The Problem with Research — Part 1

Comment by Scrubmaster on 2015-12-20 10:10:40

When Jeffrey Jackson was question by Senior Counsel Stewart during the Royal Commission as to whether the Governing Body was the sole channel or spokes person for God on earth, Jeffrey Jackson response was that would be a presumptuous claim to make. So if Brother Jackson could not boldly make the claim in public and yet that claim is made boldly made in the WT, Than Witnesses should very much take note of Brother Jackson comment and question as to why he could not boldly proclaim that statement in public if it is indeed true. Also if a JW had made this statement they would have been accused of apostasy.

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 00:35:53

  I think that Geoffrey said it would seem to be presumptuous. He probably meant it might seem that way to worldly people, who do not have the JW view of things. But he did not say it was presumptuous. Slight technical difference which he may or may not have been aware of when saying it.

  • Reply by AFRICAINE on 2015-12-21 13:32:59

    Fact of the matter is Geoffrey Jackson's performance was available for all to see and I saw the a very presumptuous man lacking in conviction and not very convincing as a person claiming to be a spokesman for God on earth !
    I must confess that I find your comments somewhat "distressing" and uncomfortable - I cant put a finger on it - my apologies - but that's how it comes across to me.

  • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-21 19:00:40

    Anon, I think it would be presumptuous if we were to try to add anything or any special meaning to Bro Jackson's comment. It was a very simple question that should be very easy for him to reply to. I personally feel his hesitation and saying it would seem presumptuous demonstrated that when under oath, he is uncomfortable making the claim the GB are God's only spokespersons.
    His testimony is being heard by a little more than a thousand every day (nearly 132,000 views and counting). 20% of the votes are thumbs down, but 80% give it a thumbs up.
    1000 views day tells me it's not going to die on its own.
    Sopater

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 20:26:07

      Don't think for a minute I am defending him. I am just stating what he actually said. Which was "I think it would SEEM to be presumptuous". Correct me if I am wrong. People can wriggle out of things and give themselves an escape route. So he can say with all honesty "I did not say it would be presumptous".

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-25 07:55:21

      The difficulty Mr. jackson finds himself in can be summed up in one question:
      If you, sir, as a member of the GB, do not yourself believe that you are the sole channel of communication between God and mankind, why should anyone else believe you?

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-22 19:28:33

  It is hard to overstate the significance of Geoffrey Jackson's statement, or the damage it has done to the WT organization and its credibility.
  What is more, if you recall, recently, Garrett Losch made a statement regarding the child abuse trial of Jose Lopez vs. Gonzalo Compos. As the most senior member of the GB, the court wanted Losch to testify regarding policies and procedures of WT regarding child abuse. He and WT refused to testify, and WT received a summary judgment of 13 million dollars against them, primarily for refusing to cooperate with what the court viewed as a reasonable request.
  The document can be found here.
  https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/declaration-of-gerrit-losch-4-february-2014.pdf
  The main point is that Mr. Losch makes the following statements in this document on page 2:
  "8. I am not, and never have been, a corporate officer, director, managing agent, member, or employee of Watchtower. I do not direct, and have never directed, the day-to-day operations of Watchtower. I do not answer to Watchtower. I do not have, and never have had, any authority as an individual to make or determine corporate policy for Watchtower or any department of Watchtower.
  9. Watchtower does not have, and never has had, any authority over me."
  If these statements are true, and Mr. Losch is the senior member of the GB, then we must ask, who appoints members of the branch offices? Who appoints circuit overseers (and D.O.'s when they had them)? Who appoints elders in congregations? If the GB is not answerable to WT, and vice versa, it is as though elders in congregations are appointed by nobody - since the "chain of command" is broken. There is no connection between WT and the appointed elders. If so, by what authority do elders carry out any activities, including judicial hearings and disfellowshipping?
  In another trial, to get WT off the hook, they made the following statements:
  "The faithful and discreet slave is not a legal entity."
  "... the 'faithful and discreet slave' do not exist as a 'person' nor do they exist as an 'unincorporated body' and nor do they exist as a 'body' of Christians."
  "Vincent Toole Solicitors were arguing that the 'faithful and discreet slave' should be struck off the charge list because they simply do not exist."
  "... the 'faithful and discreet' slave did not exist but were nothing more than a theological arrangement'".
  A link describing this can be found here:
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/223073/steven-unthanks-case-this-might-help-fill-some-gaps?page=1
  My question is, if the GB publicly disavows before men that they even ARE the FDS, but expect the rank and file to not only believe, but to give them absolute loyalty and obedience, how can we possibly take them seriously?
  Their conduct brands them, not as persons of conscience and integrity, but as liars and frauds. Worse, they have betrayed their faith before all onlookers.
  --
  Matthew 10:32-33: "Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father who is in the heavens; 33 but whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens."

Comment by InyAnders on 2015-12-20 12:14:30

I really loved this article, thank you! I wasn't raised as a JW, but joined once I got married at 32. In the beginning it all seemed wholesome and welcoming, not like the rumors I heard while growing up. The good feelings I had quickly (5 years later once I had children) turned to guilt and shame, as the performance based spiritual "routines", were designed to always remind me of that I'm not good enough, I SHOULD always do and be better. Then when the GB started talking about themselves
more and eventually gave them selves the title of FDS, it reminded me of the Pope and the thirst for power. I started reading The ESV Bible and really studying it, the errors in JW doctrines became so clear. Knowledge is power, so much helpful information is available online. I haven't gone out in service for 3 years, haven't attended a meeting in 1 year. My joy and love for God is renewed and the freedoms Jesus talked about, and his load being light, Yes indeed!!! Thanks you again, love this site.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-20 13:56:52

  Your welcome InyAnders.

Comment by Out of Africa on 2015-12-20 12:41:41

Further on your point: "It won’t surprise me if the archive database in the WT CD Library becomes unavailable. Then all that will remain for the rank and file will be the online library, which is essentially sterile material from recent publications only which the Governing Body approves for consumption."
Starting with WT Library 2015, the WT Library will be updated online which will make it easier for the WT to erase old light and embarrassing mistakes. For example, the 2015 January Awake print edition page 3 differs already from the online, downloadable version. A quote by Rama Singh was removed as it was apparently misquoted and Mr Singh demanded a retraction. This indicates that the WT is changing its material as need be. Another book that has been changed electronically is the insight on the scriptures, particularly the part about the governing body. To my mind, this is not very ethical or honest.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-20 13:55:19

  OoA,
  Agree, the digital age will make it very convenient for them adjust the publications to contain the latest version of light. It isn't transparent. I think it will only serve to tangle the spiders web even more. What if a brother references original hard copy in his hour talk? He could be guilty of teaching something apostate. How does the elder react when he's told the hard copy is "old light?"

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-22 21:15:08

    WT used to explain discrepancies between the Bible and secular history by saying that nations were proud and would only record their victories but not their defeats. There is a saying that history is writen by the victors. I find it ironic that WT would itself fail to lean from this, but instead seems to be rewriting history, themselves applying the same tactics and motives that they criticize the nations for doing.

Comment by 1984 on 2015-12-20 17:24:33

Thanks Sopater, great article.
To further underline your point, I wonder if you are familiar with this little gem from the March 1st 1981 Watchtower, page 24, under the heading “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?”
"Witnesses of Jehovah understand that the “slave” is comprised of all anointed Christians as a group on earth at any given time during the 19 centuries since Pentecost. Accordingly, the “domestics” are these followers of Christ as individuals.
Some readers may feel that this is a rather sectarian view of matters. Or they may object to the idea that the “slave” and the “domestics” represent the same class, one as a composite body and the other as individuals. The objectors may argue that not all of Christ’s anointed disciples have a share in preparing the spiritual food, so that perhaps the “slave” pictures only the leading ones, and the “domestics” those they serve in the congregation."
So, basically, what was considered the apostate teaching of "objectors" in 1981 is now the official definition of the FDS as of 2012 - namely that the "slave pictures only the leading ones." If I had argued this back in 1981 I would have been disfellowshipped, and vice versa. Feel free to check this reference in your own copies of the Watchtower or on CD.
I also really appreciate the example you provide of the many backflips the FDS have done regarding the resurrection of those in Sodom and Gomorah. This really bothered me when I was first studying the Live Forever book in 1991. The copy I had stated they would be resurrected, but my study conductor's said they wouldn't. Of course, I had the 1982 edition, he had the later updated one. This was one of the things I decided to revisit a couple of years ago when I began to reappraise my beliefs, and helped lead to my awakening. I always held on to the original Live Forever book because I always secretly believed that the God of Love and tender mercies would resurrect everybody anyway (including those destroyed at Armageddon - but that's a discussion for another time!)
Actually, it's quite a funny story just how I came to be in possession of this 1982 edition in 1991 rather than the updated 1989 edition. Originally I was contacted at the door by a pioneer and took the "Look!" brochure. Being a studious truth seeker, I then sent off for the Live Forever book from the back page. Instead of receiving the book, I got a letter from Bethel pointing out that I had not included the $2.25 for the book and asking if I could send the money before they sent me the book! This is no word of a lie, I so wish I had kept the letter. It should have been an early warning sign that they were more interested in collecting $2.25 than saving a soul. (I'm talking Australian dollars by the way.) Anyway, the result of this is that the pioneer returned with an old copy of the Live Forever book instead of the updated version I would undoubtedly have received from Bethel. And the seeds of doubt were planted there right at the very inception on my study.
It's no wonder their online "library" only goes back to 2000. Perhaps the internet is short on storage space?

