovah must be using the Governing Body to lead us, otherwise, we would not be enjoying His blessing.”
For most Witnesses this is sound, logical, virtually irrefutable reasoning.  We really don’t want it to be any other way, because the alternative leaves us adrift in a sea of uncertainty. However, as we approach the century mark since the Last Days supposedly started, some of us have begun to re-examine teachings we held to be bedrock.  Finding that some key doctrines are false has resulted in a great deal of inner turmoil.   The psychological term for this condition is “cognitive dissonance”.  On the one hand, we believe we are the true religion. On the other hand, we have come to realize that we are teaching some significant falsehoods; much more than can be explained away by the increasingly trite excuse: “The light is getting brighter”.
Is truth a quantitative thing?  If the Catholics have 30% of the truth (to pick a number out of the air) and the Adventists have say, 60%, and we have oh, I don’t know, 85%, can we still be the true religion while calling all the others false?  Where is the dividing line?  At which percentage point does a false religion become the true one?
There is a way out of this morass of conflicting thoughts and emotions, a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance that can otherwise destroy our spiritual tranquility.  That way is not denial which is the course many follow.  Troubled by decades of redefining a doctrine to the point of absurdity (Mt. 24:34 comes to mind) many Jehovah’s Witnesses simply refuse to consider the topic anymore; disdaining any conversation that might touch on the offending subject.  Simply put, they just “won’t go there”.  However, burying our disquieting thoughts deep in our subconscious will only do us harm, and worse, it is not the course approved by Jehovah.  How else can we understand the inspired expression: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thess. 5:21)

Resolving The Conflict


Resolving this conflict is crucial for our happiness and for re-establishing our relationship with Jehovah.  Speaking thematically, it has the added benefit of helping us to identify the faithful and discreet slave.
Let’s start by defining the elements of our belief as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

1)      Jehovah has an earthly Organization.
2)      Jehovah’s earthly Organization is the true religion.
3)      There is scriptural support for our modern day Organization.
4)      The empirical evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses make up God’s earthly Organization.
5)      The Governing Body is appointed by God to direct his earthly Organization.


Now let’s add in the elements that are causing us to question the above.

6)      There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus would ‘arrive’ invisibly during the last days.
7)      There is nothing in Scripture establishing 1914 as the start of this supposed second presence.
8)      There is nothing in Scripture proving that Jesus inspected his house from 1914 to 1918.
9)      There is nothing in Scripture proving that Jesus appointed the slave in 1919
10)   There is no evidence that the majority of Christians have no heavenly hope.
11)   There is no evidence that Christ is not the mediator for the majority of Christians.
12)   There is no evidence that most Christians are not God’s children.
13)   There is no evidence for a two-tier system of salvation.


The way many of our brothers would deal with the presentation of these last eight points would be to respond—probably with a good deal of vehemence and self-righteous, though well-meaning, condescension: “Jehovah didn’t appoint you as his faithful slave.  Do you think you’re smarter than the brothers on the Governing Body?  We have to trust those Jehovah has appointed.  If there are things that have to be corrected, then we must wait on Jehovah.  Otherwise, we may be guilty of ‘pushing ahead’.”
Those who say such things do not realize—in fact, they would never stop to question—the fact that much of what they have just expressed is (a) based on unproven assumptions, or (b) stands in conflict with known scriptural principles.  The fact is that they are far too emotionally invested in what the Organization represents to them to question its place in their life.  Like Saul, they will need a radical wake-up call—perhaps not a blinding revelation of the glorified Jesus Christ, but who knows—to shock them into re-evaluating their role in God’s unfolding purpose.  Our concern here is with those who, like myself, have already reached that point and are no longer willing to ignore the evidence, even though it means abandoning an albeit false sense of security.
So let us look at the first six points.  However, there is one last thing we need to do before getting underway.  We have to define the term ‘organization’.
(If you haven’t already figured it out, this whole post comes down to this one crucial point.)

What an Organization Is


The letterhead used by branch offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the word displays the term “Christian Congregation” which replaced “Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society” just a few years back.  However, in publications and by word of mouth, the word ‘organization’ is more frequently used.  Are we playing with words?  Are we “being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words”?  Really, are not ‘congregation’ and ‘organization’ simply synonymous concepts; different words to describe the same thing?  Let’s see.  (1 Tim. 6:3)
“Congregation” comes from the Greek word ekklesia[ii] which means ‘to call out’ or ‘to call forth’.  In Scripture, it refers to the people who God has called out of the nations for his name.  (Acts 15:14)
“Organization” comes from ‘organ’ which comes from Greek organon which means literally, “that with which one works”; essentially a tool or an instrument.  That is why the components of the body are called organs, and the entire body, an organism.  The organs are tools that the body works with to perform a task—keeping us alive and functioning.  An organization is the administrative counterpart to this, a body of people performing different tasks like the organs of your body, but who collectively serve the whole.  Of course, like the human body, to achieve anything, even to simply operate, an organization needs a head.  It needs a directing force; leadership in the form of one man, or a board of directors, who will ensure that the purpose of the organization is achieved.  Once that purpose has been achieved, the reason for the organization’s existence is gone.
There are many organizations in the world today: NATO, WHO, OAS, UNESCO.  The people of the world have created these organizations for specific tasks.
The congregation, those called out for Jehovah’s name, are a people. They will always exist. They can organize themselves for various tasks—construction, disaster relief, preaching—but all those tasks have a finite lifespan.  Those organizations will end, new ones will be created, but they are tools that ‘the people’ use to accomplish some purpose. The tool is not the people.
The stated chief purpose of the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to accomplish the worldwide preaching work before the end of this system of things.
Let us be perfectly clear here: We have no problem with the Christian Congregation being organized to accomplish some task.  Our Organization has ‘performed many powerful works in God’s name’, but that in and of itself does not ensure the approval of the Lord.  (Mt. 7:22, 23)

What an Organization Is Not


The danger with any organization is that it may take on a life of its own.  What often happens is that the tool used to serve the people is transformed into a thing which people must serve.  The reason this happens is that any organization must have humans directing it.  If there are no safeguards imposed on that human authority; if that authority can lay claim to divine right; then the warnings found at Eccl. 8:9 and Jer. 10:23 must apply.  God is not one to be mocked. What we sow, we reap.  (Gal. 6:7)
It is here where we can show the true difference between the Christian Congregation and the Organization.  These are not synonymous terms in our vernacular.

An Experiment


Try this. Open the Watchtower Library program.  Access the Search menu and set the Search Scope to “Sentence”. Then copy and paste this string of characters[iii] into the search field and hit Enter.

organi?ation | congregation & loyal*


You will find no reference in the NWT Bible to being loyal to either the congregation or the organization.  Now try this one.  We’re looking for instances of “obey”, “obeying” or “obedience”.

organi?ation | congregation & obe*


Again, no results from the NWT.
It seems Jehovah doesn’t expect us to obey or be loyal to the congregation.  Why? (Since organization is not used in Scripture, it doesn’t factor in at all.)
Did you also check out the number of results obtained for these two queries in The Watchtower?  Here are some examples:


    • “their fine example of loyalty to Jehovah and his organization.” (w12 4/15 p. 20)

    • “let us be determined to remain loyal to Jehovah and to the organization” (w11 7/15 p. 16 par. 8)

    • “That is not to say that it was easy for all who remained loyal to the organization to preach publicly.” (w11 7/15 p. 30 par. 11)

    • “By being obedient and loyal to the direction received from the earthly part of God’s organization,” w10 4/15 p. 10 par. 12



This helps to explain why the Bible never tells us to be loyal to an organization or congregation.  We can only be loyal and obedient to Jehovah and to someone or something else if the two are never in conflict.  It is inevitable that any organization run by imperfect humans, no matter how good the intentions of those men may be, will run afoul of God’s law from time to time.  Unquestioning obedience to the Organization will require us to disobey God—an unacceptable condition for a true Christian to be in.
Remember, an organization is a tool that serves the people who created it.  You do not obey a tool.  You would not be loyal to a tool.  You would not be expected to sacrifice your life or surrender up a brother for the good of the tool.  And when you have finished with the tool, when it has outlived its usefulness, you would simply discard it.

The Crux of the Matter


While the Organization is not synonymous with the Christian Congregation, it is synonymous with the Governing Body.  When we are told about "being obedient and loyal to the direction received from the earthly part of God’s organization", what is really meant is for us to obey what the Governing Body is telling us to do and to loyally support them.  (w10 4/15 p. 10 par. 12) “The slave says…” or “The Governing Body says…” or “The Organization says…”—these are all synonymous phrases.

Returning to the Argument


Now that we have defined what the Organization truly represents, let’s review the five points that form the basis of our official position.

1)      Jehovah has an earthly Organization.
2)      Jehovah’s earthly Organization is the true religion.
3)      There is scriptural support for our modern day Organization
4)      The empirical evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses make up God’s earthly Organization.
5)      The Governing Body is appointed by God to direct his earthly Organization.


The first point rests on the proof obtained from points 3 and 4. Without that proof, there is no evidence that point 1 is true.  Even the adjective ‘earthly’ suggests that there is a heavenly organization.  That is our belief, but what the Bible talks about is a heaven populated with angelic creatures performing myriads of tasks in God’s service.  Yes, they are organized, but the concept of a single universal organization as we’ve defined above is simply not scriptural.
We’ll skip over point 2 for now as that is an emotionally charged topic.
As for point 3, if there is scriptural support for our modern day Organization, I invite our readers to share it with us using the Comments feature of the site.  We have not found any.  True, there is ample support for the modern congregation, but as we’ve demonstrated, the two words express different concepts.  It is our current concept of the Organization as implemented by the Governing Body for which we are seeking and not finding scriptural support.
The main point of contention is number 4.  Most Witnesses believe the Organization is being blessed by Jehovah.  They take that apparent blessing as evidence of His endorsement of the Organization itself.