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-20 17:52:42

There are just so many issues with the WT claim of being the FDS, is difficult to know where to start. (Or, in my case, where to stop; apologies in advance for the length of what follows ...)
Even if we accepted that Matthew 24:45-47 is a prophesy, and in fact meant that God through Christ was going to appoint someone, where does this verse require exclusivity? What is notable about this passage is that it's written in the singular, to ONE slave, and that HIS master would appoint HIM to more responsibilities if HE did well with HIS initial assignment. If we read this without preconceptions, it seems clear that this promise of being appointed was held out to individual Christians, so that anyone who followed through on what was expected of them would qualify. Where, I ask, do these words even hint at the concept that such individuals would be restricted to the members of a man-made organization, or that any of them had to be "anointed", or that their numbers would eventually be restricted to a mere dozen people, give or take a few - or even that they would all be men? In Bible times, didn't women serve as slaves too? (True, the verse does use the words "his" and "him", but there is nothing in the language that prevents this passage from being understood in a generic sense.)
Even without delving into research about the FDS/GB and their history and actions over the years, we have to face the fact that the story they tell about themselves is self-serving. What story? 'Insight into the scriptures can only be obtained from us. We know everything. We have the truth. We are right. Just ask us.'. And, as Sopater pointed out, what the GB really means by 'Just ask us' is, 'Just ask US. Don't you DARE ask anyone else. If you do, and we don't like what you've found, or if you TELL anyone what you found, we will expel you and see to it that everyone shuns you.'
What does that exclusivity policy result in? They receive the acclaim, esteem, devotion, financial backing and obedience of millions of people. They also get to live without charge in very comfortable accommodations, and they get to jet around the world like celebrities to packed auditoriums, where vast audiences hang on their every word. All that describes a position of great power. When these men say they represent God, we cannot lose sight of the fact that they personally benefit from others believing that claim. And, any mere mortal having such a vested interest in how they are perceived by others may be tempted to abuse that position, to make biased statements that unjustifiably put themselves in a favorable light when they may not deserve it.
The issue of "new light" as presented by the WT carries with it an enormous problem. Proverbs 4:18 has long been held up as justification for this doctrine, but an impartial reading of chapter 4 of Proverbs shows this to simply be advice on the benefits of learning and applying discipline, making good choices in life and avoiding association with bad persons that would bring us down and cause problems for us. It says NOTHING about spiritual insight. So, on its very face, WT has taken this verse out of context and misinterpreted it.
But, for sake of argument, suppose their interpretation were true, that the "light" of spiritual truth were indeed getting "brighter". What does that really mean?
To illustrate, imagine you are struggling to solve a math problem. (For those now in school, those struggles are all too fresh, while for people my age, they are distant memories.) You have failed to get the right answer, so you keep working on it. When asked by your math instructor how you are doing, you tell him, "well, it's more correct than it was an hour ago". Will your instructor be impressed? No. In math, we all know what the story is: Either it's right, or it's wrong. Either you solved it or you didn't.
That is the dilemma that WT faces with the "new light" doctrine. For "new light" to be 'lighter' than the "old light", the "old light" has to - how shall we say it? - WRONG. However, if the GB is the SOLE channel of communication from God, then ALL light published by the GB is light that came from God. Isn't that a necessary conclusion? If that were NOT so, it would mean they were merely teaching the doctrines of men. They have no choice but to assert that they got the information from God rather than making it up all by themselves.
I want to pause here and ask the reader to think clearly about that statement. It encapsulates a fundamental assumption. OK, are you with me? Let's continue.
The dilemma is found in 1 John 1:5: "And this is the message which we have heard from him and are announcing to you, that God is light and there is no darkness at all in union with him."
We cannot believe in the "brighter light" doctrine AND believe in 1 John 1:5. If "light" comes from God, but that "light" had to be corrected, then that "light" had elements of "darkness" - that is, there were errors in it. If the GB asserts, IN SPITE OF THAT, that they alone are the channel of spiritual insight from God, then they are attributing - or, blaming - God for everything they publish. True, that is an unspoken implication, but it's there nonetheless. The unfortunate result of this is that the "brighter light" doctrine attributes darkness - and thus error - to God, a thing that 1 John 1:5 says is impossible.
By making such an implication, it is tantamount to calling God a liar. In other words, the "new light" doctrine amounts to blasphemy against God. And why, exactly, would the GB do such a thing, at the risk of incurring God's (justified) anger? There's only one reason: Because of human pride, to save face and to protect their name and position.
--
One of the things that JWs are taught to reactively cringe to is being labeled a "cult". They just hate it. (Of course, they don't object to labeling dissenters as "apostates", no matter how justified those persons may be in dissenting. They can dish out unflattering labels, but they can't take it themselves.)
If we look at the WT's official defense of the cult label, here is what the Reasoning book says on page 202, with my comments added:
--
"Are Jehovah's Witnesses a sect or a cult? Some define sect to mean a group that has broken away from an established religion."
Russell was involved with Presbyterian and Congregational churches, and was influenced by the Millerite movement as well as the Second Adventists, but broke away from them. By the WT's strict insistence of the "no part of the world" doctrine, they demand that their followers break away from any resemblance to any belief system other than their own. In their eyes, there is no such thing as a "Christian" who is not also a JW.
--
"Others apply the term to a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher."
JWs followed the human leaders Russell, Rutherford, Knorr and Franz. Russell was proclaimed by others to be "the faithful and wise servant" - a title he never disavowed. Rutherford was less vocal about himself having that role, but then he was so busy being a dictator and seizing absolute power over the organization and declaring that by 1925 "millions now living will never die", that taking on an additional title probably didn't fit into his schedule. Knorr was a poor Bible scholar but a good organization man, so people followed him in administrative matters, while Fred Franz was, either directly or indirectly, bestowed with the title of "oracle of the organization", having single-handedly written nearly every book of the time that came out of Brooklyn. (Yesterday's "oracle of the organization" is today's "guardian of doctrine".)
For a time, the full body of "anointed" Christians was considered as being the FDS, but today those persons have been "thrown under the bus", and the seven people now on the GB have seized power (almost in a Rutherford-like manner) and have proclaimed themselves the one and only FDS. All JWs worldwide must be compliant to what the GB dictates, or risk being DF'd.
---
"The term is usually used in a derogatory way."
If the shoe fits ...
--
"Jehovah's Witnesses are not an offshoot of some church but include persons from all walks of life and from many religious backgrounds."
This is meaningless; the same can be said for members of every other religion.
As for being offshoots, in the Crisis of Conscience book, page 259, Ray Franz relates how in a GB meeting it was brought out, "At the discussion's end, with the exception of a few members, the Body members indicated that they felt that 1914 and the teaching about "this generation" tied to it should continue to be stressed. The Writing Committee Coordinator, Lyman Swingle, commented, "All right, if that is what you want to do. But at least you know that as far as 1914 is concerned, Jehovah's Witnesses got the whole thing - lock, stock and barrel - from the Second Adventists."
--
"They do not look to any human, but rather to Jesus Christ, as their leader."
This claim is flat-out wrong. As shown above, they DO look to human leaders, and have done so from the very beginning in 1879 and even before that. It is a practice they have never changed.
As for looking to looking to Jesus Christ as their leader, the evidence says otherwise. Let us use the principle in Matthew 12:34: "Offspring of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are wicked? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." What does this have to do with WT?
If they truly look to Christ as their leader, their abundant writings would give evidence of it. Yet what do we see in WT publications? A steady erosion of respect for Christ and his role in man's salvation. This can be confirmed by doing a check in the WT library for Jehovah, God, Jesus, Christ, and "organization". What we find is a decline in references to Christ, and an increase in mentions of Jehovah and many for Organization. The recent district convention was entitled, not "Follow" Christ but "Imitate" Christ. They cannot tell people to follow Christ, because that would detract from their following the GB.
They also make self-serving statements such as in the May 15 2006 WT page 22: "Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization." They thus attribute salvation to a man-made organization.
What does the Bible say?
Psalms 146:3: "Do not put your trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs."
Acts 4:10-12: "let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you impaled but whom God raised up from the dead, by this one does this man stand here sound in front of you. 11 This is ‘the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the head of the corner.’ 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”
--
"A cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox ..."
Witnesses attempt to shun all contact with the outside world, reject all holidays, reject blood transfusions, reject all involvement in their community, claim to the governments they are "charities" but reject any assistance to any outside charitable organization, say that world governments are ruled by Satan and believe they can literally be influenced, deceived, and even attacked by demons. And they don't think THAT is "unorthodox" ?
--
"...or that emphasizes devotion according to prescribed ritual."
JWs are taught to study for meetings, attend meetings, answer at meetings, dress certain ways, speak certain ways, go out in the ministry in certain ways, and so on. They study basically the same materials over and over, being only slightly modified and reworded but not fundamentally changing much. That is not a ritual way of living?
--
"Many cults follow a living human leader" [ this is covered above ] "and often their adherents live in groups apart from the rest of society."
In every country where Bethel offices operate, the "Bethel family" members, who most certainly are "adherents" to the WT, do indeed "live in groups apart from the rest of society", so much so that if Bethelites go outside of their Bethel compound to the wrong place for the wrong reason, they can be expelled. Rank and file JWs don't live under such close scrutiny, but are relentlessly bombarded with the message, "be no part of the world".
--
"The standard for what is orthodox, however, should be God's Word, and Jehovah's Witnesses strictly adhere to the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion."
If they strictly adhered to the Bible, why did they not adhere to it when it said no man could know the day and hour, that it did not belong to man to get knowledge of events that were in the Father's jurisdiction? If they strictly adhered to the Bible, they would not rightly have been criticized for being a false prophet.
--
"They neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society."
Yes they do, on both counts. This is provably false on its face.
--
"They live and work in the midst of other people."
But they do everything in their power to have nothing to do with the "worldly" people they live and work in the midst of. They are told not to involve themselves in school sports, extra-curricular activities, office parties, community events, and so on. The reality is, this claim by WT is false and meaningless.
---------
Finally, one of the worst faults of the GB in proclaiming themselves the FDS is that, in order to do so, they must sidestep the account about the evil slave. This they cleverly did in the July 15 2013 WT on page 24:
--
"Jesus has placed the weightiest of responsibilities on the faithful and discreet slave-namely, overseeing the domestics and giving out spiritual food at the proper time. Jesus knew that those with greater responsibility have greater accountability. (Luke 12:48) Hence, he concluded his illustration about the faithful and discreet slave with a powerful warning.
Jesus warned about an evil slave who concludes in his heart that the master is delaying and who starts to beat his fellow slaves. When the master arrives, said Jesus, he will punish that evil slave “with the greatest severity. Read Matthew 24:48-51.
Was Jesus foretelling that there would be an evil slave class in the last days? No. Granted, some individuals have manifested a spirit similar to that of the evil slave described by Jesus. We would call them apostates, whether they were of the anointed or of the "great crowd. (Rev. 7:9) But such ones do not make up an evil slave class. Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave. His words here are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave.
Notice that Jesus introduces the warning with the words "if ever." One scholar says that in the Greek text, this passage “for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition." In effect, Jesus was saying: "If the faithful and discreet slave were ever to mistreat his fellow slaves in these ways, this is what the master will do when he arrives." (See also Luke 12:45.) However, the composite faithful and discreet slave has continued to keep on the watch and to provide nourishing spiritual food.
The anointed brothers who together serve as the faithful slave recognize that they are accountable to the Master for the way they care for his domestics. The heartfelt desire of these anointed brothers is to fulfill their responsibility loyally so that they might hear a "well done" from the Master when he finally arrives."
--
What area the consequence of this position? They treat Matthew 24:45-47 as a prophesy, and apply it to themselves, but THEN claim that verses 48-51 are "hypothetical" - in other words, a PARABLE. That would make Matthew 24 a "hybrid" account, in which part is prophetic and part is a parable. This is an extremely peculiar way to understand this passage - not to mention that they have never attempted to apply such a "hybrid" interpretation methodology to ANY other part of the Bible, except right here. Why? What is their justification for doing so?
They do this because they simply have no choice . Unless they say the evil slave is a parable, the account points that role directly at THEM.
Why? Who of all people have proclaimed one date after another as the time Christ had arrived, or approached God in the heavenly temple, or took kingly power, or when Armageddon was supposed to arrive? How could someone be said to lament, "my master is delaying", unless they held out an expectation of his arrival at some specific time, and then that expectation did not materialize? As for beating his fellow slaves, those on the receiving end of being DF'd and shunned would no doubt say they'd rather be beaten than have all of their family members and friends taken away from them.
Yes, the GB completely fulfills the role of being the evil slave, as well as being the leaders of cult. Not because some angry, fist-clenching "mentally-diseased apostate" was bringing slanderous accusations against them. It is because that assertion fit the facts.
--
Luke 16:15: "You are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts; because what is lofty among men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-20 19:50:52

  The Real Anonymous,
  You bring up many points that should be dialogued in more detail . What do you say if we start the dialogue? Here are some debates related to your questions, let me know where you want to start.
  Examining the JW teaching of the Faithful and Discreet Slave:
  http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=829
  1st Century Governing Body?*** & WT interpretation of faithful slave:
  http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=40&sid=6d55ee58da9b02e98f635d0dd42d01f4
  Membership to the Truetheology website is only granted if one is interested in engaging in discussion or debate of one of the articles posted in the “ARTICLES FOR THE PROMOTION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH” section of the board or another pre-arranged topic. If you are interested in that, please send your request and/or challenge to challenges@truetheology.net
  Please specify which article you would like to discuss or debate or which topic you would like to engage, and you will be contacted by the board admin for further information and instructions.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-20 21:39:03

    I think perhaps you misunderstand me. The points I brought out about the GB are not really questions, they are statements of fact. For instance, people idolized Russell, his wife promoted the idea that he was the faithful steward, and he did nothing to disavow that idea. The Bible Students were following a man, even if they would not admit it. These things are well known and documented. What is there to "dialog" about? Perhaps it is you that wish to dialog. If so, perhaps you could state your specific interest and why you want to debate this, one way or the other.