Does Jehovah Bless the Organization?


We look at the worldwide expansion of the Organization, and we see Jehovah’s blessing.  We look at the love and unity in the Organization, and we see Jehovah’s blessing.  We consider the Organization’s record of integrity under trial, and we see Jehovah’s blessing. So we conclude that this must be His Organization and the Governing Body must be working under his direction.  Is this sound reasoning or are we falling prey to the logical fallacy that deceived Jacob into thinking that putting spotted staffs in front of the flock would cause speckled sheep to be born?  (Gen. 30:31-43)  This is known as the fallacy of the false cause.
Are the blessings upon Jehovah’s congregation the result of actions taken by the Governing Body, or the result of faithful acts by the individuals involved at the grass roots level?
Consider this: Jehovah cannot bless an individual while simultaneously withholding blessing.  That makes no sense. The Organization is a single entity.  He cannot bless it and at the same time, withhold his blessing.  If we accept for the sake of argument that it is the Organization that is blessed rather than some of the individuals in the congregation, then what can be said when that blessing is patently not in evidence?
It may surprise some to think that there were times when the Organization was very much not being blessed by God.  Take for instance what happened in the 1920s.  Here’s a count of memorial attendance during that time, rounded to the nearest thousand

1922 – 33,000
1923 – 42,000
1924 – 63,000
1925 – 90,000
1926 – 89,000
1927 – N/A[iv]
1928 – 17,000[v]


Since we use the growth in the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses as ‘evidence’ of Jehovah’s blessing upon not just His people, not just His congregation, but His organization, we must in honesty take a loss of 4 out of every 5 members as evidence of the withholding of that blessing.  Jehovah blesses acts of faith and obedience.  Going beyond the things that are written and teaching falsehoods are neither and are condemned in the Bible, so naturally Jehovah wouldn’t bless an organization practicing such things. (1 Cor. 4:6; Deut. 18:20-22)  Do we attribute this 80% drop in memorial attendance to Jehovah having withdrawn his blessing?  We do not!  We blame, not the leadership which misled the congregation with false hope, but the members themselves.  Our common reason of late is that some did not want to participate in the door-to-door work and fell away.  The facts do not support this prevarication.  The push to ‘advertise the king and his kingdom’ began in 1919.  The push to have regular field service (as we now call it) by having all congregation members participate in the door-to-door preaching work began in 1922.   We experienced phenomenal growth up from 1919 to 1925.  This belies the claim that any reduction in numbers was due to the failure of some to obey Christ’s command to make disciples.
No,  the evidence is strong that four out of five left the Organization because they realized that the men they had been following were teaching them false doctrine.  Why do we not imitate the candor of the Bible writers in admitting our error and taking responsibility for it?  When Jehovah blesses the efforts of faithful individuals in making disciples, our numbers grow.  However, we claim this shows his blessing upon the entity which is the Organization. However, when our numbers decrease, we are quick to shift the blame the rank and file for ‘lacking faith’, rather than the leadership; rather than the Organization.
The same thing happened again in 1975.  Numbers increased based on false hope and fell when disillusionment set in.   Again, we blamed the rank and file for lack of faith, but the leadership took little if any responsibility for teaching falsehood.

Explaining the Blessing


Still, some will counter, how can you explain the blessings we are receiving.  We don’t have to because the Bible explains them for us.  Jehovah blesses faith and obedience.  For example, Jesus told us to “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations…” (Mt. 28:19)  If some enterprising Christians in modern times choose to make use of printing technology to accomplish this work more effectively, Jehovah will bless them.  As they continue to organize and gather others to their cause, Jehovah will continue to bless them.  He blesses individuals.  If some of those individuals begin to use their newfound position to ‘beat their fellow slaves’, they will find that Jehovah will begin to withdraw His blessing.  Not necessarily all at once, just as He continued to bless King Saul for a time until there came a point of no return.  But even if He withholds blessing from some, He can still bless others.  So the work gets done, but some will take credit for it when all credit should go to God.

Disarming the Argument


So the argument that the Governing Body has been appointed by God because Jehovah is blessing his Organization is rendered moot.  Jehovah blesses his people, not collectively, but individually.  Get enough genuine Christians together and it may look like the entity we call the Organization is being blessed, but it is still the individuals who are getting the holy spirit.
God doesn’t pour out his holy spirit on an administrative concept, but on living creatures.

In Summary


The purpose of this post has been to demonstrate that we cannot use the argument that there is an earthly organization set up by God and directed by the Governing Body to prove their claim to being not only the faithful and discreet slave, but also God’s appointed channel of communication.  In our next post, we’ll try to show from Scripture who really is that slave.
However, in discussing this topic, we have touched on a very emotional subject (the skipped point #2) which should not be left unanswered.

Are We the True Religion?


I grew up with the belief that I was in the one true religion.  I believed that all other religions were going to be destroyed as part of Babylon the Great in fulfillment of Revelation chapter 18.  I believed that as long as I stayed within the arklike, mountainlike Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would be saved.

“How urgent it is in the short remaining time for one to identify himself with the New World society within the arklike new system of things!“ (w58 5/1 p. 280 par. 3)


“…taking refuge in Jehovah and his mountainlike organization.” (w11 1/15 p. 4 par. 8)


From earliest childhood, I have been taught that we have the truth, in fact, that we are ‘in the truth’. You are either in the truth or in the world.  It’s a very binary approach to salvation.  There was even a mechanism for dealing with the times we have been wrong about things, like 1975 or the meaning of “this generation”.   We would say that Jehovah hadn’t chosen to reveal those things to us yet, but that He lovingly corrected us when we had deviated and because we love truth, we humbly accepted the correction and adjusted our way of thinking to bring the Organization more in line with the divine purpose.
The key to all this is that we love truth and so when we come to realize that we are wrong about something we humbly change, not holding on to false teachings and the traditions of men. That attitude is what sets us apart from all the other religions on earth. That is the distinguishing feature of true religion.
This was all well and good until I came to learn that beliefs that are core to our religion—that distinguish us from all other religions in Christendom—are not based on Scripture, and that for decades we have been resisting all attempts made to rectify these erroneous teachings.  Worse, we deal most harshly with those who will not be quiet about these errors in doctrine.
Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24)
He doesn’t refer to an entity like some true Organization or even some true religion, but the “true worshipers”.  He’s focusing on the individuals.
Worship is about reverence of God.  It is about having a relationship with God.  It can be illustrated by the relationship between a father and his young children.  Each child should love the father, and the father loves each in a special one-on-one relationship.  Each child has faith that the father always keeps his word, so each child is loyal and obedient.  All the children are in one big family.  You would not compare a family to an organization.  It would not be an apt comparison, because a family doesn’t have a goal, a singular purpose for which it is organized.  A family simply is.  You could compare the congregation to a family however.  That is why we refer to each other as brothers.  Our relationship with the Father does not depend on an organization of any kind.  Nor is there a need to codify this relationship into a belief system.
That we have an organization to help us perform certain tasks can be helpful.  For example, the latest efforts to translate and publish the good news in languages spoken by only a tiny minority shows the diligence and dedication of countless true Christians.  However, there is always the danger of confusing the tool with true worship.  If we do, we can become just like every other ‘organized religion’ on the face of the earth.  We begin to serve the tool, rather than using it to serve us.
Jesus spoke of a separating work done by angels in which first the weeds are bound in bundles, after which the wheat is gathered into the Master’s storehouse.  We teach that the storehouse is the Organization and the gathering began in 1919.  Ignoring for the moment that there is no scriptural evidence for that date, one has to ask: Would Jehovah use as a storehouse an organization that persists in teaching falsehoods?  If not, then what is it?  And why did Jesus say the weeds are gathered first and wrapped in bundles to be burned.
Rather than trying to find some organized religion and stamping it with the label “the true religion”, perhaps we should recall that Jesus’ first century disciples were not part of some organization, but rather were simply true worshippers who worshipped in spirit and truth.   They didn’t even have a name until sometime (likely 46 C.E.) when they were first called Christians in the city of Antioch, Syria.  (Acts. 11:26)
Therefore, the true religion is Christianity. 
If you or I as individuals  worship the Father in spirit and truth, then we will reject false doctrine.  That is the essence of Christianity.   Individuals stocks of wheat (true Christians) will continue to grow amongst weeds (imitation Christians) until the harvest—which didn’t begin in 1919.  Can we do so while remaining in an Organized religion which doesn’t teach the whole truth?  The simple truth is that true Christians have been doing just that for the past 2,000 years.  That is the point of Jesus’ illustration.  That is why the wheat and weeds are so hard to separate until the harvest.
The Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is helpful to us in accomplishing many good things, even powerful works. It is a useful tool to help us to gather together with likeminded Christians and continue to incite each other to love and fine works.  (Heb. 10:24, 25)  Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are accomplishing fine works and appear to be wheat, while others even now seem to be manifesting the characteristics of weeds. However, we cannot know for sure which is which.  We don’t read hearts and the harvest is not yet.  During the conclusion of the system of things, the wheat and weeds will be distinguishable.
There will come a time when the cry will go out that Babylon the great has fallen.  (There is no scriptural reason to believe this already occurred in 1918.)   It is interesting that the exhortation found at Rev. 18:4 “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins…” is evidently addressed to true Christians while they are still in Babylon the Great; otherwise, why call them out of her?  At that time, wheat-like Christians will recall the dire warning of Revelation 22:15: “Outside are the dogs and…everyone liking and carrying on a lie.”
What will become of the Organization as an entity, only time will tell.  A people may continue, but an organization if finite. It is formed to accomplish something and is not needed when that goal has been attained.  It surely will end when it has accomplished its purpose, but the congregation will go on.
There is a curious illustration which Jesus uses at Mt. 24:28.  After telling his true worshipers not to be deceived into believing in false hidden presences of the Son of man, he speaks of a carcass above which eagles are flying.  Some entity will be dead, but individual true worshippers likened to far-sighted eagles will once again gather together for their salvation just before the start of Armageddon.
Whatever that turns out to be, let us prepare ourselves to be among them when that time arrives. Our salvation depends not on obedience to an Organization or group of men, but on faith, loyalty and obedience to Jehovah and his anointed king.  That is how we worship God in spirit and truth.
 
Click here to go to Part 4




[i] I’ve decided to capitalize Organization from now on when used in this context, because like Governing Body which our publications capitalize, it refers to a specific entity.


[ii] Ekklesia is the root for “church” in most Romance languages: église – French; iglesia – Spanish; chiesa – Italian.


[iii] These criteria will limit the results to any occurrence of the words “loyal” or “loyally” or “loyalty” and either of the preceding two words. (The question mark in organi?ation will find both the American and British spelling.)


[iv]  After 1926 we stopped publishing these figures, presumably because they were too discouraging.


[v] Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, pages 313 and 314

Archived Comments

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

  • Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-08-12 11:20:49

    Thanks for all your hard work Meleti.
    In my opinion this is a milestone article. I was already in agreement with you over the distinction between organization and congregation (or brotherhood), but never before have I appreciated with such clarity why this is so true from a scriptural perspective.
    You have separated the issues in a remarkable way and shown how serious errors in thinking have entered in by those who believe in the rightness of an Organization above all.
    Apollos

  • Comment by anderestimme on 2013-08-12 12:38:41

    When you mentioned the way organizations can come to have a life of their own, I couldn’t help but think of the ‘image of the wild beast’ in Revelation 13:15
    “And there was granted it to give breath to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who would not in any way worship the image of the wild beast.”
    We might call it the “deified organization syndrome”. It’s a danger all human organizations run, and I would guess that the nobler the cause, the greater the vulnerability. Nearly a century and a half after its inception, our organization is in very real danger of fulfilling the description above.

  • Comment by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-12 13:17:16

    Thanks Meleti for this article. I find this somewhat of a relief.
    1) I have often thought that if we have the truth, then when we "refine:" our thinking, did this mean we didn't have the truth before? Or do we have the truth now? Its either we have 100% truth or we don't. I loved the explanation of the truth as a percentage. Really, at what point does false religion become true religion? A good question.
    2) There has never been any scriptural evidence that if a representative of Jehovah had a message for his people that they got it wrong. I just cant believe that Jehovah would abandon that standard today.
    3) I find that our arrogance in stating that we are not only the true religion, but also demonizing those who disagree with even the smallest teachings so galling. Especially since we have made so many missteps in the past.
    I especially appreciated the way you handled the question as to whether we are the true religion. I know that many of our brothers and sisters are heavily invested in our organization. Many, including myself, have given our whole lives to this organization. However as time has gone on, and our understandings of things changed i could see that we may have become lost. That is not to say that i have given up on JW, but i can see more clearly the separate parts and how they relate to the whole.
    I will digest and add some thoughts later as they come to me.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-12 13:37:36

      Thank you, Hezekiah1. Writing this post was a real challenge, but it helped me to get these issues straight in my own mind.
      I look forward to reading your additional thoughts soon.

  • Comment by vascagase on 2013-08-12 13:18:50

    Meleti V. why are you taking out my comments? what are you afraid of?....The Truth..

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-12 13:35:17

      The "Commenting Etiquette" page of the site lays down clear guidelines.
      See http://meletivivlon.com/commenting-etiquette/
      We want the site to be a place where Jehovah's Witnesses can come and engage in honest and open discussions of scriptural issues. Mutual respect for each other's person, feelings and beliefs is crucial to maintaining that atmosphere. The guidelines do not hinder free and candid speech, but applying them will preserve the peace and harmony which is key to upbuilding one another in the spirit of the Lord.
      Might I suggest that when you feel strongly about some subject that you draft your comment and then reread it several times. This will help you to re-evaluate the tone and will also serve to proofread both spelling and sentence syntax.
      Your comments will be welcomed whenever they conform to the forum guidelines.

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-12 14:17:24

    Excellent article, Meleti. I'ved always had a problem with the expression, "Member" of the GB. Sounds to me like some exclusive Men's Club.Thought about this during yesterday's WT study addressing the subject of "Impartiality".

  • Comment by anderestimme on 2013-08-12 14:28:27

    I thought about accessibility during yesterday's WT study. Apparently, it doesn't apply to the Organization or the GB since they have made no attempt to listen to what the 'rank and file' have to say.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-12 15:01:31

      Excellent point! If a publisher writes into the branch asking a question about some scriptural interpretation, the letter is filed. If too many letters come in, they will inform the body of elders who will be directed to deal with the matter. Not exactly an inducement to free and unfettered access.

    • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-12 15:31:02

      Yes anderestimme, I learned a long time ago that free speech is for the outside world. If a suggestion is offered without request, it is not looked on in the most favorable light. That is why I am grateful we have forums like this in which to have frank and honest discussion regarding Bible truth.
      I was thinking yesterday as i read the WT how Jehovah deals with his servants in a most dignified way. He truly is impartial and approachable. We are told to imitate HIS qualities, yet i see, as you have pointed out, it doesn't apply to those who rule over us. The gap in between what we say and the reality is noticeable. For example, when the daughters of Zelophehad came to Moses with their dilemma, Jehovah made an exception the rule! Have you seen the same impartiality in your own KH? What would a group of sisters be called today if they had done the same thing as Zelophehad's daughters? I think you see my point.
      That being said, our discussion yesterday was still encouraging, because it reminds us of the kind way Jehovah deals with us individually. Even if those who rule over us may act how they want, we can still be pleasing to Jehovah on an individual basis by treating others as he does. I find that realization very refreshing.

      • Reply by Andronicus on 2013-08-12 16:18:46

        I agree, hezekiak1. After all is said and done we still have to carry our own load and walk very closely in the footsteps of the Master. 1 Peter 2:21

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-12 16:51:00

      One comment on paragraph 7 yesterday went something like this:
      “Even the military allows a soldier the expression, ‘Permission to speak freely, sir!’ to address his commanding officer—the point being that elders should not to be so commanding that we need to ask the same when approaching them.”

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-12 16:59:12

    Have any of you that are Brothers, as I am, had a chance to actually make an expression of what you really belive in any congregation meeting without any backlash? Just like to know.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-13 09:50:31

      I fear that in most congregations that would be most unwise. The power of Groupthink is too strong. (See SmolderingWicks1 comment below.)

    • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-13 10:31:57

      Hello Andronicus, I really thought about this before I put it in writing. The reason is that it pains me to tell the truth in this regard. I have always thought we as JW were open and welcoming. Quick to help others when they had questions. Yet I can see we have developed a suspicious attitude towards our brothers and sisters in this regard.
      I would think that speaking about your feelings with others can be a problem. I know firsthand of situations where a brother has spoken about his feelings to a trusted friend, and more than a year later it came back to bite him.
      I have seen this type of situation many times. It seems to me that many JW think a person is an apostate, before thinking of discussing their concerns. True, there are many apostates, yet many of our brothers just have genuine concerns about the things being taught. If a person came saying he was a policeman, we may ask him to show ID. Yet, if we were asking for someone who says they are God's spokesman to prove it, then we are disloyal, apostate? And when we use the Bible to show where we are not correct, then that is subversive?
      Its a strange situation we find ourselves in. I am not saying trust no one, but be very cautious.

      • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-13 12:24:09

        Yes HEZEKIAH1, Caution IS the better part of valor.
        I am often reminded of when we would send our brothers into the field ministry how Jesus trained the apostles and later 70 others yet somehow we missed reminding them that the ones being visited were fellow Jews who were already firmly pummeled by the scribes and Pharisees in their synagogues to believe that any teaching beyond theirs was false.
        Hence Jesus warning in Matthew 10:16, 17: "Look! I am sending YOU forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves. Be on YOUR guard against men; for they will deliver YOU up to local courts, and they will scourge YOU in their synagogues."

        • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-13 12:32:30

          Sorry that wasn't worded well. It should have read "yet somehow WE missed reminding them."

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-13 15:49:58

            Hi SmolderingWick1,
            I've fixed the comment for you.
            Meleti

    • Reply by erick on 2013-08-13 18:45:40

      Andronicus, I'll respond to your question. There is really no way to say what one believes openly without backlash.
      When I stepped down as elder for many of the reasons that have been mentioned on this blog I naively thought that although the other elders wouldn't agree with me they would at least respect my viewpoint.
      How wrong I was. It was stated I was prideful and arrogant when nothing could be farther from the truth. The Society has always stated that if someone no longer agrees with them it is out of pride and the local elders of course went right along with that description. I was called a "tool of Satan". There were other names and descriptions attached to me as well. All of this because I decided to use my conscience and not just be a "yes man".
      I was asked the question of questions when it comes to determining organizational loyalty. "Do you believe this is Jehovah's one true organization?" I lied and said yes. My conscience bothered me but any other answer would have resulted in disfellowshipping.
      After the total of 5 meetings with the elders and C.O. I was emotionally drained. People who I'd known for years and who I thought were my friends now viewed me as dangerous, mentally diseased, and a helper in Satan's kitchen. This used to be hard on me knowing what others now thought of me. Now I fully realize that this org. to a large degree has caught the disease of the Pharisees. If Jesus was in the flesh today, I doubt that they would even recognize him.

      • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-13 19:20:33

        If I might encourage you, erick, there comes a time when we would be wise simply to refuse to answer a "do you believe..." question. Jesus often simply asked another question. We might even ask them whether they believe that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon? I'm sure that if all were asked, not 50% of us would be so bold as to say yes.
        But let's just say that Jehovah has chosen this as his organization. How many of us can honestly say that we will be saved simply by believing and staying within the confines of it? Did Jesus not say that belief alone can deceive us? Did he not say, "Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:21-23)

        • Reply by erick on 2013-08-13 21:23:41

          Thank you Sm1. I've learned to refuse to talk with the elders about my opinions about the organization. They have wanted several times to go over Watchtower articles that deal with loyalty to the org. and I've only thanked them for their concern and said that I'd let them know if I wanted to talk.
          I would discourage any MS or elder who wants to step down from their assignment from telling the real reason why they desire to step down. I would simply say that stress has interfered with your ability to serve. This would no doubt be true for almost any elder or MS who wakes up to the truth about the org.

        • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-14 09:57:54

          Understood TOTALLY, erick.
          Fortunately my reasons were not shared and I have done just as you said. When you said "It was stated I was prideful and arrogant when nothing could be farther from the truth," this also happened to me when I began to partake of the emblems at memorial. I was accused of elevating myself as superior above everyone else, but when FDS status was taken away from all anointed except the Governing Body, I was able to point to recent Watchtower articles to prove that I was anything but superior. Indeed, there is a pecking order isn't there?

  • Comment by Dorcas on 2013-08-12 17:14:58

    Thank you for your continued hard work in our behalf. I was truly speechless after reading your commentary. You use a fine line of reasoning that is easy to follow.
    I've stopped using the term "the Truth" because I've come to realize that what we're teaching is not pure and many things are not the truth. How well you've analyzed this!
    I no longer have faith in the Organization or in every word that comes down the pipeline. It was my error for ever doing so. Your writings have helped me to clear away so much fluff from my own faith. I am getting down to what is really important. I was so discouraged at one point.
    It is my prayer that you continue writing such articles because you are feeding us in a way we are not getting from our meetings or the literature. Our lack of true spiritual food is something that has pained me for several years and nearly caused me to give up.
    I appreciate everyone's input in the comments section but especially the fact that Meleti monitors the dialogue and is, for the most part, positive.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-12 19:44:49

      Thank you for your kind words, Dorcas. I find as I prepare these commentaries that I'm learning as I write. But for me the biggest benefit is that others are moved to share their insights and research, so that all are enriched. This was our hope in starting this forum. My hope now is that this trend continues to grow as more and more brothers and sisters overcome the indoctrinated bias against expressing themselves freely on the internet and participate. Used for things like this, the internet is an incredible tool which allows like-minded Christians from all over the world to fellowship in a safe environment.
      It is a challenge at times to maintain a positive tone with regard to the comments as one doesn't wish to stifle free expression. It's not always an easy line to walk, but I shall endeavor to improve.

  • Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-12 17:19:55

    Dear Meleti,
    You analysis of the organization reminds me of something I studied several years ago called "groupthink"—When too much cohesion is a dangerous thing in groups where the members become more concerned about maintaining positive group spirit than about making realistic decisions.
    Examples of groupthink that have been studied include the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in the 1960s, the Vietnam War, and the space shuttle Challenger disaster in January 1986.
    The major symptoms are identified and described below:
    SYMPTOM: Illusion of invulnerability
    DESCRIPTION: Ignoring obvious danger signals, overoptimism, taking extreme risks
    SYMPTOM: Collective rationalization
    DESCRIPTION: Discrediting or ignoring contrary warning signals.
    SYMPTOM: Unquestioned morality
    DESCRIPTION: Believing the group position is ethical and moral and that all others are inherently evil
    SYMPTOM: Excessive negative stereotyping
    DESCRIPTION: Viewing the opposing side as being too negative to warrant serious consideration
    SYMPTOM: Strong conformity pressure
    DESCRIPTION: Discouraging the expression of dissenting opinions under the threat of expulsion for disloyalty
    SYMPTOM: Self-censorship of dissenting ideas
    DESCRIPTION: Withholding dissenting ideas and counterarguments, keeping them to oneself
    SYMPTOM: Illusion of unanimity
    DESCRIPTION: Sharing the false belief that everyone in the group agrees with its judgments
    SYMPTOM: Self-appointed mindguards
    DESCRIPTION: Protecting the group from negative, threatening information
    When group members become fiercely loyal to each other they may ignore potentially useful information from other sources that challenges the group’s decisions. The result of this process is that the group’s decision may be completely uninformed, irrational, or even immoral.

  • Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-12 19:49:29

    Thank you, SmolderingWick1. That left me reeling. I can see the parallel point by point as I read down the list. What a sobering revelation. One can only wonder at what other practices common among us are merely the result of, not divine direction, but Groupthink. Would you mind if I borrowed this to work into a future post?

  • Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-12 21:59:02

    By all means, Meleti, Anything I can do to assist you I will do. We are in such need to help our brothers within ..... I'm actually praying for those in positions of oversight because they're in an impossible dilemma.
    When I began studying there was hope of repentance for our organizational sins but now that the Governing Body has taken such a Pharisaical stand, we who cling to Christ have needed to become surreptitious, guarded in all of our speech. I know why they have done this. And it's the very reason Jesus targeted the scribes and Pharisees. They took 99% of the truth and made it 1% false which is the height of hypocrisy.
    sw

  • Comment by A searcher for truth on 2013-08-13 02:54:56

    This is a very well researched and written article and very thought provoking.
    My simple opinion of who would be able to identify the "faithful slave" would be that you would not be able to identify him (group) not for sure anyway, but Jesus certainly would as he is the one who will be inspecting them.
    This "faithful slave" would also be very "discreet" not blowing their own trumpet that they are the "faithful slave".
    They would virtually be doing this, without hardly any of the domestics knowing that it is they who are feeding and caring for them.
    Of course from our own earthly perspective we could assume who the "faithful slave" is as we find spiritual food that resonates with us, but we would not actually be sure until that "faithful slave" is rewarded as being appointed over all of Christ's belongings. And it would be obvious beyond any doubt.
    But I do believe that Jesus did relate this as a parable other than it being of a prophetic nature, but it is pointing to a condition that ought to exist in God's household if Jesus teachings are being observed and God's true household of Christ's followers could be identified by it, not by a sect or a religion or organization by by groups of people who are being spiritually fed with nourishing food by enlightened spirit led Sons and spiritually mature followers of Christ.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-14 18:32:02

      We seem to be of one mind on this. I'm looking forward in the next post to exploring the two accounts of the faithful slave in depth.
      Thanks for sharing these thoughts.
      The comments on this particular post have been most upbuilding.

  • Comment by Harrison Webster on 2013-08-13 06:11:53

    Thank you once again Meleti, as said above you have clearly outlined what we were thinking but had not put in to words. I cannot fault your article, either scripturally or logically.
    The only argument one could use against your words is as you say toward the end, an emotional one, but Truth and Emotion are often not good bedfellows.
    I was baptised way back in 1962, so my "dedication" was to Jehovah and Jesus, I was not baptised in to an Organization as later JW's were, and I never vowed loyalty to one.
    Even so, I feel pain that the Organization I have supported, believing that Jehovah had an interest in using it alone, especially as it bore His name, I am pained that now I feel that as a lover of Truth,, and a man who follows the dictates of his Bible trained conscience, the time is approaching when I will have to withdraw my support in any way.
    Quite how this will work out, as all my close family are JW's, I do not know.
    But, God is a God of Truth, and He has no fellowship with falsehood, so I feel that I must seek to do His will as I see I must from his word, but not in association with men of lies, with whom the Bible tells us not to "sit".
    Thank you again, even though a small part of me wishes I did not know what I now do, having read your words.
    Keep up the good work of telling what is True.
    Harrison.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-13 10:12:57

      We have a lot in common, Harrison. We're both longtime Witnesses facing a serious conscientious decision--a personal turning point, if you will. Like you, my dedication was to Jehovah, not the Organization, but I have given my life to its cause. Jehovah remembers the work we have done in his name, so I get comfort from that. Besides, if we are to live forever, these past decades are a drop in the bucket. Still, the threat of a disfellowshipping and the subsequent cutting off from one's family and friends makes any course of action we decide upon far from trivial.
      Coincidentally, today I was reading the account in Mt. 21:18-22 where Jesus curses the fruitless fig tree and it instantly withers. It seems like a petulant action, but we know our Lord is not petulant. So why did he do it? To teach us a lesson about the power of faith it seems; and to show us who willing Jehovah is to answer our prayers if said in faith; to benefit us individually, even in small ways.
      I'm sure any decision you take in faith and after much prayer will be blessed by Jehovah. Please let us know how it works out for you. You have our prayers.
      Meleti

  • Comment by BeenMislead on 2013-08-13 08:57:42

    Thank you for this post Meleti !!!
    I appreciated how you laid out the break-down of Jehovah’s spokesmen in the past:
    1) Individuals, not committees;
    2) Credentials established by God;
    3) Spoke under inspiration;
    4) Prophecies never failed to come true;
    Many of us can see that the GB does not fit the above criteria.
    When men attach God's name to their private interpretations, say that they are doing it on the basis of the Bible, build up arguments for these from the Bible, and assert that they are God's "channel" of communication—what is the effect when their interpretations prove false?
    Does it honor God or build up faith in Him and in the reliability of his Word?
    Or is the opposite the result?
    The memorial attendance drop after 1925 I think answers that!