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-20 19:32:04

Hello Sopater,
Here is some information that might be beneficial to you and some of the readers here. It was not compiled by me, but I surely appreciate the points made. I thought it was very relevant within this discussion. If you don’t want it here, I imagine you have means available to delete it. Also,let me know where you want to start the dialogue either on the question of independent thinking or Errors and the Assistance of the holy spirit in the Congregation.
Regards,
*** Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education – How to do Research (pg 33-38)
Before running in search of information, consider your audience. What will they already know? What do they need to know? Then identify your objective. Is it to explain? to convince? to refute? or to motivate? Explaining requires providing further information to make a matter clear. Although the basic facts may be understood, you may need to expand on when or how to do what is stated. Convincing calls for giving reasons outlining why a thing is so, including presentation of evidence. Refuting requires a thorough knowledge of both sides of an issue along with a careful analysis of evidence used. Of course, we seek not simply strong arguments but ways to present facts in a kindly manner. Motivating involves reaching the heart. It means giving your audience incentive and building up their desire to act on what is being discussed. Real-life examples of those who have taken such action, even in the face of difficulty, can help to reach the heart.
Are you now ready to begin? Not quite. Consider how much information you need. Time may be an important factor. If you are going to present the information to others, how much time will be available for you to do it? Five minutes? Forty-five minutes? Is the time fixed, such as at a congregation meeting, or is it flexible, such as on a Bible study or a shepherding call?
Finally, what research tools are available to you? In addition to what you have at home, are there more in the library at your Kingdom Hall? Would brothers who have been serving Jehovah for many years be willing to let you consult their research tools? Is there a public library in your area where reference books can be used if necessary?
Sopater: This clearly shows that they don’t think there’s anything wrong with gaining a thorough knowledge of an opponent’s perspective and carefully analyzing the available evidence so that you can effectively refute their erroneous beliefs. That this will almost certainly be time-consuming is not presented negatively. Entering a deep discussion with the premeditated intention of refuting error and false belief, a discussion that will almost always take the form of some kind of debate, is clearly not wrong according to this. All this makes sense since not all deep and time-consuming discussions and issues are foolish and fail to result in a building up in the faith. But SOME are, and THOSE are the type that are addressed near the end of the:
Question Box- km 9/07 3- groups for independent research and debate
(Also, the last question speaks to the issue of independent research in secular sources. Would they really suggest this as a method of gaining information if they were trying to tell us it was wrong to do so?)
…
Maintain Personal Files
Keep alert to items of interest that you can use when you are speaking and teaching. If you find in a newspaper or a magazine a news item, statistic, or example that you can use in your ministry, clip it out or copy the information. Include the date, the title of the periodical, and perhaps the name of the author or publisher. At congregation meetings, jot down reasoning points and illustrations that may help you to explain the truth to others. Have you ever thought of a good illustration but did not have an opportunity to use it right away? Write it down, and keep it in a file. After you have been in the Theocratic Ministry School for some time, you will have prepared a number of presentations. Instead of throwing away your notes from these talks, save them. The research you have done may prove useful later.
Sopater: This clearly shows that there is nothing wrong with using information from secular sources in our ministry. We are not bound to use only facts and arguments that have specifically appeared in our publications.
…
After wheat is harvested, the grain needs to be removed from the chaff. So it is with the fruitage of your research. Before it is ready for use, you need to separate what is valuable from what is superfluous.
If you are going to use the information in a talk, ask yourself: ‘Does the point I plan to use really contribute something worthwhile to my presentation of the subject? Or, even though it is interesting material, does it tend to divert attention from the subject that I ought to be talking about?’ If you are considering using current events or material from the ever-changing fields of science or medicine, make sure that the information is up-to-date. Realize, too, that some points in older publications of ours may have been updated, so consider what has most recently been published on the topic.
There is a special need to be cautious if you choose to compile information from secular sources. Never forget that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) Jesus occupies the key role in the fulfillment of God’s purpose. Therefore, Colossians 2:3 says: “Carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.” Evaluate the fruits of your research from that perspective. With regard to secular research, ask yourself: ‘Is this material exaggerated, speculative, or shortsighted? Was it written with a selfish or commercial motive? Do other authoritative sources agree with it? Above all, does it harmonize with Bible truth?’
Proverbs 2:1-5 encourages us to keep searching for knowledge, understanding, and discernment “as for silver, and as for hid treasures.” That implies both exertion and rich rewards. Research takes effort, but doing it will help you to find God’s thoughts on matters, to correct mistaken ideas, and to make firm your grasp of the truth. It will also add substance and life to your presentations, making them a pleasure to deliver and a delight to hear.
Sopater: Could it be any clearer that the FDS does not condemn research in secular material not published by the WTS? It even mentions the use of scientific information which is touched on in the Question Box but the meaning of which is misapplied by many. Yes, there is a need for caution and they mention that caution, but what may be most noteworthy of all is that they show their trust in their fellow Christians to be able to discern what is valuable for use from secular sources and what is not. They do not tell us what is valuable and what is not or what we can and cannot use.
*** Theocratic Ministry School Review 2003 ***
9. What factors should we keep in mind when deciding what points to use after doing research for a talk? [be p. 38] Use only points that contribute something worthwhile to the presentation of the subject. Make sure that the information is up-to-date and in line with the latest publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Be cautious when using information from secular sources, remembering that God’s Word is truth and that Jesus occupies the key role in the fulfillment of God’s purpose. (John 17:17; Col. 2:3) Our endeavor is to reflect God’s thinking. (Prov. 2:1-5)
Sopater: Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with researching secular sources and even using that information in our talks. We simply need to exercise caution.
*** g80 4/8 27-28 – A Catholic Priest Makes a Change ***
At the “Living Hope” District Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Giants Stadium, New Jersey, this past summer, it was related how Janet Jones became acquainted with this priest. She explained:
“Last year I worked as a secretary at Seton Hall University. With patient witnessing I was able to start a Bible study with a young student, a woman who at one time had contemplated suicide. She progressed rapidly in her studies. Soon she advised me she would resign from her church. All along, unknown to me, she had been giving her priest photocopies of the material we were covering each week.
“The priest was very upset when he learned she had resigned from the church, and tried his best to persuade her to change her mind. Shortly thereafter, she returned to her family’s home in Florida, where she continued progressing spiritually. Meanwhile, the priest found out that I was the person with whom she had studied and requested to see me. He asked for copies of the books from which our study material had come—The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life and Is This Life All There Is? He told me that I had committed a grave sin by turning the young woman away from the Catholic Church.
“When I saw him a few times after that, he said that he knew there were many flaws in these books and that he would bring them all to my attention as soon as he finished going
over the material. His many questions required much research on my part to answer him. Without telling me, he began visiting several Kingdom Halls and speaking with Witnesses who were in the preaching work, asking them the same questions he had asked me. He would receive the same responses again and again.
Sopater: The person profiled in this positive story spoke with a priest and did lots of research to answer conflicting religious views. Are we to understand that what this person did is inappropriate and that we should not waste our time as they did? Well, nothing in the article suggests any such thing.
*** Awake 05 – Libraries—Gateways to Knowledge ***
Especially relevant today, then, is the observation of the ancient scholar, writer, and king—Solomon. He wrote: “To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12) When used discerningly, though, libraries continue to be what the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization calls a “local gateway to knowledge.”
Sopater: Now, why on earth would they make this statement if the hard-nosed interpretation of the Question Box is correct? Don’t we have everything we need in our publications and isn’t it inappropriate to look for knowledge in secular sources? What are we going to gain knowledge in at these libraries? History? Science? Ancient languages? According to the interpretation of some, any such research and exploration would be inappropriate and contrary to the rules of the organization based on the Question Box.
The article then goes on to give a description of the Dewey Decimal system used in most libraries and then gives a detailed description of how to find books within the various religious categories based on this numbering system. Are we supposed to understand that they gave us this information but condemn us from using it to read any such books at the library? That seems pretty strange to me.
*** g87 3/22 – How Knowing Greek Led Me to Know God ***
The year before this, a publication was released by the Watch Tower Society entitled The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It proved to be crucial for me. Perhaps more than any other single thing, it was instrumental in causing me to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the left-hand column on each page is the original koine Greek text, and under each line is a literal translation of the Greek. In the right-hand column of each page, in modern-day English, is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
…
The quality of Greek scholarship in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures … is very good. It’s the kind of thing that a person who really wants to work with the Greek, even though not knowing much Greek, can do a lot with. I feel it’s one of the greatly underappreciated jewels of the Watch Tower Society’s publications.
Sopater: Why on earth would they have this article and present it in such a positive way and include the comment about the KIT being a greatly underappreciated jewel if they thought it was improper to learn or know the Biblical languages and then read the Bible directly in those languages? It makes no sense.
INTERNET DISCUSSION
*** g00 1/22 p. 21 How Can I Avoid Dangers on the Internet? ***
A more subtle danger, though, lies in getting caught up in improper fellowship with strangers who do not respect Bible principles*.
*Such dangers can exist in public chat rooms established by well-meaning Christians for the purpose of discussing spiritual issues. Dishonest people and apostates have sometimes joined these discussions and insidiously attempted to persuade others to accept their unscriptural ideas.
Sopater: Note that this footnote does not in any way condemn “chat rooms established by well-meaning Christians for the purpose of discussing spiritual issues.” Rather, it wisely points out the potential danger that CAN (rather than DOES) exist on such sites and that we need to be aware of by expressing what has happened in some cases. The best way to guard against this danger is to be well aware of the greater pattern of healthful words rather than to avoid internet discussion.
Some who make blanket condemnation of internet discussion because of the danger of apostates seem to have this rather strange idea that apostates can be magically identified if only you can see what they look like. Perhaps they are all supposed to come with a big hairy factory-issued mole on their nose. Apostates are recognized by what they say and try to teach and promote insistently. What better way to keep track of that than if you have it all in writing? It can be much harder to recognize an apostate in person who you may meet in service and who may simply try to slyly slip apostate reasoning into a discussion rather than being upfront about it.
I know someone who said we should avoid internet discussion because you never know if you’re talking to an apostate and then, oddly, in the same discussion, mentioned that they had come across an apostate in service but didn’t realize it until they were inside the person’s home and was then stuck there having a discussion with the person for an hour and a half. So does that mean we should avoid the door-to-door ministry because we never know when we might meet an apostate at the door without realizing it and get roped into talking to them? Once you recognize an apostate online it’s a heck of a lot easier to stop talking to them than it is in person, as is evidenced by the example of this person just mentioned.
*** g97 7/22 10-13 – The Internet—Why Be Cautious? ***
Caution
Some discussion groups debate religious or controversial matters. Be careful about posting comments to such discussions; likely your E-mail address and name will be broadcast to all in the group. This often results in time-consuming and unwanted correspondence. Indeed, there are some newsgroups that are unfit to read, let alone interact with.
What about creating a discussion group, or newsgroup, for fellow Christians? This may present greater problems and dangers than initially expected. For example, individuals with ulterior motives have been known to misrepresent themselves on the Internet. Currently, the Internet itself does not enable individuals appearing on it to confirm identities. Furthermore, such a group can be compared in some ways to a large, ongoing social gathering, taxing the time and ability of its host to provide necessary and responsible supervision.—Compare Proverbs 27:12.
Sopater: Notice that in the first paragraph, the reason mentioned for being careful about posting to discussion groups that debate religious matters is because your email address and name may be broadcast to the whole group, which might result in unwanted correspondence outside of the group. It is not because posting to such boards is wrong.
In the second paragraph it again addresses the issue of discussion groups set up by Witnesses for other Witnesses. Again it cautions that there may be some unexpected dangers, such as people with ulterior motives who misrepresent themselves, and points out the difficulty of confirming identities on the internet. While it’s true that you may face such problems at times and so should be cautious, it doesn’t mean you will face those problems, and that article doesn’t say you necessarily will, but that you may. It also doesn’t state that this possible risk makes the whole venture wrong. Also, this article was written in 1997 and it has since become significantly easier to track down a person’s identity on the internet … especially if you own the site, because you have access to all users’ IP addresses.
It also mentions the potential difficulty of providing responsible supervision over what is happening on the site. Fortunately, this problem can be seriously reduced or eliminated by putting a discussion board on moderated status (so nothing appears on the board without approval) and by sharing the oversight responsibilities with other responsible people.
In the end, the internet is a tool like anything else. Whether it is used or misused depends on the individual, and as is the case with anything, you must use caution.
ENDORSEMENT
A sampling of the usage within our publications.
*** w93 8/15 p. 24 Succeeding in the Struggle With Alcoholism *** There are many treatment centers, hospitals, and other recovery programs that can provide help. The Watchtower does not endorse any particular treatment. Care must be exercised so that one does not become involved in activities that would compromise Scriptural principles. In the final analysis, however, each will have to decide for himself what type of treatment is needed.
Sopater: “Does not endorse” does not mean condemn.
*** w64 5/15 p. 307 par. 18 Maintaining Unity in Difficult Times ***
The Scriptures do not recommend the appointing of newly converted men to offices in the Christian congregation. “Not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil.” (1 Tim. 3:6) Especially in times of persecution this principle may not be ignored. Newly converted men may be zealous in the service for the Kingdom, but they may lack maturity. Under normal conditions such persons can better be watched and helped. In the underground work of preaching God’s kingdom this is more difficult. A newly converted man can cause dissensions if he starts to act independently. He may not yet have learned to trust in the lead of the trustworthy “faithful and discreet slave.” He trusts too much in himself. He has his own ideas instead of God’s. He does not see that his action may bring about undesirable consequences for himself and others. He may be ready to compromise or have extreme views and be inclined to be fanatical. If he were an overseer in a congregation, he could be a cause of disunity. Therefore in the underground work careful attention has to be paid that well-proved and reliable persons are appointed to service positions. “Also, let these be tested as to fitness first, then let them serve as ministers, as they are free from accusation.” (1 Tim. 3:10) This is true in all cases of overseers, especially of circuit and district servants, who maintain the connections with the congregations in a land.
Sopater: Note the bolded part. There are, in fact, some situations where newly converted men are appointed without negative results. Often this happens in developing countries where experienced brothers are in extremely short supply. It is true that this course is not generally recommended for certain obvious reasons, but not being recommended does not here mean absolutely prohibited without regard for circumstances.
*** w03 2/1 p. 5 How to Cultivate a Balanced View of Work ***
Some people are workaholics, putting their job before all else. Others live for day’s end when they can quit work and go home. What is the balanced view? The Bible answers: “Better is a handful of rest than a double handful of hard work and striving after the wind.” (Ecclesiastes 4:6) Working too hard or too long is, in fact,
counterproductive—a vain “striving after the wind.” Why so? Because we may well do injury to the very things that are responsible for our greatest happiness: our relationship with family and friends, our spirituality, our health, and even our longevity. (1 Timothy 6:9, 10) The balanced view is to be content with less material gain along with a reasonable measure of peace rather than be loaded down with a double dose of work along with strife and misery.
In encouraging such a balanced view, the Bible does not endorse laziness. (Proverbs 20:4) Laziness corrodes self-respect and the respect others may have for us. Worse still, it damages our relationship with God. The Bible frankly states that the person who refuses to work does not deserve to eat at the expense of others. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) Rather, he should change his ways and work hard, thus providing honorably for himself and his dependents. Through hard work he may even be able to help those who are truly in need—a practice God’s Word encourages.—Proverbs 21:25, 26; Ephesians 4:28.
Sopater: The point of saying the Bible “does not endorse laziness” is not the method by which they are saying that the Bible condemns it. Rather, they are saying it to counter the perspective some might have that Ecclesiastes 4:6 DOES ENDORSE laziness. This is an important distinction, because it shows that contextually they are not simply using the term “does not endorse” to signify condemnation but to contextually address what might be considered as endorsement and say it is not an endorsement.
*** w99 4/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
Some of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been offered employment involving religious buildings or property. What is the Scriptural view of such work?
…
If the Christian is an employee without the deciding voice over what jobs are accepted, other factors ought to be considered, such as the location and the extent of involvement. Is the employee asked simply to deliver or put in place new chairs on an occasion or to render human service, such as a fireman’s putting out a fire in a church before it spreads? Many would see this as different from an employee of a business spending a long time painting the church or regularly doing gardening to make it attractive. Such regular or extended contact would increase the likelihood that many would link the Christian with a religion that he claims he does not endorse, potentially stumbling them.—Matthew 13:41; 18:6, 7.
We have brought up a number of important considerations as to employment. These were presented in the context of a specific question involving false religion. Yet, they
can equally be considered in connection with other types of employment. In each case, a prayerful analysis should be made, taking into consideration the specific—and probably unique—aspects of the situation at hand. The factors presented above have already helped many sincere Christians to make conscientious decisions that reflect their desire to walk straight and upright before Jehovah.—Proverbs 3:5, 6; Isaiah 2:3; Hebrews 12:12-14.
Sopater: If someone were constantly seen working along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, it would likely be assumed by viewers that that person either IS one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or that they at least ENDORSE Jehovah’s Witnesses in some way. The same would be true of any Witness who has regular employment at a church of Christendom. Whether correct or not, viewers would begin to link the person with that church, as the article mentions, and in doing so they would likely assume that he belongs to the church or at least endorses them in some way, when in fact he does not. The point being made was not a Witness’ condemnation of the church but the need to counter the opinion that they endorse that church when they do not endorse it.
So, again, the point being made contextually was not that “does not endorse” was being used to mean “condemn” but that it was being used in opposition to the idea that endorsement is actually suggested.
*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Is it all right to break God’s law in order to save a life, as has been reasoned from Matthew 12:1-8?
…
Consequently, the Scriptures do not endorse the view that divine commands can be broken in a difficult situation. Rather, we are told: “By this we gain the knowledge that we are loving the children of God, when we are loving God and doing his commandments.”—1 John 5:2.
Sopater: The viewpoint being addressed is the idea that Matt 12:1-8 actually DOES ENDORSE the view that divine commands can be broken in a difficult situation. The article reasons that such scriptures DO NOT ENDORSE that view. That such a view is condemned may be true, but that is not the reason for using the term “does not endorse” and condemnation is again not what is being conveyed by this usage.
So, in the final analysis (at least of the examples that have been offered thus far), the term “does not endorse” has not been used to denote condemnation but to signify a refusal to put one’s stamp of approval on something and stand behind it. This, of course, does not mean that you are making some blanket statement that it is wrong or condemning it. Only that you aren’t going to unequivocally stand behind it.
TAKING CAUTIONS TOO FAR
*** w96 9/1 p. 21 par. 8 Living by the Law of the Christ *** 8 In the congregation it is likewise our goal to build one another up in the spirit of love. (1 Thessalonians 5:11) So all Christians should be careful not to add to the burdens of others by taking it upon themselves to impose their own ideas in matters of personal choice. At times, some write to the Watch Tower Society asking for rulings on such matters as what view they should have of specific films, books, and even toys. Yet, the Society is not authorized to scrutinize such things and to issue judgments on them. In most cases, these are matters that each individual or family head should decide, based on his love of Bible principles. Others tend to turn the Society’s suggestions and guidelines into rules. For example, in the March 15, 1996, issue of The Watchtower, there was a fine article encouraging elders to make regular shepherding calls on congregation members. Was the purpose to establish rules? No. Although those who are able to follow the suggestions find many benefits, some elders are not in a position to do so. Similarly, the article “Questions From Readers” in the April 1, 1995, issue of The Watchtower cautioned against detracting from the dignity of the occasion of baptism by going to extremes, such as wild partying or staging victory parades. Some have carried this mature counsel to extremes, even making a rule that sending an encouraging card on this occasion would be wrong!
*** w94 7/1 p. 27 par. 13 Joyful Submission to Authority *** 13 An elder could think that in order to be theocratic, the brothers should obey all sorts of rules. Some elders have made rules out of suggestions given from time to time by “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matthew 24:45) For instance, it was once suggested that for the sake of more readily getting to know the brothers in the congregation, it might be good not always to sit in the same seat in the Kingdom Hall. This was meant to be a practical suggestion, not a hard-and-fast rule. But some elders may be inclined to convert it into a rule and to feel that those who do not follow it are not theocratic. Yet, there may be many good reasons why a brother or a sister might prefer to sit in a certain area. If an elder does not lovingly take such things into account, is he himself being truly theocratic? To be theocratic, “let all your affairs take place with love.”—1 Corinthians 16:14.
*** km 4/92 p. 7 Question Box *** The elders should assign either the Theocratic Ministry School overseer or a qualified ministerial servant to make sure that this file is kept up-to-date month by month. While the information presented in Our Kingdom Ministry is in the form of suggestions and not rigid rules, it is still a fine source of reference material that should be a part of each congregation Kingdom Hall library. Back issues of Our Kingdom Ministry cannot be ordered from Brooklyn, however.

• Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-20 20:59:51

  I just want to make a simple point. Yes, they say we can do other research. They say alot of things. But it is usually only half the story. So can we change how we feel about what is being taught by the "gaurdians of doctrine"? Can I research the Borean Pickets site and draw a different conclusion than they do, and begin teaching it as truth? If I want to research truth, am I allowed ro come to a site like this, which is not your typical "apostate" site? The clear answer is no. Yes, you can research anything you want. But "truth" only exists on the Watchtower Library. You can read all you want, but if you believe it or teach it, you are an"apostate" and will be disfellowshipped. So do they really mean what they say? Just another typical deception as always!

  • Reply by Out of Africa on 2015-12-21 11:25:18

    When I used to go to the meetings, I knew that I daren't just put up my hand and answer a point in the bible highlights if I hadn't first checked what the WT had published on the point to make sure it was in line with WT published information.
    I have seen on another site that the Ministry School book (which Anonymous used above to show that the WT encourage research) and the Reasoning from the Scriptures book will no longer be available. The new midweek meeting format with scripted answer sheets for the elders is also discouraging any research.
    I believe that the research the WT encourages is that which will prove what they publish, eg news articles against the use of blood or proving that we are in the last days.
    DID ANYONE notice that the yearbooks are no longer on WT library? One way to erase history. I wanted to pull the 2012 yearbook quote showing how well the WT does research, how accurate the publications are and hence we don't need to trouble ourselves with anything further. I had better go dig my hardcopy out of the trash!

    • Reply by Out of Africa on 2015-12-21 11:32:50

      Oops, sorry my mistake - it was the 2011 yearbook and it is still on the WT library cd, under books.

      • Reply by 1984 on 2015-12-21 16:18:55

        Don't worry OOA, at least you can admit your mistakes, unlike Watchtower. We all make mistakes, it's part of what makes us human. :)

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 11:32:51

      The yearbooks are available on the WT online library. Go to Books and Yearboks is at the top of the list. Your 2012 yearbook is there. ?

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-20 21:46:34

  Anon,
  Perhaps you've missed my point. I am not suggesting the GB has a problem with outside research in general, for example secular topics such as history, science or medical. I am saying they would strongly discourage our researching religious doctrine (including in the original languages) outside of WT publications if the purpose of the research is to examine our own peculiar teachings.
  Please read the opening quote again. The claim is made that "truth is made clear in the publications of the faithful and discreet slave." The inference is that truth is not made clear anywhere else. Since this is their view, it is easy to understand why they would view be uncomfortable with us doing outside research. Not only that, if many of our teachings are not provable outside the box, would they want us to know that?
  I'm not certain I understand the point you are attempting to make. If you are suggesting the GB would be just fine with the rank and file doing outside research examining JW doctrine, I completely disagree.
  If you attend meetings, next time your CO comes for a visit mention that your new personal study program is to imitate the Beroeans and carefully search the scriptures to prove that the teachings of the FDS are truth. I'd love to see his reaction.
  Tell him your you will be researching the scriptures with the help of the internet.
  Let us know what he says.
  Sopater

  • Reply by John Gooch on 2015-12-21 16:13:33

    In my case i have never joined up with the J W s but if they were not as large and pressing as they are, there would be no one to talk to on these topics in this English town of 70 thousand people.
    So wrong they are, this i have no doubt, but they are not as slack as the other churches.
    I am blessed by English and American heritage to walk between the churches.
    As in this day and age, the 1st world countries would rather waste money on murderous nuclear power stations than say Jesus is alive.
    The truth is worth finding, but someone has to blunder on publicly to get people to get doing the think stuff.
    we all sinners - when do healing get doing ? ?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-20 22:04:12

  Anonymous, It is true that the GB has no problem with us doing research using secular sources to reason with and overturn false doctrine, but the unwritten understanding is that there is no such thing as false doctrine stemming from the Governing Body. However, were you to take all this counsel and apply it to say, showing that the WT teaching of the other sheep is false, or that the teaching of 1914 is unscriptural, you would see very quickly that those rules no longer apply.
  When I began to question things, the elders pulled me into a meeting and accused me of apostasy because I was downloading old (pre-1950) Watchtower volumes. How does that fit with what you cite here?
  Unity is important, but it doesn't trump truth. Or would you suggest that God approves of all Christian denominations as long as they are united. If so, please quote chapter and verse.

• Reply by 1984 on 2015-12-21 05:00:21

  Anonymous. Jesus already covered this at Matthew 23:3,4, in case you haven't read it, this is what he said:
  " So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." (NIV)
  I know Watchtower likes to give the impression of encouraging research, free thought and free will, but the reality is the opposite, as demonstrated by their extensive efforts to sanitise their own history and cover up their mishandling of child sex abuse.
  I know this from personal experience as a convert to JWs, where I was discouraged from speaking to any ex-witnesses or reading any other literature. I was, however, strongly encouraged to quit university. To my lasting shame I was even studying history. I really should have known better. But then, it was 1994 and "this generation" was 80 years old and unfortunately I trusted what they said and put my faith in them, something which I have now corrected. Thank god I listened to Jesus in the end!

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-21 06:44:36

  Anon,
  I noticed that on the home page of your website ("I Believe") it is curious that you do not subscribe to certain core beliefs of the FDS/GB?
  For example:
  1. You believe the Logos was not a person, but is God's spoken thoughts.
  2. You believe that in Jesus dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily
  3. You believe that being saved is being born again, of the Spirit
  4. You believe that we will rule with Christ during the millennial rein (typo on your home page)
  5. You believe that Satan and those who do not have their names written in the book of life will suffer torment in the lake of fire.
  May I ask how you came to such conclusions? These beliefs are clearly not JW, in fact they are viewed as "apostate." Have you shared your beliefs with the elders in your congregation? Or, is it you have faded, are df'd or da'd, and no longer attend?
  How did you arrive at your personal beliefs? It was certainly not through the pages of the publications produced by the FDS. One could arrive at such conclusions only by doing extensive outside the box research. I'm not saying I agree with your conclusions, I'm saying you've spent a lot of time in the main library.
  So, I'm confused. Just reading a bit in your forum, on the one hand, you seem to support the FDS and argue they are directed by God's spirit. Yet you do not subscribe to all FDS teachings? How strange. Can we have it both ways? You must then feel the teachings of the FDS you personally disagree with are not directed by God's holy spirit?
  My brother, you appear to be a serious student of God's Word. You have taken off the blindfold and researched in the main library. You now believe (and teach) doctrine contrary to the FDS. If you remain an active JW, if the CO got wind of your personal beliefs, you would be expelled in a a New York minute, as a diseased "apostate."
  How can we hold the FDS is spirit directed, but their body of teachings are not?
  With all due respect, your arguing in behalf of the FDS would be more tasteful if at minimum, you subscribed to all their current teachings.
  We can't have it both ways.
  Sopater

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-21 08:36:05

  Anon,
  I noticed that on the home page of your website where you state your beliefs ("I Believe"). I find it curious that you do not agree with certain core beliefs of the FDS/GB?
  For example:
  1. You believe the Logos was not a person, but is God's spoken thoughts.
  2. You believe that in Jesus dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily
  3. That being saved is being born again, of the Spirit
  4. That we will rule with Christ during the millennial rein (typo on your home page)
  5. That Satan and those who do not have their names written in the book of life will suffer torment in the lake of fire.
  May I ask, how you arrived at such conclusions? These beliefs are certainly not JW, in fact they would be viewed by a JW as "apostate." Have you expressed your beliefs to the elders in your congregation? Or, is it you have faded, df'd or da'd, and no longer attend?
  How did you arrive at your personal beliefs? It was certainly not through the pages of the publications produced by the FDS. One can arrive at such conclusions only by doing extensive outside the box research. I'm not saying I agree with your conclusions, I'm saying you've spent a lot of time researching outside the box.
  So, I'm confused. Just reading a bit in your forum, on the one hand, you seem to support the FDS and argue they are directed by God's spirit. Yet you do not subscribe to all their teachings? How strange. Can we have it both ways? You must believe the teachings of the FDS you personally disagree with are not directed by God's holy spirit?
  My brother, you appear to be a serious student of God's Word. You have taken off the blindfold and researched in the main library. You now believe (and teach) something contrary to the FDS. If they knew, the GB would expel you as a diseased "apostate" in a New York minute.
  How can we hold the FDS is spirit directed, but that their teachings are not?
  With all due respect, your arguing in behalf of the FDS would be more tasteful if you subscribed to all their current teachings.
  We can't have it both ways.
  Sopater