  • Comment by Vassy on 2013-08-14 03:57:02

    Hi Meleti,
    It is not my intention to defend the Organization or condone the attitude of the GB as is noticeable over the last years, but I'm afraid that many brothers, disillusioned by many errors within the Organization, go to the other extreme and discard everything related to the notion of 'organization'.
    Many brothers have, over the last years, adopted the concept that God did not have an organization in the first century. True, there was no corporation, as is now the WTS, but God's people have always been organized. And even if the concept of organization is not explicitly stated, it is nonetheless implied in the Scriptures. For instance, Gamaliel said "because if these scheme or this WORK [ergon] is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God....". Based on this reasoning, I think brothers are correct in saying that, yes, God blessed this organization, considering the opposition it had to face in the past and even now.
    I see many here are eager to discard anything related to organization, but no one proposed an alternative method. How could a group of people accomplish a particular work unless they are organized? Were the first century Christians disorganized? Does not Eph 4:11-16 indicate a divinely organized body for the purpose of living in unity and accomplishing the ascribed work? In your previous post, you raised some questions about how God’s people are expected to function in modern times. But you failed to address any of those questions in the current post. For instance, how can Christians be protected against being “carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching” without a centralized, unifying governing body? Who should settle the matter in case disputes or promotion of sects arise? Who has the authority to determine that this or that person promotes a sect? Of course, the apostles did not lord over the brothers as the current GB do to a particular degree, but they held authority at least in regard to teaching and even in other matters as well (imparting the gifts of the Spirit, appointing brothers for various assignments).
    As for Acts 15, it is simply not true that the issue of circumcision was brought to Jerusalem for the sole reason that it originated there. First, the account says that “certain men came down from Judea”. Judea had more than one congregation (Gal 1:22). The “us” in Acts 15:24 does not necessarily refer to the Jerusalem congregation. It could have been any other congregation or congregations in Judea. But regardless of the situation, the fact that the apostles “did not give them any instructions” to impose circumcision upon gentile Christians bespeaks the apostles’ authority over congregations with respect to teaching. What course would have been followed if the troublemakers had come from other area, not Judea? Where would the matter have been settled? And who would have had the authority to settle the matter? And last but not least, if the apostles had no authority over other evangelizers, then why did Paul say he presented the good news before the apostles “for fear that somehow [he] was running or had run in vain” (Gal. 2:2)? I think these questions need pertinent answers.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-14 09:17:34

      Hi Vassy,
      As I've stated both in this post and others, I have no problem with the idea of being organized for accomplishing a purpose. It is not the concept of organization which is being challenged but the fact that the Organization has become something far more than a group of Christians organized to perform a function or carry out a work. The authority of this Organization has, in many instances, replaced the authority of the Christ. What Eph. 4:11-16 depicts is a spiritual organism with Jesus as the head. This is not what we have. The illustration on page 29 of the April 15, 2013 The Watchtower graphically demonstrates that the head of Jesus has been removed from the body.
      You state: "In your previous post, you raised some questions about how God’s people are expected to function in modern times. But you failed to address any of those questions in the current post."
      True, but this is only Part 3 of the series. There is more to come.
      You ask: "...how can Christians be protected against being “carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching” without a centralized, unifying governing body?"
      You are quoting Eph. 4:11 and the answer comes from the context. Those whom Jesus had appointed as 'apostles, prophets, evangelizers, shepherds and teachers' are the ones who were in place to protect the body of the Christ. No mention is made in these verses of a centralized governing body accomplishing that work. The body of Christ, the true congregation of called out ones has survived for centuries during the most difficult of times. The persecution they suffered throughout history was because a centralized governing body viewed their faithful work as a challenge to its authority. These tiny groups of true Christians weathered this tribulation because Jesus gave them shepherds, teachers, and the rest, not least of which were the inspired Scriptures so that each one could "attain to...the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ."
      You ask: "Who has the authority to determine that this or that person promotes a sect?"
      You do! Also, the local congregation as a whole does. Would you associate with someone promoting a sect? The rebuke of the many would send this fellow on his way. Paul's words to Titus on the subject speak nothing of the requirement to write in to a centralized governing body to have them rule on the matter. (Titus 3:10) These matters were always settled locally, never by some centralized authority.
      You say: "the apostles did not lord over the brothers as the current GB do to a particular degree"

      Quite true. Additionally, the apostles were divinely appointed by Christ to perform the tasks of teaching and of passing on the gifts of the spirit. There is no mention of forming a centralized authority to govern the first century congregation. Besides, our claim isn't that the alleged first century governing body was comprised of the apostles, but that all the older men of Jerusalem comprised it--presumably hundreds of brothers.
      You say: "The “us” in Acts 15:24 does not necessarily refer to the Jerusalem congregation. It could have been any other congregation or congregations in Judea."
      That this attitude was prevalent throughout Judea and Jerusalem even years later is evident from what was said to Paul upon his later return to the city. "You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law." (Acts 21:20) The Jewish Christians had still not broken free from the influence of Jewish traditions and culture. How else can we explain the actions of Cephas when certain men from James arrived in Antioch? (Gal. 2:11-14) There simply was no other place to go but Jerusalem to resolve the conflict that arose when other "certain men" arrived in Antioch.
      You ask: "What course would have been followed if the troublemakers had come from other area, not Judea? Where would the matter have been settled? And who would have had the authority to settle the matter?"

      This is a hypothetical question, so let me give you a hypothetical answer, one that is at least based on scriptural precedent. The matter would have been resolved by first sending a delegation to the city or area causing the dispute. If it was not resolved, then Jesus would have taken over by sending someone like Paul to resolve the issue. There were serious issues involving seven congregation in the final decade of the first century. Jesus did not use a centralized authority to resolve them, but rather inspired the final one of the apostles to write to them.
      You ask: "if the apostles had no authority over other evangelizers..."
      No one is suggesting the apostles had no authority. Quite the contrary. Their authority is well documented. What is in contention is whether the apostles governed over the first century congregation. What is in question is whether not only the apostles, but a group of older men governed over the congregation. If so, then this body of governance continued to exist long after the apostles were gone. What history teaches us is that Yes there was such a governing body, but only after 'he who exercises a restraint' was gone. (2 Thess. 2:6) Men exalted themselves and began to govern the body of Christ and with all such human government, it did not go well for the governed.
      It is hard for humans to embrace the true freedom of the Christ. We want to be governed by others. We want others to take the responsibility away from us. We willingly give up our freedom for the false sense of security that comes when someone we believe is better and smarter is telling us what to do and what not to do. Like the Israelites of old we 'want a king to rule over us'. (1 Sam. 8:19) But like those same Israelites, we fail to heed God's warning that a king, rather than give us security will oppress us. (1 Sam. 8:11-18) When Jehovah tells us not to put trust "in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs", he is not just speaking of worldly authorities and governments. History has shown without exception that trusting in men for our salvation goes badly.
      Your initial scriptural reference is particularly germane to this matter. If we are to be "full-grown" men (and women) and reach "the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ" we must learn to distinguish for ourselves what is the truth. We have to learn to stand on our own two feet. We have the hope of ruling as kings, but first we must stop being slaves of men. We must gain the "accurate knowledge of the Son of God" and understand his way of ruling.
      Your concern was that we need a centralized authority to keep us from being "tossed about...and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. But speaking the truth..." (Gal. 4:14, 15) We know now that the Governing Body has not always been teaching us truth. In fact, the winds of change have blown often as various interpretations continue to be changed every decade or so. Yet we eagerly jump on the bandwagon, never questioning or doubting. Are we not the ones being carried "hither and thither"? You suggest that we need a governing body to avoid being taught falsehood by the trickery and cunning of men who expertly contrive error. But who will protect us if those men are the ones we've designated to protect us. The fact is, we have all the protection we need in God's inspired word. We only need the faith and the courage to embrace it and stand for what is right.
      Jesus called out a new nation, one that was to abandon the old model of human government and be ruled by the Christ. We have the glorious opportunity to be part of that nation. But first we must abandon old ways of thinking.
      Thank you. I very much appreciate the opportunity you've given me to answer your questions.
      Meleti

      • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-14 10:28:35

        Dear Meleti,
        Not to take away from anything you have said and Vassy's concern over some "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," but just to remind all of our present-day platform as it has been compared to that of the first century congregation.
        We must be accountable for what we have stated. Even our second baptismal question states clearly that we are now in association with "God's spirit-directed organization." If such is now the case, then we have made ourselves accountable to that spiritual claim and as such have put ourselves upon the same platform as those of the first century. But are we even close to first century Christianity?
        I recall inviting two Mormon boys in when they called upon me years ago. They were attempting to tell me that God had inspired and directed Joseph Smith, that angels had delivered to him the inspired writings of the Book of Mormon. When I asked whether any Scholars were consulted as to its authenticity so that it should be added to the Bible, they were quick to reply that it was their belief that would soon happen.
        These are questions I raise today whenever matters of spirit-direction versus inspiration are raised in the brotherhood. Are we yet to the caliber of Christians that we can say we are so inspired? And if we keep insisting that we are, then we had better get busy proving it by writing with the same authority as those of the first century because if we say we are directed by the spirit and we were not, then we will be held more accountable than those poor Mormon boys who were told to believe so blindly in their founder.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-08-14 11:33:21

      Hi Vassy
      I read your reply with great interest. Here are a few thoughts.
      Organization implied by Gamaliel's words ...
      As you point out the focus is on “this work” not “this organization”. Therefore to draw the conclusion that organization is implied is to fall back on the question – but how could God have this work fulfilled without a structured earthly organization?
      “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26).
      Again, for proof of that, note that the gospel message survived and grew for centuries with no earthly organization, or at least none that appeared to have God's backing.
      Galatians 2:2 ...
      Here Paul indeed consults with the “outstanding men”. And the outcome?
      (Galatians 2:5, 6) to these we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour, in order that the truth of the good news might continue with YOU. 6 But on the part of those who seemed to be something—whatever sort of men they formerly were makes no difference to me—God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—to me, in fact, those outstanding men imparted nothing new.
      So it would seem that this passage continues to refute that there was a central authority to which all Christians were answerable, rather than support it.
      Note “Matthew Henry's Commentary” on this passage:

      While we simply depend upon God for success to our labours, we should use every proper caution to remove mistakes, and against opposers. There are things which may lawfully be complied with, yet, when they cannot be done without betraying the truth, they ought to be refused. We must not give place to any conduct, whereby the truth of the gospel would be reflected upon. Though Paul conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge, or authority, from them. ... Here we learn that the gospel is not ours, but God's; and that men are but the keepers of it; for this we are to praise God. The apostle showed his charitable disposition, and how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many would scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles; but mere difference of opinion was no reason to him why he should not help them. Herein is a pattern of Christian charity, which we should extend to all the disciples of Christ.

      ... Now there is a lesson that those in authority could learn from.
      “Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible” is also interesting:
      but the very self-same truths which were the subject of his ministry in the Gentile world, which were a crucified Christ, and salvation alone by him, these he communicated, laid before, and exposed unto the consideration of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem; not with a view either to give or receive instructions, but to compare their sentiments and principles together; that so it might appear that there, was an entire harmony and agreement between them;

      This approach by Paul is entirely understandable in the context of the nascent Christian congregation. Nowhere did they have a complete written source of reference about the gospel that would unite them in the essential teachings about the Christ. Person to person communication would have been necessary while the true teachings were in their early stages. But that is not the case for us. We have the entire inspired Word of God. If someone the other side of the world reads that Word with the guidance of the spirit then they will reach the same essential conclusions about the gospel message of Christianity. Perhaps they will have some differing thoughts on the less central issues, but that need not distract from the central unity I have with that person, even though I may never have met them.
      In the first century allowances were made for variances in non-essential customs. “Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath” (Col 2:16), but ultimately it was those who were insisting on uniformity to a gospel message beyond that given by Paul that were to be condemned (Gal 1:6-9).
      Just my 2c for now.
      Apollos

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-14 18:18:52

        Well researched, Apollos. Thank you. As always, you add additional dimensions to any discussion. The complete text of Paul's words to the Galatians about the "outstanding men" really do paint a very different picture from the one we are expected to have regarding the alleged status of the alleged first century governing body. It is interesting to consider as well that he a) was inspired to say this for the benefit of posterity and b) shared these views with the Galatian congregation of the day. Imagine saying something similar in print today about the members of the Governing Body.
        I also appreciate the views you've shared from the 'outside' references. It helps put Paul's words into an understandable context.

    • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-14 11:46:20

      Hello Vassy, thanks for your post. Just to give you the way I see things, which may be slightly different. I see that Meleti has already addressed many of your questions above.
      I am not saying that I am eager to get rid of the organization. In fact as Meleti pointed out, each body needs a head to function. I would rather say I want the organization to fulfill its purpose and keep its place. The organization is the tool to serve the people, not the other way around.
      For example, lets say you are following instructions to build a home. You may use a hammer to drive nails, and once you are finished you put it away. You don't ask the hammer for advice on how to use the house, or what you should do with your life, or what kind of education is appropriate for you or your family. I think you would see that it would be quite absurd. In the same way, our organization fills a purpose. I see that the infrastructure set up for the preaching work is good. However, when the organization crosses into telling us, what we can do, what level of education we must have etc (especially when there is no scriptural backing), is this they type of organization Jehovah intended?
      My loyalty is to Jehovah, and not to a work or an organization. The organization helps me to complete the work I have been asked to do. However the minute the organization fails to help me do this I have to leave it. My loyalty to Jehovah is the primary concern. Unfortunately, what we have seen is loyalty to a group of men, and if you dare say something against them, even if you used the Bible, it is tantamount to apostasy. Do you think that is the organization Jehovah intended?
      I really do not mean you any disrespect by my questions. I do respect your opinion on the matter. The questions simply illustrate where we have come as a people. The very fact we need to discuss these matters behind a mask of anonymity to protect ourselves tells us that there is something to fear. And should we really fear the tool that helps us to accomplish our work of preaching and teaching?
      You say that no one here has proposed an alternative, but I am not sure that we have to. Do we not already have the model in the Bible? Are we saying that if we did not have a centralized ruling body that the work of preaching would not get done? Are discounting the power Jehovah has to direct matters? You mention Gamaliel and how he stated some wise advice to the Sanhedrin. This "work" was from God. HE was directing it, and thus it succeeded. However it was individuals that were accomplishing that work. Just as it is individuals accomplishing the work today. It is obvious to me that Jehovah blesses the individuals who do his will. Going back to the illustration of the house, what is more important? The home? or the people who live in it? The individuals carry out Jehovah's will. The home accomplishes its purpose to shelter those people while they carry out that work. Would Jehovah bless the home or the people?
      Our organization is just the "building/infrastructure", the people within it are the ones doing the work. That is why I see it that Jehovah has, and likely always will bless individuals as opposed organizations.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-14 18:22:13

        A very apt illustration, Hezekiah1. That really puts things into their proper perspective. The Organization should be a protection for us, like a house, but not our Master. Never that. Our Master is one, the Christ.
        I really appreciate this illustration and will keep it in mind when this topic comes up in conversation.
        Thank you,
        Meleti

  • Comment by anderestimme on 2013-08-14 14:29:55

    I would say that when we start calling the organization "mother", we have a problem. We have personified it, made it something we must obey, rather than something we use to do the will of our God.
    BTW, when I heard the term "spiritual mother" at last year's DC, the first thing that came to mind was Mary worship, and the more I thought about it, mother goddess worship in general. Anybody else get that idea?
    After that I thought of the computer in the movie "Alien", but I won't bother asking if anyone else had THAT thought.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-08-14 14:53:17

      You make a fine point, and yes my jaw dropped through that whole symposium. Not so much because of the association with Mary, although I can see that now in terms of how Catholics view her as an authority figure. My problem was that a Christian "Draw people to ..." symposium had no place for Jesus Christ.

      • Reply by anderestimme on 2013-08-14 16:57:09

        Well, if Mother really is the Earth Branch of God's Organization, to which Jesus belongs, we can just cut out the middle man, now can't we?

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-14 17:28:51

          Now there's a thought. I don't know how I missed that. Jesus refers to his faithful followers as brothers. So if the earthly Organization is our mother, then it must be Jesus' mother as well. Such hubris!

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-14 16:36:14

    I remember a CO giving a talk at our hall stating, "When Momma, (the organization), says jump you don't ask why, you ask , 'How high?'"

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2013-08-14 17:04:16

      As if blind obedience to men were a virtue.
      From the standpoint of someone whose entire life could be submitted to drastic and unwelcome changes for insubordination (i.e. a CO), that makes perfect, self-preservationist, sense. What it has to do with serving the Most High is, apparently, not a consideration. This is, I think, one reason why the org doesn't make use of all those retired, experienced elders out there to do the work the COs do. It would save us all a lot of money and avail the congregations of the experience of brothers who have worked and raised children in this world. But there would be no chain to yank, now would there? I'm betting that elders are 10 times more likely to ask "why" than "how high".

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-14 18:28:33

        I have been increasingly uncomfortable with the new arrangement of enlisting younger men, in the thirties, to be Circuit Overseers. They are way too gung ho for my tastes. At first, I thought the motive was largely financial as they can get a lot of years out of men that age before they become responsible for caring for them in the golden years.
        However, they also often appear to be Company men, An pejorative term which unfortunately in many instances is also accurate. Your logic fits in with what I and others have observed of late.

        • Reply by Dave on 2017-06-07 13:39:54

          Yup. Getting them young and ignorant allows the GB to indoctrinate them into their teachings. Think about what's been taught the last 20 years. If someone is 35, they've learned virtually nothing deep. And they've grown up in a climate of obedience, not discernment. They'll do whatever they're told.

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-14 18:02:11

    Great comment, anderestimme! We had a CO leave the traveling work and become part of our congregation. He never did take the CO mantle off and tried to throw his weight around as the final authority on some matters. Many of the brothers, especially younger Elders, were intimidated by his reputation and would not challenge anything he said.

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-15 11:54:14

    I agree with you, Meleti. Company men in their thirties who come into a congregation and question a recommendation of six or seven Elders, men with a combined experience of many years serving God. His ojection will be over the fact that a brother's wife has low hours in the ministry. "Wait until next time around", he'll say.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-15 12:40:12

      Six or ten or fifteen elders, it doesn't matter. Has anyone ever heard of a circuit overseer ever being overruled when he differs with an entire elder body over a recommendation?

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-15 12:46:43

    No, Meleti, I've never had it happen ever since this arrangement was started. One brother not recommended for the reason stated above asked us, "Is my wife being recommended also?" I think it's all about control and a lack of trust in the local Elder Bodies.