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 10:05:15

    Sopater,
    With all the respect , I don't know what website your are looking at or where you are getting this information or drawing these conclusions, but is definitely not the one i cited.
    Assertions are easy. But assertions are not arguments. Anyone can assert anything. If assertions were sufficient to establish the truth of a claim, then I could simply assert that you are mistaken. If you’re not willing to engage in argumentation by quoting what you are referring to, but only wish to engage in mere assertion. I provided the email address and links for serious dialogue, not for merely gain-saying, question-begging, table-pounding or setting up straw men.
    Regards,

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-21 13:26:58

      Anon,
      I googled the letters of your website and this is the result:
      http://www.trutheology.net/
      After your comment above, I have looked very closely and the site I was directed to on google has a name nearly identical to yours. My apologies, call it an honest mistake.
      I didn't catch this because the person's belief's are not that far away from JW.
      What a strange coincidence.
      Anyway, please pardon my error.
      Sopater

Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-20 20:06:15

Because you were "blindfolded" when you were in the Watchtower, at first when you leave, you think they are mostly right about most things. Usually what drives us out of the Watchtower, is deception of their history or other problems we observe. However, in very short time, you learn that the only truth they have doctrinally , can be summed up in three or four chapters in the Bible Teach book. That's it! EVERYTHING else is nothing but the warped dreams of the governing body. How could we have had faith that Ezekiel's chariot vision represents God's heavenly organization? And when that turns it's wheels we must turn as well with God's earthly organization? REALLY GUYS?!!
Or the "other sheep" are the earthly class? Or any and all typical and ant-typical nonsense? What of us calling the Watchtower "Mother"? That has always been an embarrassing moment. I like this quote: We also love the organization that Jehovah uses to teach us wonderful truths. It was Jehovah’s organization that taught us about Jehovah’s name and what it means, his purpose for the earth, what happens to us when we die, and the hope of the resurrection. Do you remember how happy you were when you first learned these and other truths? Then do not allow the lies from false teachers to turn you against the organization that taught you these truths.—John 6:66-69. ( Wt 7/15/11 pg.11) p.7) So the Watchtower wants us to swallow everything they say without scriptural proof just because of those few truths? Sadly to say, it is those few things that keep people trapped within it's walls. Since they are told not to study outside sources, they think NO ONE teaches those few truths. That's what kept me trapped. Bottom line: They are messed up doctrinally from head to foot.

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-21 12:59:26

  I was just reading that watchtower again vince . They accuse others of being apostates and false teachers and then go and apply John 6:66-69 to the organisation instead of jesus christ .

Comment by AR on 2015-12-21 00:14:01

Nice Article Sopater,
One thing Dealership sell new vehicles is always 'the warranty' some 5 years 6 years,..it's a peace of mind thing. And the Organisation started out this way, in 1874 first 30 years prior were trial and error. Then new vehicle came on the market 1914-1919. then a great marketing campaign launched the new vehicle,...the Photo-Drama of Creation production of 1914 launched this vehicle to the world. Viewed by over 9 million people, it achieved its purpose. Now move forward to the time you learned the 'truth' the vehicle had recieved many modifications since its launch. For eg, the 1914 teaching recieved a revamp, the car was lowered to the floor to suit a great crowd of other sheep to be closer to the earth. And just recently, The Faithful & Discreet slave, changed its Driver. And the modifications haven't stopped, the last few years since 2012 have seen over 60 plus new addition's alone. Wow awesome some say.
Why it's almost like a different vehicle that was launched all the way back in 1914.
Why hasnt the manufacturer just dump this Dealership and gone with a company more loyal to its instructions? I'm not sure? Maybe, maybe it's got to do with , truth setting us free, maybe there looking for new executives and workforce is being already hand picked. How? Through individuals doing thorough research, John 8:32 & Rev 18:4 also.
However this dealership is running on an extended warranty. Which its clients like. Why ?peace of mind, There's a breakdown, no worries bring it in!! It's under extended warranty. This means the Dealer covers cost not the manufacturer. So how long this Dealership stays in the game, well it's not in our hands. Our job, yes, be diligent, do the research, understand its service history, check the books, and if you like it so be it. However don't be fooled by the extended warranty.

Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-21 10:10:25

I just wanted to add something else to this research subject.  True Apostasy is denying Christ. Why is it that I can read an article about evolution in National Geographic magazine in front of elders and it is OK?
Why can I read Harper's Bible Dictionary that casts doubt on the authenticity of much of the Bible?  Why can I study in depth other religions?  These things can truly lead us away from Christ into apostasy. But... I can't study Watchtower history. I can't read an ExJw's site like this one where spiritual matters are appreciated.  Does Christ approve of such thinking? It is obvious that the Watchtower is only concerned with itself and they can care less about Christ.

Comment by AR on 2015-12-21 19:15:39

Well just following sum of the threads by Anon, regarding the society doesn't mind ones to do external research. Well in theory it's all good. But the reality as a few have attested to is different and I'm sure you know that to be true also. I remember a few ago know at a District Convention, the talk dealt with the dangers of the Internet & our website was watchtower or something like that. They had a demo, were the brother was talking out loud as he was preparing for a talk, and he stumbled on a site called ''ewatchman" and my jaw dropped, 1 because I never heard of the site, free promotion,and they named the site, 2) labelled it apostate site. What's the point! Its only in theory we have freedom to do research, but speak up about some of your findings even if you present your findings as a possibility were wrong, you will be reported, as I was not long ago. Innocent I was , but learnt the hard way.

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 19:48:33

Hello Everyone,
There is no need for any special interpretation when it comes to the absolute teachings of the scriptures, and we invite anyone and everyone to examine to see if we adequately present those absolute teachings. Naturally, JWs themselves have already done that and have come to trust that central authority to be that FDS. I think that’s the point many her seem to miss. JWs have already made the examination that several here speak of and have come to a decision as to who they trust. Really, the question should be along the lines of what happens when someone finds something that is in clear contradiction of scripture AFTER they become a member of Christianity? That seems to be closer to the real quandary.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting and asking your questions, or even your view to the GB for their estimation of it. The problem only comes about when one would promote what the GB would determine to be incorrect. This is exactly how the scriptures would lay it out. Why? Because it would first have to be determined “objectively” if what you have found is actually a problem for our current understandings. How does one know, without proper examination, that what they have found is actually a problem? Is it absolute, or is it a viewpoint? It should be examined by the “multitude of counselors”, in which there is salvation, to see if it is actually as problem. Naturally, in the harvest period, the FDS would be involved in that multitude of counselors. In the end, if it is a viewpoint and not an absolute, then whose viewpoint should be yielded to? Would it not be to those who are rendering an account for our souls? Heb. 13:17
Once you have joined Christianity and have determined who this FDS would be, it is expected Biblically that you would not create divisions or sects within that body. It is expected that unless this body insists on something clearly out of line with the Bible, then the Christian should be willing to submit. If you feel that there is something that we have clearly missed, please give an example. You have the email and the links I provided at truetheology dot net so we can dialogue on what you think are false teachings.
My point is, that Christian understanding and doctrine is not created in an autonomous vacuum. The question really becomes, who do we trust to be representing the body of Christ. And in the harvest period, who do we trust to be that FDS who has been given the charge to feed the members of Christianity food at the proper time?
The FDS is at least SOMEONE who will be appointed in the “harvest period, by Christ the conclusion of the age, to give the proper food at the proper time. Since Christianity would be involved in the separating of the wheat and the weeds at this time, it would be imperative to have a centralized authority in regard to teachings. It would be imperative to also identify that centralized authority on teaching and to adhere to their teachings, just as the 1st century Christians adhered to the teachings of the Apostles.
So, if one has come to be convinced that they are in the time of the harvest, they would naturally expect there to be the existence of this FDS. God asks us to obey and submit to those ones who would be taking the lead because these ones have to make any accounting for our souls before God.
It is the FDS and those associated with them that we believe are trustworthy in their scholarship, in their teaching and their education so as to be able to handle the word of God correctly. If we find something that doesn’t add up to us, there is a Christian process for determining the validity of that and that is available to every JW. If their elders and their personal research cannot resolve the issue then they can certainly write to the FDS and ask them to consider what they have found or to answer their question. If the matter is simply viewpoint, then the FDS viewpoint would trump the issue, so as to maintain unity and to not create divisions within Christianity.
But I have a question, was there a first century centralized authority in regard to teachings in the first century? Did not the Apostles constitute that at that time in history?
Several here say that JWs simply do not have the freedom to test the GB according to Scripture. If someone does and finds their teachings wanting, he is subject to disfellowshipping and shunning, even if the matter revolves around the most minor points of doctrine.
I hear this alot but it simply isn’t accurate, and I believe I have the experience to know. As stated, whatever is supposedly found to PROVE that we are wanting in our view, should first be tested ITSELF before it would ever be promoted to the congregation. That sounds like a no-brainer process to guard against promoting a dissident view and causing division.
Disfellowshipping only occurs when one insists on a view that the GB does not agree with. Why, not because the view is inherently wrong, (the FDS might even come to appreciate later that it was correct) but because it causes division in the congregation, which God condemns. This is in harmony with Titus 3:10,11.
As Witnesses we are encouraged if we have questions and doubts, to take the steps necessary to resolve them as best as possible. Naturally, though, in the end, if it is just a viewpoint, and not an absolute failing of the GB, as the scriptures admonish, one should be willing to obey and submit to their lead. That is the Biblical admonition, is it not?
While it is true that the organization is providing all that is necessary, it in no way condemns personal and independent research. The issue, again, is when people take the improper course to resolve issues that may arise in their studies. That is what would “detract” from what Christ is accomplishing through the congregation.
Deeper knowledge is in no way prevented or forbidden. Naturally, though there should be caution. And that doesn’t mean you are not encouraged to resolve the conflict. And if you actually find something that is indeed a failing, the GB will be under obligation by God to correct it.
I think several readers here are being misled as to the true nature of our epistemological process. The FDS quotes numerous outside sources. My own personal theocratic library is full of outside sources. And as mentioned, they are not the sole interpreter of the scriptures, for we insist that for the most part, scripture will interpret scripture as to it correct understanding. Many truths are easily recognized by those who can merely read and understand the words they are reading, they simply have to look at all the information on a particular subject before making a decision. Much of the Bible is self explanatory.
Regards,

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-21 22:20:40

  Hello Anonymous,
  It is not direction and wishes of the founders of Beroean Pickets for this to be a debate forum. However, I am disturbed to find so much of your presentation to be contrary to what I have learned in my own research, and I cannot let this go unanswered.
  I will respond to your points in the order you wrote them. Since your post is long, this reply necessarily is also; sorry for the length.
  --
  1. "There is no need for any special interpretation when it comes to the absolute teachings of the scriptures, and we invite anyone and everyone to examine to see if we adequately present those absolute teachings."
  Much of the Bible is incomplete, symbolic or figurative, and not all of the historical context is known or evidence available. It does indeed require interpretation, which has been a challenge to Christians since the day they adopted the name. WT can hardly claim to 'present those [as] absolute teachings', much less do so adequately, since they have changed them so many times. Their teachings are anything but absolute, and you know that.
  --
  2. "Naturally, JWs themselves have already done that and have come to trust that central authority to be that FDS."
  Very few JWs have in fact done such research. If they trust the "FDS" as the GB now exults itself to be, it is because they are told to trust them, and they obediently do as they are told, not because they have proven their trustworthiness.
  --
  3. "the question should be along the lines of what happens when someone finds something that is in clear contradiction of scripture AFTER they become a member of Christianity?"
  JWs will rarely if ever believe that such a contradiction is even possible. They are repeatedly told that WT is God's organization, that they alone have the truth of the Bible, that the Bible itself cannot be understood without them and that the Bible does not belong to individuals but to the Watchtower Society. However, there are many dissenters that do not believe the WT is even a Christian religion, so when you equate becoming a "member of Christianity" and becoming a member of WT, it sounds incredibly self-serving and presumptuous. Every new WT publication further and further diminishes and minimizes the role of Christ. The WT religion, rather than being "Christian" might as well be called "Jehovian" if I could coin a phrase. The religion of the WT is not the truth, and is not Christian. Christ would never associate himself with an organization that is as self-centered and hateful as WT has proven itself to be, IMHO.
  --
  4. "The problem only comes about when one would promote what the GB would determine to be incorrect."
  This is only a "problem" is you assume that the GB is incapable of error. As was made clear in the 1954 Walsh trial, WT holds unity as its highest priority, and does so even at the expense of truth. They only compound this arrogance by promoting false ideas and false prophecies, and when they are found out, they turn around and blame their followers for being "overly anxious and eager" for Armageddon to come and solve their problems. WT never, ever takes responsibility for their own errors, when they have so many gullible followers to conveniently blame. There are three things WT never says: "We don't know everything." "We could be (or were) wrong." and "We are sorry."
  --
  5. "How does one know, without proper examination, that what they have found is actually a problem? Is it absolute, or is it a viewpoint? It should be examined by the "multitude of counselors", in which there is salvation, to see if it is actually as problem."
  WT has never shied away from promoting their own opinions as doctrines. They simply don't tolerate anyone else's opinions besides their own. But that is beside the point. The notion of discussing doctrinal matters with a "multitude of counselors" sounds fine in theory. The problem is, in practice such discussions never take place, and in fact such discussions are strongly discouraged. At Bethel, private discussions on doctrinal matters are prohibited, because WT fears that this will lead to disagreements with the "company line" and then to "apostasy" as they view it. That is how so many people got DF'd in the 1980's, the same time Ray Franz was forced out.
  --
  6. "Naturally, in the harvest period, the FDS would be involved in that multitude of counselors."
  You would have to proven that we are, in fact, in the harvest period, or if you will, "the last days". I personally do not believe we are, at the moment, in any biblical period called the "last days", no matter how difficult and trying world events might be. Further, the WT GB has, in the estimation of many, in assuming the title and mantle of "faithful and discrete slave", done so as a result of self-serving ambition, arrogance and unmitigated gall. What they have NOT done is proven conclusively that (a) there even IS a FDS at this time, and (b) much less that they are it.
  --
  7. "In the end, if it is a viewpoint and not an absolute, then whose viewpoint should be yielded to? Would it not be to those who are rendering an account for our souls?"
  If a religious precept is accepted as being a viewpoint, "whose viewpoint should be yielded to"? No one's. If we did, we are merely obeying the commands (and viewpoints) of men as doctrines, a thing Jesus unquestionably condemned and told us to avoid. As for painting the GB as "those who are rendering an account", this dishonestly belies the reality that the GB are answerable to no one - neither to the rank and file in general, nor to the governments they live under, nor to the many victims of child abuse that they see fit only to ignore, dismiss and punish as a reward for their suffering, so that they can protect the perpetrators and fraudulently protect their precious name and reputation.
  --
  8. "It is expected that unless this body insists on something clearly out of line with the Bible, then the Christian should be willing to submit."
  This is problematic in so many ways. The GB takes upon itself the sole authority for determining what is or is not in line with the Bible. Anyone else who thinks otherwise is, by their definition, a trouble-maker, a cause of division, or an apostate-to-be.
  --
  9. "My point is, that Christian understanding and doctrine is not created in an autonomous vacuum."
  In the WT Society, it most certainly is. The WT dictates doctrine. We now have the (in)famous statement from the Australia hearing, how the GB is the "guardians of doctrine". The GB determines Christian understanding and doctrine for JWs in total autonomy.
  Here are some definitions of this word, autonomy: the state of existing or acting separately from others; the power or right of a group to govern itself; self-directing freedom and especially moral independence; the ability to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else.
  I defy you to provide evidence that the GB is accountable to anyone but themselves. When they change a doctrine, offer new understandings or "new light", who are they accountable to? No one. What they say, goes.
  --
  10. "The FDS is at least SOMEONE who will be appointed in the "harvest period", by Christ the conclusion of the age, to give the proper food at the proper time."
  Aside from the GB making the presumptuous claim of being the FDS, the account in Matthew, written in terms of individuals that meet the qualifications the master wanted, makes no assertions that this "slave" would be a group of people, that they would be limited in number to seven, that they would ride herd with absolute authrotiy over a world-wide organization, much less that they would acquire so much power over millions of people that a better word than "slave" to describe them would be "master".
  --
  11. "Since Christianity would be involved in the separating of the wheat and the weeds at this time, it would be imperative to have a centralized authority in regard to teachings."
  "Christianity" has nothing to do with "separating of the wheat and the weeds" or "the sheep and the goats". The account in Matthew clearly states in plain English that Christ and angels carry out this work - not individual Christians. If you are going to argue religion, at least get your facts straight.
  --
  12. "It would be imperative to also identify that centralized authority on teaching and to adhere to their teachings, just as the 1st century Christians adhered to the teachings of the Apostles."
  As has been well-argued by many previously, the first century Christians had no governing body. The account in Acts presents a scenario where the circumcision issue needed to get resolved. Once it was, there is no evidence in the entire NT that anything even vaguely resembling a governing body or any other authority group existed. This is a total fabrication by WT.
  --
  13. "It is the FDS and those associated with them that we believe are trustworthy in their scholarship, in their teaching and their education so as to be able to handle the word of God correctly."
  WT has shown itself to be anything but trustworthy in their scholarship. They have been repeatedly shown to misquote references and take quotations out of context. The most recent example of this is when the Awake magazine quoted an evolutionary scientist out of context to make it seem he believed in creationism, when he said and believed in nothing of the sort, and then publicly demanded a retraction from WT. The most notorious example of poor scholarship is the NWT itself, produced by Fred Franz, a college dropout, and a handful of untrained assistants. They hid the authorship of the NWT under the guise of being modest, when the truth was that the translation committee was utterly unqualified and incompetent.
  --
  I wish no disrespect personally, but in all honesty, I have no respect for your stated position. You claim that research, questions and dissent are tolerated, but have you personally disagreed with something in the WT and publicly questioned it in the congregation, or objected to it in a meeting or before the elders? If so, how did it go? If you say that questions are allowed unless people disagree with the GB, then you are saying that the GB is always right, and doing research and asking questions is a waste of time and an exercise in futility. What is the point of questioning the GB if, at the end of the day, the GB is always right? Why bother even asking questions in the first place, if the final answer is always the same: Read the WT, study the WT, repeat the statements in the WT, agree with the WT. Rinse and repeat.
  I must tell you, you have done absolutely nothing to convince the readers of this forum of your position.

• Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-21 22:49:11

  Anonymous-
  Not exactly sure what your point is but I must say this. You said:
  The FDS is at least SOMEONE who will be appointed in the “harvest period, by Christ the conclusion of the age, to give the proper food at the proper time. Since Christianity would be involved in the separating of the wheat and the weeds at this time, it would be imperative to have a centralized authority in regard to teachings."
  Can you build a building without a foundation? Who is it that has explained to us who EXACTLY is the faithful and discreet slave? Isn't it the ones who claim to be that slave? Do you see something terribly wrong with that reasoning? If you just read the scriptures that relate to the slave, you would never draw the conclusion that the Watchtower has anything to do with Jesus' words. The GB is a self appointed group who must yell, "Look at us". Thus no composite slave exists. The recognition of the slave happens when Jesus returns. And the only thing we can read in the Bible, is that it is not a composite group. Thus no foundation exists, and thus we have no scriptural reason to recognize them any more than the Vatican. But the other faulty premise which is based on GB interpretation, and you brought this up, is the issue of the harvest work. That is another "foundation" that does not really exist. Did Jesus say we are involved in the harvest separation work? No. He said that the harvest happens at the end of the age. It is done by the angels. It is similar to the illustration of the sheep and the goats. Today, the wheat and the weeds are still growing together. We can only go by Jesus' words. Any other "extension" of application is not valid. The Watchtower does not have a leg to stand on. Thus, the two points that you use as a foundation to even recognize them, is based on THEIR interpretation of those accounts. 1 John: 4:1 reads: "Beloved, don't believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." If I wanted to "test the spirits" of the Watchtower, should I look up that scripture in the Watchtower to find out what it means? Do I test the teachings by basing that test on what the Watchtower says? Do you see something twisted with this type of thinking? That would be like a stranger telling you that the water is safe to drink and that's as far as you go.

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 23:54:41

The Real anonymous,
I am not here to convince anyone,
but for the purpose of reaching agreement concerning the truth of the matter under dispute. Lets dialogue further on these points you mention. I think you will agree that as christians we are interested in each others salvation, and if I am on the wrong help me find the truth. Not sure if you looked at the website truetheology dotnet , but you can see that these discussions require to go in detail, something we cant do on a blog. I invite you and everyone to read the 3 debates in regards to these questions on the website and if you still reach the conclusion and believe that there is no teaching authority in the congregation appointed by Jehovah today than i will applaud you for giving Jehovahs witnesses another chance to hear their position,and if your interested to dialogue the email address is there. This is my last post here and i know there were several good questions here, hope we can pursue them further for those interested.
Thank you
Regards,

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-22 02:25:44

  Before I finish what I am about to say, allow me first to commend you for being civil and polite, something not always present on dissenter forums. I appreciate that, and didn't want to respond without making note of that.
  Having said that, my short answer to your offer is No.
  As for the debates on your website, I did read one, about the governing body issue. Personally, I found it wordy and tedious, like two lawyers arguing a case in court. (Did I mention, I hate lawyers?) It seemed like the two debaters were talking over each other's heads, talking at each other rather than to each other, and in the end, the discussion went no where but was abandoned.
  I am sorry to have to put it this way, but the things you perceive of as "under dispute" are not really being disputed to any extent on this forum. The people who engage in this site have pretty much already concluded that the WT is not God's organization and never was, but rather was built on a foundation of lies and blasphemy, and in the end, the GB has made itself a god to JWs, who idolatrously worship them and their every word. We may vary on a few particulars, but the essence of that general, fundamental conclusion is not really being debated here. Mostly what people are trying to do is to move on, to try to understand what the Bible really means by allowing it to speak for itself rather than having our understanding and our relationship with God and Christ dictated to by a self-appointed "master over our faith". And, if anything else, we are trying to individually figure out what if anything we should do next, now that we have come to this realization.
  I don't really see any point in debating you, because you are promulgating the rationale for this debate on the basis of the wrong questions. I am afraid that as for the questions you are asking, no one is interested in them, as far as I can determine.
  I wish you well, but honestly, I don't think I can help you, or vice versa, nor likely can anyone else. That, unfortunately is the reply I would give to any JW if I happened to meet one: I would help you if I could, but you wouldn't listen. I personally did listen since I was 7, and now I am 63. I have more than given them every conceivable opportunity to convince me. It's too late. The (real) truth has set us free.

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-22 01:44:27

Who really is the true anonymous? ;-) ha ha. Had to say it

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-22 09:20:51

  I am :-))

Comment by jabez on 2015-12-22 02:33:50

now i understand why two years ago a visiting c.o.asked me to clear the school library of all the older publications

• Reply by F.L. on 2015-12-22 12:54:23

  Yup, its like a company who's been caught defrauding its customers or the government. Destroy the evidence. Shred everything before the auditors come in...Its a good thing we have forums like this and others on the internet who expose the w.t. They have no problems exposing other religions but have a big problem when they are put under the microscope..
  They now are getting a taste of their own medicine, payback is a......... Forgive my bad language...lol

  • Reply by Willy on 2015-12-23 09:54:35

    They seem to forget everything they do or don't is observed by Our heavenly Father in the end they are hold accountable, just like our own actions. Done in the dark is for Jehovah as done in bright daylight

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-22 06:58:08

Who really is the faithful and discreet slave? That is the million dollar question. And the second question is, who really is the true anonymous? ;-) I personally would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question.

Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-22 07:45:42

Rotherham (aka Anonymous)
TRA has responded to much of what you said, so I will refrain from being redundant. I do wish to comment on one statement you made: You said:
"If you feel that there is something that "we" have clearly missed, please give an example. You have the email and the links I provided at truetheology dot net so we can dialogue on what you think are false teachings."
You use the personal pronoun "we", which leads me to the conclusion that you are either part of the group that claims to dispense "food at the proper time", or that you have been authorized to represent that group. Is this so? Are we to understand that truetheology.net is officially authorized by the GB as a forum for debating JW theology?
Is the GB inviting deep thinking brothers and sisters to openly debate scripture? If the answer is yes, I would view this as refreshing and progressive. But if so, the stakes in debating JW theology in a forum where anyone can look on are incredibly high.
If the GB has nothing to do with your site, I'm confident they would encourage you to shut it down immediately.
My brother, you joined the discussion in our fellowship, we did not come to your forum beating our chest. I therefore invite you to debate WT theology at DTT. You will find many scholarly brothers like yourself that are quite capable of joining the debate.
I noticed at your website that while you have many viewers, few seem to reply. That would certainly not prove to be the case we debated here. So, if you sincerely wish to debate WT theology, we have the ideal setting for just that.
I realize you have said that you've made your last comment here, but for the benefit of all, I would appreciate a simple response to this question:
Is TrueTheology endorsed by the GB? YES NO
Sincerely,
Sopater

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-23 01:42:49

  Sopater,
  I will answer your question and give a last comment related to your post. Feel free to contact me if you change your mind about engaging in charitable discussion of our genuine disagreements.
  It’s not something that they endorse but rather discourage because of the dangers involved for those not equipped to handle deeply entrenched things against the truth, but such activity is not addressed by that article(km 9/07) nor is it forbidden. It would be a personal choice but one that is fraught with danger for the unwary. If one decides to engage in such activity they can not complain about the consequences.
  As a general rule , the governing body would never ENDORSE what I am doing, however, it has not been forbidden either. Not ENDORSING something is not the same thing as preventing something. The WT also states that it does not endorse any particular medical practices. (see the quotes I cited originally) That in no way means they view them as forbidden. This simply means they do not put their stamp of approval on something. It doesn’t forbid it by any means.
  I am not saying anything that is outside what the WT has stated. I have dealt with situations where these kinds of things have come up, although extremely rare, so I think I am qualified to say what I am saying.
  Your confusion lies in thinking that ALL independent thinking is forbidden. All have independent thinking. The problem lies when ones independent thinking begins to usurp the arrangement of God
  Hebrews 13:17 tells Christians what to do. “OBEY and SUBMIT” to those who are taking the lead among you, and surely from our standpoint, the GB would be taking the ultimate lead among men in the world today when it comes to Biblical matters and understanding. The meaning of the word “submit” is a significant one for this context. It means to surrender, such as one would do in a wrestling match. That should tell us that we might not always personally AGREE with those who are taking the lead, but for the sake of unity and peace, we should submit, unless of course what they would teach would fall clearly outside Biblical possibilities.
  When it comes to issues that are ambiguous and subject to change, such as the understanding of certain prophecies, parables or symbolism, or teachings that have some fuzzy meanings of words involved, then conformity, submission to those who take the lead is exactly what a Christian should do. Again, the word “submit” means to yield against your will. It is the same word used in regard to one who would yield in a wrestling match.
  You see, it didn’t just say we should be “persuaded” but it also said we should “submit” to those taking the lead. Now what does the Greek word “submit” refer to?
  Notice what Thayer’s lexicon says concerning this word, and all of the lexicons that I have checked agree:
  1) to resist no longer, but to give way, yield (of combatants)
  2) metaph. to yield to authority and admonition, to submit
  The meaning of “submit” is clear beyond any doubt. We not only “obey” by means of persuasion, we “submit” when we don’t necessarily agree, like one combatant would submit to another. When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me.To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants.
  Regards,

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-23 07:58:07

    Hi Anonymous,
    

    we should submit, unless of course what they would teach would fall clearly outside Biblical possibilities.