    • Reply by on 2013-08-15 18:33:26

      Hello all. Great comments. Personally I feel that when it comes to these kind of topics, it is very important to return to the scriptures. Particularly on what to do when confronted with a situation where you cannot freely share your thoughts and concerns with other fellow christians.. The words of Micah chapter 7 apply. Particularly verse seven...."Too bad for me, for I have become like the gatherings of summer fruit, like the gleaning of a grape gathering! There is no grape cluster to eat, no early fig, that my soul would desire! 2 The loyal one has perished from the earth, and among mankind there is no upright one. All of them, for bloodshed they lie in wait. They hunt, everyone his own brother, with a dragnet. 3 Their hands are upon what is bad, to do it well; the prince is asking for something, and the one who is judging does so for the reward, and the great one is speaking forth the craving of his soul, his very own; and they interweave it. 4 Their best one is like a brier, their most upright one is worse than a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen, of your being given attention, must come. Now will occur the confounding of them.
      5 Do not put YOUR faith in a companion. Do not put YOUR trust in a confidential friend. From her who is lying in your bosom guard the openings of your mouth. 6 For a son is despising a father; a daughter is rising up against her mother; a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his household.
      7 But as for me, it is for Jehovah that I shall keep on the lookout. I will show a waiting attitude for the God of my salvation. My God will hear me."

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-16 08:31:29

        Thank you for bringing Mal. 7:1-7 to our attention. What an excellent scripture and how apt to the situation of many in the congregation today.
        There truly is something in the Scriptures to cover every eventuality we must face.

        • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-16 12:07:12

          Interesting that Jesus actually quoted Micah 7:6 but left out verse 5 which concluded with “From her who is lying in your bosom guard the openings of your mouth.” I have often wondered how the respective wives of the apostles (who were never mentioned) reacted to the departure of their husbands to follow Christ. Perhaps most were not married and had no children, that’s a big ‘suppose’. Then again was Jesus being merciful by excluding ‘her’ from his quote from Micah?
          I can only guess that there was lots of family controversy then which wasn’t so silent as we tend to be in our so-called politically corrected manner today. But Jesus did begin with, “Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father who is in the heavens.” He then went on to say, “I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household.”
          What was the point? His next statement: “He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.” Spouses not included but perhaps reserved for each to decide conscientiously? Whatever way we apply such things, conscience dictates according to Jesus words. And we are individually responsible for that before the final Judge. (Matthew 10:32-37)

  • Comment by Vassy on 2013-08-15 17:55:36

    Thank you brothers, for your input. I read carefully everything you wrote from Meleti's response to my post down to the last post. It is a lot of information which, hopefully, I will be able to respond to within a few days.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-08-15 22:02:15

      Hi again Vassy
      Just one further thought I meant to include re God's people have always been organized ...
      May I suggest that such a generalization can get us into trouble. In like manner someone might say “God's people have always had a human mediator”. It would appear to be true if someone wanted to make such an argument pointing to, for example, the patriarchs, Moses, the priests, the prophets. But the fact is that Christianity is different. It has no human equivalent since it has someone far superior as the mediator.
      My point is that we can't just say that it's always been such and such a way.
      It should also be pointed out that the wheat would grow among weeds until the harvest. Would you argue that God's people were organized in the 10th century for example? Or did God not have a people at that time? According to Matt 28:20b he did.
      As I say, just an additional thought.
      Apollos

  • Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-16 14:03:26

    It seems many are facing the dilemma of how to respond to those in our congregations who like their ancient counterparts in the time of Jesus are becoming righteous over much and persecuting those who dare to differ with established doctrine.
    Coincidentally, I've been reading the accounts in Matthew where the Jews (specifically the Pharisees and Sadducees, though the priests were backing them up) were trying to trap Jesus. Mt. 19:3 says, "And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?'"
    Some of the elders described in the comments on this post as well as others from my personal experience are not intent on helping their "doubting" brother, nor are they interested in getting to the scriptural truth of the matter. They are convinced of their own righteousness as the Pharisees were and only want to tempt the "wrongdoer" into speaking words they can then use against him or her, again, like their first century counterparts.
    For this, as in all things, we have our Exemplar in Jesus. He would not answer such questions directly. He would answer with another question, one they couldn't answer (Mt. 23:41-46) or if he chose to answer he would do so with just enough of the truth to confound them, without giving them the full picture for them to pick at. (Mt. 23:23-33) His purpose in each instance was to silence them which he did
    most effectively.
    Of course, none of us has the wisdom of Jesus, but we can train ourselves to respond as he did; 'train' being the operative word, for when these questions are thrown at us, they come out of the blue and can catch us completely unawares and unprepared. That's where the self-training kicks in. It will help us to resist the temptation to answer a direction question with a direct answer.
    It is the nature of the true Christian to answer openly and truthfully. But an answer that is truthful (i.e."full of truth") can get us into trouble when delivered before those of the porcine persuasion. (Mt. 7:6)
    Some examples:
    Tempter: "Do you believe this is Jehovah's true organization?"
    Temptee: "Before I answer, let me ask you if you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians?"
    Tempter: "I asked you first."
    Temptee: "Correct. And the person who asks first has an obligation to answer first; so again I ask: Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians?"
    Tempter: "I do, don't you?"
    Temptee: "One question at a time, please. I am in the Christian Congregation because I want to associate with true Christians."
    Tempter: "You haven't answered my question."
    Temptee: "Actually, I just did."
    OR
    Tempter: "Do you believe this is Jehovah's true organization?"
    Temptee: "Why do you ask me that?"
    Tempter: [Gives any one of a number of reasons.]
    Temptee: "Well, I can assure you that you have nothing to worry about."
    Tempter: "Yes, but do you believe that this is Jehovah's true organization."
    Temptee: "I don't think it's appropriate for you to keep asking me that."
    Tempter: "Yes, but I need to know."
    Temptee: "We all so many things we can't have."
    OR
    Tempter: "Do you believe the Governing Body is Jehovah's channel of communication?"
    Temptee: "I'm sorry, but I have a personal policy of never answering probing or intrusive questions?"
    Tempter: "So you don't believe they are Jehovah's channel?"
    Temptee: "I didn't say that. I merely decline to answer any questions of an intrusive personal nature."
    Tempter: "By not answering, you are saying you don't believe."
    Temptee: "Not at all. If you were to ask me if my favorite color is blue, I would still decline to answer. Because to answer any personal question, no matter how innocuous, grants you the right to ask more. And, dear brother, you do not have that right at all."
    OR
    If you really want to make your point and have some fun as well you could say:
    Temptee: "I'll answer all your questions honestly and forthrightly, but first you have to answer mine the same way. Do you agree?"
    Tempter: "Sure. I have nothing to hide."
    Temptee: "How often do you and your wife have sex each week?"
    Tempter: "That's an outrageous question."
    Temptee: "Now you know how you made me feel with your question. Good day!"

  • Comment by Andronicus on 2013-08-16 17:20:44

    I've always been somewhat confused about how the GB applies certain prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures to "apostate" Christendom. The truth of the matter is that the primary application was always to the people who claimed to be in a covenant relationship with Jehovah based on the Law of Moses. Why should we then think that such prophecies, good or bad, apply to anyone other than those who claim to be in the new covenant, including members of the GB?

  • Comment by emilyjeff on 2013-08-20 11:20:14

    Smolderingwick1 I took offence to your remark regarding Micah 7:5. What was the point you were making if not to denigrate women’s position before God and Christ. Just what were you implying when you said and I quote “I can only guess that there was lots of family controversy then which wasn’t so silent as we tend to be in our so-called politically corrected manner today.” Yes society today is more politically correct but among Jehovah’s Witnesses sexist talk is the norm. Perhaps you should read Galatians 3:26-28: “26 For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes. 28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” I have bolded this quote for emphasis. We do not know the mind of Christ and why he left out Micah 7:5 when he quoted from Micah. However if you read that verse in the NLT it reads: “Don't trust anyone--not your best friend or even your wife!” As you can see this translation is less inflammatory. As you have you have pointed out Jesus first revealed himself as the Messiah to a woman who was not even a Jew but a Samaritan. I believe He read the hearts of people and was not concerned with whether they were rich or poor, male or female. I can only speak from the standpoint of a JW about their view of a woman’s role in the religion, but although I feel it is perhaps more repressive than some other denominations, it is to one extent or another across the board in almost all religions. I do not expect the roles of men and women to be changed as long as we live in this world, but we have no way of knowing what those roles would have been had Adam and Eve not sinned. I’m sure we will know in the world to come. However, in the meanwhile, since Christ is our exemplar perhaps it would do for all of us to strive to try to treat one another as Christ would have wished since we are to put on the Christian personality. “20 But that isn't what you learned about Christ.21 Since you have heard about Jesus and have learned the truth that comes from him, 22 throw off your old sinful nature and your former way of life, which is corrupted by lust and deception. 23 Instead, let the Spirit renew your thoughts and attitudes. 24 Put on your new nature, created to be like God--truly righteous and holy.” Ephesians 4:20-24
    The apostle Paul spoke those words quoted in the above paragraph from Galatians 3:26-28 to the congregation at Galatia close to 2000 years ago. By the time he began his missionary work, women apparently were important emissaries within various cities. The letters of Paul and his greetings to persons with whom he had a casual friendship offer interesting and solid information about the many women, both Jews and Gentiles, who held notable positions in the movement. He greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus’ sister, who traveled and worked in pairs with their husbands or brothers. Romans 16:3,7,15 We have no way of knowing whether the apostles were accompanied by their wives on their travels so to assume that there were family difficulties about being left behind is going beyond what is written and appears to me to be a bit presumptuous.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-20 16:10:43

      Thank you EmilyJeff for giving us a woman's perspective on this. Our society is male-oriented, our Organization is male-oriented, and we all suffer the affects of Adam's sin on the male psyche. ("...and he will dominate you." -- Gen. 3:16) Once again, it is Jesus who leads the way, if we, as men, will only follow.

  • Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-20 17:32:19

    Not wishing to reignite a passionate response, EmilyJeff, I think it only necessary to allow Jesus to respond as to why he left out Micah 7:5. Thank you for your opinion.

  • Comment by spike on 2013-08-25 09:09:57

    Great Site!
    I am extremely disturbed at the WTBTS's actions. Disgusted really. After learning TTATT, I see the " operation of error " everywhere. It's a blessing and a burden.
    The WTBTS really has claimed to be " mouthpiece " or prophet of YHWH. I know that no matter how much we learn, there seems to be something in the WT CD Library or an older book that we missed. I found something very telling just this week. Just look up the 05/15/1955 Watchtower. There are two articles that plainly show the GB's belief that they are the "channel" for God's "prophet." The article are ' Jehovah's channel of communication ' and ' Christian channel of communication.' Both leave no doubt that any statement of " never claiming to be prophets " is false.
    Peace be with you
    Spike

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-25 11:29:47

      Thanks for bringing these articles to our attention.
      I hadn't seen the acronym TTATT before. I understand it originated in 1998 and means "The Thing Around The Thing", but it has been appropriated by some anti-JW groups to mean "The Truth About The Truth". While agreeing with that concept, we do not wish to become associated with groups whose main goal is to attack Jehovah's Witnesses. We do feel that the truth speaks for itself, so unmasking falsehood and revealing truth will lead honest-hearted ones to make a conscientious decision on their own.
      With that in mind, it is worthwhile to reproduce an excerpt from that second article you mentioned:
      *** w55 5/15 pp. 315-316 pars. 33-34 Christian Channel of Communication ***
      33 The evidences, therefore, are overwhelming that the anointed Christian remnant among Jehovah’s witnesses today comprise the collective channel of communication. An abundance of additional detailed facts is being published in the series of articles in The Watchtower on the history of Jehovah’s witnesses. There are about 17,000 of these anointed ones still left in the earth, with a governing body of them residing at Bethel in Brooklyn, New York. Along with them there are over 560,000 “other sheep” companion associates. This small “faithful and discreet slave” class of anointed ones, as they are designated, have a legal servant known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, organized in 1884, which they use to represent them.
      34 An official mouthpiece for this “slave” class is the Watchtower magazine, now in its seventy-sixth year of publication. This magazine makes no claim of inspiration but is guided by the inspired principles and prophecies recorded in the sacred Bible due for progressive fulfillment today.
      "The evidences...are overwhelming that the anointed Christian remnant...comprise the collective channel of communication."
      As of the July 15, 2013 The Watchtower, we now deny this was ever true. The fact is there is no evidence that this group every comprised a collective channel by which God communicated with mankind. This group was never consulted when new doctrinal understanding was being put together at headquarters in Brooklyn.
      "with a governing body of them residing at Bethel in Brooklyn"
      The Governing Body came into existence in 1976. Prior to that there was no body of men governing the congregation. This was done by C.T. Russell, Judge Rutherford, and Nathan Knorr. Fred Franz had significant influence as well, and perhaps a few others, but until 1976, it was the rule of one man that directed or governed the Organization.
      "This magazine makes no claim of inspiration but is guided by the inspired principles and prophecies recorded in the sacred Bible"
      This continues to be our official position, but recently new emphasis has been put on accepting the teachings in The Watchtower
       unquestioningly. (See ) This new trend is putting us in the position of saying one thing while doing another. If we do not claim to be inspired, we have no right to demand unquestioning obedience from those we instruct. If we speak under inspiration, then it is God who speaks and we must obey God. However, if we are merely guided by spirit, then there is the possibility that from time to time we do not follow that guidance. When we have deviated from the path the holy spirit laid down for us, there has been error. Given this is an historical fact, there is a real danger in demanding that those we teach obey us without question; not even allowing themselves to think we may be wrong on some issue.

  • Comment by emilyjeff on 2013-08-25 12:48:58

    I take exception to the term “channel” that the “faithful and discreet slave” uses to describe their communication with God. They use this word in reference to receiving direction from Jehovah. This is a quote from the Watchtower 6/15/09: “We likewise respect Jehovah’s direction given through his channel and join in praising him.” This is only one of many times they refer to themselves as the channel through which they receive God’s direction.
    The word channel or channeling is associated with mediumship. This is a quote from Wikipedia on that subject: “Mediumship also forms part of the belief-system of some New Age groups. In this context, and under the name "channelling", it refers to a medium (the "channel") who allegedly receives messages from a "teaching-spirit". Here is another quote from the same source: “Mediumship, or channeling, is the practice of certain people—known as mediums—to purportedly mediate communication between spirits of the dead and other human beings.” At the very least the word is unchristian as it implies contact with the spirit world. It never appears in the Bible in connection with Jehovah speaking to his prophets.
    That being the definition, one assumes direct communication with, in the case of the GB, God through the mediumship of the GB. They claim to be spirit directed. But the word channel implies direct communication. If that is what they are trying to get across to the rank and file JW by subliminal methods they have been successful. Yesterday I spoke with a friend who is a devoted JW and she said “the elders speak to God.” She repeated this twice. She is not the only JW who has made reference, in this case, to the GB, actually speaking to God. It seems that the GB and the elders have taken the place of our true mediator, Jesus Christ, in the eyes of some if not all JW’s.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-08-25 13:05:51

      Emily
      You make a valid point about the use of the terms "channel" and "channeling". I had not considered that before.
      I don't personally know any elders that claim to speak to God, but what you say is true. Somehow the perception among the individuals is that somehow such a thing is taking place. How does such flawed thinking arise? It can only be through what is said from the platform and through publications. Even though it is never taught in such an explicit way, the cumulative effect of what is taught seems to encourage this conclusion. It's subtle, but powerful.
      Apollos

  • Comment by Observer17 on 2013-08-27 14:49:23

    Hi all,
    It's a definite fact that the GB/Watchtower Society [aka Faithful Slave] does not encourage in any way, independent study of the Bible. However, I do not believe it is because a person could not learn the truth if they would follow the advice given in Proverbs to "search" for it, as one would for "silver" or "hid treasures." This is my belief.
    I am reminded of this passage from the book of Proverbs which plainly tells us:
    "if, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and YOU WILL FIND THE VERY OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD." -- Proverbs 2:3-5 New World Translation
    So the bible gives us the direct answer to this question, of whether one [Jehovah's Witness or anyone else for that matter] person can truly find the "truth" or not by personal effort or not. Can it be done through intense personal effort on an individual's part? The Watchtower says "no!"
    But what does the bible actually say about this. The bible answers, a resounding "Yes!"
    The bible actually gives each individual the answer to this question, who wishes to know. But, we simply must be willing to do something. We must be willing to really, "search" for it, like looking for "silver" or "hid treasures," which means intense personal effort on all of our parts. But, the Watchtower Society or the Governing Body, cannot stop or retard this process, whether we know this or not. Its all up the individual and His Creator, and that's it. And Jehovah and Jesus always know who really, really are searching for it, like "hid treasures" and who are not. They know.
    Still, we know the real, operative word from the GB is "Obey me" and only me. For example this latest statement from an upcoming magazine:
    Here is the link to the Watchtower's Comment from the latest Nov. 15th, 2013 issue...
    http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/
    Paragraph 17
    "At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive,whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (4) Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking. The elders must stand ready to help any who may now be wavering in their faith."
    End of quote.
    'Nuff said.
    Thanks again, for your comments.
    Observer17

  • Comment by Dave on 2017-06-07 13:43:44

    The only credential from God is one's being anointed. Even that is hard to prove now, considering how the number of partakers continually increases now. Couple that with the fact that the Bible no where says or implies members of the anointed are not appointed to GB by God. That's bugged me about this whole thing since day one.

Recent content

Why Is Isaiah 9:6 Different in the Septuagint Old Testament?

Hello everyone,In a recent video, I discussed Isaiah 9:6 which is a “proof text” that Trinitarians like to use to support their belief that Jesus is God. Just to jog your memory, Isaiah 9:6 reads: “For to us a child…

We Have Some Great News to Share and We Need Your Help!

Hello everyone.I have some wonderful news to share with you.It is now possible for us to spread the good news that we share in these English videos to a much wider audience. Using some newly available software services,…

Isaiah 9:6 -- How Does Jesus Christ Become "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father"?

I made a mistake in responding to a comment made on a recent video titled “What Is Really Wrong About Praying to Jesus?” That commenter believes that Isaiah 9:6 is a proof text that Jesus is God.That verse reads: “For a…

What Is Really Wrong About Praying to Jesus?

Hello everyone.My last video has turned out to be one of my most controversial. It asked the question: “Does Jesus Want Us to Pray to Him?” Based on Scripture, I concluded that the answer to that question was a…

Does Jesus Want Us to Pray to Him?

Two years ago, I posted a video in which I tried to answer the question: “Is it wrong to pray to Jesus Christ?” Here’s how I concluded that video:“Again, I’m not making a rule about whether it is right or wrong to pray…

2024 Annual Meeting: “Show Me the Money!” What the Latest Governing Body Appointments Reveal

Hello everyone. The 2024 annual meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was perhaps one of the most significant ever. For me, it constitutes a turning point. Why? Because it gives us hard evidence of what we have long suspected,…