    
    By these words, you acknowledge that there are limitations. Our submission to those taking the lead is not absolute. The question is, who determines what is "outside of Biblical possibilities"? It cannot be the same ones to whom we are to submit, otherwise, the process is meaningless. Therefore, it is up to each of us to determine what is Scriptural and what is not. Our submission is conditional, because we can only truly submit to one, the Christ, if we are to have life.
    At 2 Corinthians 11:20 we see the danger of unconditional submission to the lead of men. It is for this reason surely that the writer of Hebrews did not use the word for unconditional obedience /peitharchein/ which is found at Acts 5:29, but a word derived from /peithó/, a word that means to persuade or urge.
    A king does not have to persuade. He does not even have to tell his subjects why they must obey. All he requires of them is unconditional, unquestioning obedience. Our king is loving so he does give us reasons, but if he should give us instruction without explanation, we will nonetheless obey him. However, no human has been given the authority to demand a similar level of obedience.
    The oft quoted reference to the faithful slave in Mt 25:45-57 speaks nothing of conferring authority. The slave is appointed to feed, not to rule, not to govern. We have inferred that, but it is not implied by the context. The authority only comes after the slave has proven himself and his master has returned and judged him as worthy. Even David Splane, in the 2012 annual meeting, recognized this truth when he introduced the modern understanding that JWs put to the identity of the slave. He compared the Governing Body to waiters, those who bring you your food. But a waiter has no authority over us. He is our servant.
    However, these waiters now demand that we eat only the food they deem appropriate for us to eat. We must also eat it the way they tell us too and they get very angry if we start to look elsewhere for our food. If they find us making our own meals, they will throw us out of the restaurant.
    You acknowledge that our obedience to the JW Faithful and Discreet Slave is conditional, but where would you have us draw the line? How would you explain to us who we are to decide what to obey and what not?

    • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-23 09:31:02

      Meleti,
      Well said. I love the restaurant analogy. If they were truly humble like waiters,they would welcome any constructive suggestions regarding how the dish could be improved. For example, taste, nutritional value and presentation. We could even mention a similar dish is served in a competing restaurant tastes much better, and they wouldn't be offended. They would likely go try it for themselves and see how they could improve.
      Pride and arrogance stand in the way of their acknowledging that some of the dishes they serve need to be removed from the menu.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-23 11:56:43

      I felt compelled to add the following to my comment. In considering He 13:17, we must not overlook the related verse 7:
      

      Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. (He 13:7)
      

      
      Clearly the writer is referring to the same ones taking the lead. Here, however, he adds a qualifier. The ones taking the lead among us have "spoken the word of God" to us. Therefore, if we believe that a group of men, such as the Pope and his Cardinals, or the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other similar group are taking the lead, it must be because we believe they are speaking the word of God to us. However, if our research into Scripture reveals they do not speak God's work, then they cannot be the ones Hebrews is referring to.
      If we are unsure, we have another criteria based on verse 7 besides what they speak. We have what they do. We are only to imitate the faith of such men after we have observed how their conduct turns out. What does the conduct of the Governing Body reveal? Are they true prophets? When their predictions fail, do they show the candor of Bible writers like David and admit their mistakes? Do they apologize for wrongdoing or the harm their failed teachings have caused others? What is on display in Australia to the world through weeks of hearings is evidence that they do not and seemingly cannot acknowledge their own error. The basis for forgiveness is found at Luke 17:3,4 which ties it to a repentant attitude. We forgive if there is repentance. Do we see repentance for past or present wrongs on the part of the Governing Body or its representatives right down to the local level? Have you suffered at the hands of the local elders or traveling overseers? Were you misjudged, treated unfairly? If so, you may well put it down to the imperfections of men, but have those men ever apologized? How can you be obedient to Jesus' words to forgive if there is no evidence of repentance. To forgive the unrepentant one is to enable him in his wicked works.
      Often we are told that these are merely mistakes due to imperfection. This is a euphemism designed to hide the truth. If I add up a column of figures and arrive at an incorrect sum, it may well be due to a mistake. In other words, my "take" missed. I did not arrive at the wrong sum intentionally, but by error. However, if someone points out my mistake and I a) do not recognize it by acknowledging my error (even a simple, "Oops, sorry", will do.) and b) do not then correct it, it is no longer a mistake. It is a willful error. In a moral sense, it is a sin.
      Jehovah does not condemn men to death for mistakes. But when they willfully refuse to correct their mistakes and stubbornly refuse to apologize and even go so far as to persecute those who publicly point out their error, the mistake becomes sin.
      We are often told to wait on Jehovah to fix this. Indeed, he will fix it like he fixed the "mistakes due to imperfect" that became the sin of the Jewish leaders and all who followed them. He came and destroyed them, their city, their temple, the way of worship. We do not want to be following such ones when Jesus comes to "fix things".

Comment by Alex Rover on 2015-12-22 08:19:24

Welcome to the forum as an author, Sopater. I enjoyed your article and look forward to many more. May our Heavenly Father bless you and your family.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-22 08:48:48

  Thank you Alex, I'm honored to have been given the privilege to contribute here. May you and your family likewise be blessed.

Comment by Harrison Webster on 2015-12-22 09:25:33

Thanks for the article, I am sure this will be helpful to many.
I have done much independent research and have found that reading much of it has been like drinking pure, refreshing Spring water, and has made me aware that now in the JW Organization there exists only a spiritual desert. Of course one has to be extremely wary, we are reading the thoughts of men, not God, when researching, but with due caution we can find many true gems.
One thing I have come to be sure of is that the Parable of the Discreet and Evil slaves/servants is simply that, a parable, not a prophecy, and that our Lord wanted us to examine what kind of servant we, as individuals, will be upon his return.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-22 11:57:03

  I enjoyed your comment Harrison, I agree it is wise to be cautious when doing research. I find it very comforting that within our fellowship we are surrounded by a multitude of counselors. We share the same agenda, namely, to learn truth. Having a similar pedigreed, we're all related in the faith and feel like family.
  Phileo,
  Sopater

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-22 12:59:17

  Thats right harrison its all about wether we are willing to help our brothers when they are in need . What do we do .do we mistreat our brothers or do we love them enough to help them . ? Its a very clear principle that runs through most of the NT .

  • Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-22 13:09:04

    Just studied 1 john and he makes it very clear what christianity is all about and what is expected of us and what is not .

    • Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-12-23 01:30:00

      Hi Father Jack,
      When I read 1 John I don't see "expectations" or a checklist of rules. I see a Love story between God and his beloved creation. He teaches how to express that same love to others.

      • Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-23 02:05:46

        Yes thanks god s word your right of course , perhaps i did not express myself that well there . I think the letter lays down plainly what true christianity is all about . Love . Thanks for your correction sister .FJ

      • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-23 08:43:39

        To me, one of the most beautiful verses in the Bible is 1 John 4:18. Perfect love throws fears outside, or casts it away. So much of what drives the conscience ond psyche of JWs is fear, not love. The NWT translation here says fear exercises a restraint, and that's basically true, but most translations say that fear is, or involves, punishment. That is so true for a JW. Not only do their own fears restrain their free exercise of love, but fear of punishment by their own elders prevents them from being a religion truly motivated by godly love.
        Although the NWT is a little unconventional in this verse, it's still a worthy rendering. It's regretable that as an organization they could not take it's message to heart.

        • Reply by AR on 2015-12-23 14:30:16

          Yes unfortunately your right TRA, I think by memory in the early 1990's the GB of that time tried to introduce a series of articles about Jehovah's love and other qualities, and I think for a moment in that time period, that tension built up by fear, of Armageddon, 'have you done enough' etc, was loosened up and focus was changing. However as they say,'people or GB's are creatures of habit' that fear is put back into the brothers since 2001. just in a bible discussion yesterday, with a witness family that 'fear' is alive and well.

Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-22 10:44:42

1 timothy 1 ;3 to 7 and 1 timothy 6;3 to 5 also titus 3;9

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-23 01:17:19

Sopater,
I will answer your question and give a last comment related to your post. Feel free to contact me if you change your mind about engaging in charitable discussion of our genuine disagreements.
It’s not something that they endorse but rather discourage because of the dangers involved for those not equipped to handle deeply entrenched things against the truth, but such activity is not addressed by that article(km 9/07) nor is it forbidden. It would be a personal choice but one that is fraught with danger for the unwary. If one decides to engage in such activity they can not complain about the consequences.
As a general rule , the governing body would never ENDORSE what I am doing, however, it has not been forbidden either. Not ENDORSING something is not the same thing as preventing something. The WT also states that it does not endorse any particular medical practices. (see the quotes I cited originally) That in no way means they view them as forbidden. This simply means they do not put their stamp of approval on something. It doesn't forbid it by any means.
I am not saying anything that is outside what the WT has stated. I have dealt with situations where these kinds of things have come up, although extremely rare, so I think I am qualified to say what I am saying.
Your confusion lies in thinking that ALL independent thinking is forbidden. All have independent thinking. The problem lies when ones independent thinking begins to usurp the arrangement of God
Hebrews 13:17 tells Christians what to do. “OBEY and SUBMIT” to those who are taking the lead among you, and surely from our standpoint, the GB would be taking the ultimate lead among men in the world today when it comes to Biblical matters and understanding. The meaning of the word “submit” is a significant one for this context. It means to surrender, such as one would do in a wrestling match. That should tell us that we might not always personally AGREE with those who are taking the lead, but for the sake of unity and peace, we should submit, unless of course what they would teach would fall clearly outside Biblical possibilities.
When it comes to issues that are ambiguous and subject to change, such as the understanding of certain prophecies, parables or symbolism, or teachings that have some fuzzy meanings of words involved, then conformity, submission to those who take the lead is exactly what a Christian should do. Again, the word “submit” means to yield against your will. It is the same word used in regard to one who would yield in a wrestling match.
You see, it didn’t just say we should be “persuaded” but it also said we should “submit” to those taking the lead. Now what does the Greek word “submit” refer to?
Notice what Thayer’s lexicon says concerning this word, and all of the lexicons that I have checked agree:
1) to resist no longer, but to give way, yield (of combatants)
2) metaph. to yield to authority and admonition, to submit
The meaning of “submit” is clear beyond any doubt. We not only “obey” by means of persuasion, we “submit” when we don’t necessarily agree, like one combatant would submit to another. When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me.To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants.
Regards,

• Reply by Menrov on 2015-12-23 01:50:14

  A, you said: "When it comes to issues that are ambiguous and subject to change, such as the understanding of certain prophecies, parables or symbolism, or teachings that have some fuzzy meanings of words involved, then conformity, submission to those who take the lead is exactly what a Christian should do. Again, the word “submit” means to yield against your will. It is the same word used in regard to one who would yield in a wrestling match"
  Gal. 3:25 is very clear. Also 2 Corinthians 1:24 is very clear. Heb. 13:17 should be read in light of these verses and then it becomes clear that Heb. 13:17 had a different kind of submission in mind.
  One should only submit to Jesus. Yes, one can submit to those taking the lead but the context in which these words are spoken / written do not in anyway indicate that these leaders are leaders of faith. They are there to support a congregation. Like a captain on a ship: the captain is accountable to lead the ship to its destination and support his crew. He is not allowed to alter the ship, change destination nor create rules to endanger the crew or ship or destination. The message that Jesus brought is our WAY to our destination. As long as the leaders in a congregation follow that WAY, it is fine to imitate their faith. It is fine to submit to their houserules as long as it is to support the congregation. Like during the distribution of food. Acts 6:3 But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task.
  But as soon as these leaders deviate from the WAY or change the MESSAGE, it will lead to shipwreck. In that case, each should abandon ship as soon as possible as your life is at stake. There is only one WAY, one MESSAGE/TRUTH, one MEDIATOR.

  • Reply by Willy on 2015-12-23 10:33:17

    Menrov, and we obey Jesus out of love, that he and His Father showde us first, not out of fear.

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-23 02:22:32

  Righty ho then

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-23 04:53:19

  Anonymous, the strongly entrenched thing is 607 BCE and everything attached to it. The whole foundation is a house of cards. Once you understand that we are a spinoff of the Millerite movement the doom and gloom proclamations of impending Armageddon make sense. The invisible presence of Jesus in 1914 (was 1874) is something which Russell preached simply because Jesus didn't return physically in 1874. Wake up to the facts, and do some serious research on the origins of "the truth".

  • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-23 08:53:37

    Anonymous, very excellent post. Would it be possible for you to qualify your alias please? We have anonymous replying to anonymous One might think it schizophrenic :<)
    Thank you

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-23 16:34:52

      Ha ha, that is a distinct possibility ;-)

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-23 11:40:19

    The irony of the 607 vs. 587 debacle is that WT has LONG known that 607 had no support among respected historians and archeologists. The organization knew as far back as 1922, in a WT article called "Chronology", that there was NO evidence for 607, but only for 587. Yet, the anchor date WT uses as the basis of ITS chronology, the "absolute date" of 539 BC as the fall of Babylon, is confirmed by the very same secular historians they deride, ridicule and reject for saying Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC. The two dates are confirmed by the same body of historical evidence, the same set of cuneiform tablets, the same astronomical charts of the period, and so on.
    What is more, they add to their misrepresentation of history by counting two more years, from 539 to 537 BC, as if the Jews were "making preparations" and couldn't leave right away. Perhaps that is so, but then they count those two years as part of the 70 years in Babylonian captivity - even though Babylon didn't exist for the last two years. Why? That's the only way their fractured arithmetic can be made to appear correct. Their sacrosanct date of 607 BC has to be seen as valid, no matter what, or the entire last-days doctrinal framework they have made will crumble.

Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-23 07:21:49

Anon,
Thank you for responding and not throwing in the towel. I do hope that you will continue to contribute here, you make some valid points and I respect your knowledge and diligence in deep study. I personally view you as sincere.
Your position on all doctrinal matters is precisely where I found myself up until a few years ago. I am certain that others who contribute to this blog would say the same. I applaud you for having the courage to not just be a "lurker" that fears getting involved. You devote time to making well thought out posts. Again I notice subtleties in your comments. In particular you said:
"I have dealt with situations where these kinds of things have come up, although extremely rare, so I think I am qualified to say what I am saying."
I respect that you choose to remain anonymous, but again I get the vibe that you are not just a deep thinking elder in a typical congregation somewhere. If I were a betting man, I'd say you've spent some time in New York or at minimum, years on the road. If I'm correct, your presence here is even more captivating.
Having said that, Menrov has made a valid point in his reply to your post that I share. I will add that we must remember that Christ is the head of the congregation (Col 1:18; Eph 5:23). Those "taking the lead" must be submissive to Christ if we are required to be submissive to them.
To borrow your "wrestling" analogy, when Brother Franz was conducting research for the Aid book, he found no secular or historical support for 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, none. How did those taking the lead react to his findings?
A few years later when Bro Jonsson supplied his comprehensive treatise on the Gentile Times with even more evidence proving 607 BCE is incorrect, how did those taking the lead react to his findings?
Would it not dishonor Christ and his head Jehovah God, if those taking the lead were to force his sheep to believe and teach something that is clearly unsupportable outside the pages of WT publications? Or are these men so presumptuous as to think that our teachings do not need to be supported outside the box?
I challenge anyone to provide evidence that conclusively proves that 607 BCE is the correct date. Yes, we find JW apologists making desperate attempts to discredit 587 BCE. But they cannot prove 607 BCE.
I assume you know the history, perhaps even some of the brothers involved. The GB could have "submitted" to the overwhelming biblical, secular and historical evidence disproving 607 BCE (albeit kicking and screaming), but instead they chose to attack the research team that brought the facts to light. Even worse, they removed them from fellowship and from Bethel, after having devoted their entire life volunteering for Kingdom interests.
Here is the point I'm attempting to make: Would Christ have given those he chose to take the lead authority to,reject all logic and reason, in favor of representing erroneous teachings as truth? Certainly not.
Two that come to mind (and there are many) are the 7000 year creative day (49,000 year creative week) which supported the 1975 teaching. Also the misapplication of Matt 24:34; namely, that the generation of 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon.
Now I ask you, at the time these teachings were crafted, were they directed by God's spirit? Were these teachings endorsed by Christ? Did such teachings honor him and our Heavenly Father? Would not any making the claim that Christ has authorized them to "take the lead" be subordinate to Christ?
Are we to submit to those taking the lead when they are teaching something erroneous?
Sopater

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-23 08:20:21

  Anon, if I may add to the last sentence:
  How are we to confirm whether a teaching is erroneous or not? Can we truly "test" a teaching of the GB using only their publications?
  As we "test" our peculiar doctrines, these are the categories they fall into:
  1. Doubtful - a view supported by few theologians
  2. Very doubtful - a view supported only by JW apologists
  3. Impossible - well, the date prediction done came and went
  4. Ridiculous - eg the overlapping generation
  So Anon, what are we to do with the test results?
  1. Dismiss them, trust that Jehovah will fix things in time. Go out in service.
  2. Share our results with others in the congregation, be df'd in a heartbeat.
  3. Anonymously share our test results on BP and DTT to help others doing their own personal "testing"
  These are the only choices we have my brother. What do you think we should do?
  Sopater

• Reply by Willy on 2015-12-23 10:58:59

  Brother Sopater, to find they teach us not to partake of THE Emblems of THE Memorialevening of Jesus death, that in my view is even worse than all the wrong dates. For the first time in 38 years of being a Jehovah,s Witness I and hopefully my Hubby too, Will partake ? Thank You for THE above article. I learn everything day from all the comments too and test them like a true beroean :)

Comment by Brenda Evans on 2015-12-23 18:22:30

Hello everyone,
It never surprises me how many times the subject of the Faithful and Discreet Slave is visited and revisited where it concerns mankind accolading themselves with this most venerable and responsible work.
I am not going to repeat the many concerns that I appreciate with what the people voice here, I go along with it those concerns, big time.
One of the thoughts that has repeated itself to me is some of the essence in which I think that Jesus was conveying to us. We can appreciate the very very important work of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, and we can also maybe take part in this very important work by the obvious sharing of the message of Jehovah and of Jesus with others. But we also need to remember the caveat that goes with the the teaching - now I am going to paraphrase here, so my apologies - - - but the one not doing the work that the Master set out or fails to do it, is becoming or become an evil slave. And goodness knows, such a one will need all the help that they can possibly get.
So, if the GB is the Slave, one would very much hope that their thinking and teaching is not something that heralds from the hearts and minds of man, but from Spirit.
We also know that Jehovah has never changed, that no matter what He has said has happened and is true. His explanations about things have never changed. So, we will also know that it will never change. What we can say is that He does reveal things as we go along, but the nothing alters.
My concern is the chopping and changing that goes on with our slant on things - if the research and option for asking questions that seem to transcend the proverbial box are being curtailed, then are people being asked to dress themselves in blinkers? Of course they are.
The difference lies in one enjoying the environment which Jehovah offers - that of reliable consistency - and that of one where a group of people claiming to be such an important position but change stance.
Who is the wonderful Faithful and Discreet Slave? I know that this one will be revealed to us. But we too can also be a part of this lovely and loving Slave class in sharing what we get to learn about Jehovah and spread love. Can you imagine what it would be like, that on return, people can be found to simply doing something right?
Keep spreading the message about how Jehovah can mean to others, it is so simple.

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-23 21:49:23

  Thats fine, but it is not as simple as believing in Jehovah and Jesus is it? You also have to accept and teach the whole box and dice.If someone agreed with all the teachings bar 607, could they become a Christian? Could they become a JW? Are we preaching a different sort of good news?

• Reply by Out of Africa on 2015-12-24 00:31:01

  Brenda, you're right. The constant chopping and changing proves that what was proclaimed as light at the time was indeed darkness not light, hence it needed changing. But 1 John 1:5 shows that there is no darkness at all in Jehovah, so the 'light' was not from Him.
  The GB teaches that the FDS was appointed in 1919 as they had been providing spiritual food. Peter Gregerson (the brother who helped Ray Franz when he left Bethel) has a video on youtube entitled 'Is the Watchtower God's Only Organization'. This examines the type of food being put out shortly before 1919, in particular the book 'The finished mystery'. It is worth a watch.

Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-24 13:48:30

Sorry to go off your point here sopater , but i was looking at 2 john this week and a good point that will bring a measure of comfort to may on this forum . Is the fact that john addressed the letter from the older man to the chosen lady . I did some research and its possible that john did not name names in case if it was intercepted and brought needless persecution on the recipitents . So like many on this site today there were those who felt it best to remain anonymous when the need called for it . Hope you dont mind me mentioning that . By the way you wrote a fine article thanks alot . FJ my anonymous .

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-25 07:14:59

  You are welcome FJ, thank you for your contributions. Very encouraging.

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-25 10:50:07

  Even Jesus understood the wisdom of doing things anonymously at times. Consider Luke 22:7-13:
  "The day of the unfermented cakes now arrived, on which the passover [victim] must be sacrificed; 8 and he dispatched Peter and John, saying: “Go and get the passover ready for us to eat.” 9 They said to him: “Where do you want us to get [it] ready?” 10 He said to them: “Look! When YOU enter into the city a man carrying an earthenware vessel of water will meet YOU. Follow him into the house into which he enters. 11 And YOU must say to the landlord of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you: “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the passover with my disciples?”’ 12 And that [man] will show YOU a large upper room furnished. Get [it] ready there.” 13 So they departed and found it just as he had said to them, and they got the passover ready."
  This was a wise and clever strategy. By giving Peter and John these instructions, if they were intercepted or captured, they could honestly tell their captors they did not know who they were meeting, or who the landlord was. Thus, the arrangements, and Jesus' safety as well as the others', could not be compromised by Peter and John. It was extremely important that this Passover not be interrupted, and this was a sound and brilliant means of accomplishing that.
  If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us, I'd say.

Comment by Christian on 2015-12-24 23:54:22

I came to this site to-day as I was feeling in need of an uplift, as I generally enjoy the comments of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I almost didn't respond to-day to the words used by Rosie Temple, but I felt I just had to say something here. Instead of being up-built, I feel somewhat torn down by such vitriol. I think most of us are concerned by the self-importance that the GB have currently shown, and this will not end well. However, if this site turns into a hate session I'm floundering somewhat, as to where else can I go to find the uplift that my weary soul so needs right now. I pray for you Rosie and ask you please consider the effect of harsh words on gentle souls.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-25 13:36:10

  Hi Christian,
  I removed the comment you refer to because it didn't meet with site commenting guidelines. It is understandable that some have strong feelings and have suffered much, so this should not in any way be taken as anything more than an effort to maintain a certain tone that all have come to feel comfortable with.

Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-25 12:55:27

I know this article may be what you said, "preaching to the choir". However, as basic as it may be, it invokes many layers of thought. The more I think about this subject, the more ridiculous it becomes. All of us have our personal beliefs. My beliefs are just that, MY beliefs. They are personal and unique. I may try to convince you that you should believe the same, and you may choose that. That is your choice. Even then, you may choose to reject them later. When a person starts studying with witnesses, he may be convinced of some basic "truths". They become his personal beliefs. Now what if the Bible Teach book had a footnote that read: "Any and all beliefs you have accepted as truth are subject to change without notice. Furthermore, by studying this publication and becoming a member through baptism, you have agreed that any and all changes as stated by the Watchtower corporation, must become a part of your personal belief system. If you feel you are not in agreement, you must continue to speak of all such changes as truth until further notice. In addition, by becoming a member through baptism, you have agreed to all forms of punishment that the Watchtower corporation may feel is necessary, if this contract is broken. The Watchtower is not subject to limiting by this time frame of punishment, whether that time frame is a few months or until death. However, you can reduce this this time frame, by reaffirming that ALL beliefs of the Watchtower Society are now a part of your PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEM. To reinstate this process, you must go to the proper authority structure within the Watchtower corporation. The one studying this publication may assist you in this regard if you have any questions."
The point is simple, a person did not sign up for this when they became a Jehovah's Witness. They were never told. The fact is, no one would join if the Watchtower was honest from the very start. MY BELIEFS are MY BELIEFS. I did not agree to YOUR BELIEFS, you governing body!!

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-25 14:01:10

  Thats right vincent . The big one for me was that no one explained to me the take on the baptism statement do you realise that your baptism identifies you as one of jehovahs witnesses in association with gods spirit anionted organisation meant that i was dedicating my life to an organisation and in doing so was subject to every rule set by men at the helm . They just told me it was a dedication to god . It that was explained to me . I would never have joined the religion in the first place

Comment by Vincent Gomez on 2015-12-25 13:00:38

Sorry, I meant to say evokes, not invoke.

Comment by Father jack on 2015-12-27 12:54:18

As my lad said they are the only people he knows that will write an article to "prove " a point and then qoute thier own publications as reference material . Our friend mr anoymous said in his comment dated 23 dec 1.17am para 6 that " we should submit , unless of course what they would teach would fall clearly outside biblical possibilities " thank you very much . Because when i read the NT in context i realise that many things taught by the religion do ( fall clearly outside of biblical possibilities ) . Its that clear that we dont need to do any outside research to tell us that .

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-28 06:00:17

  Interesting article at the end of october 15 watchtower , the naive believe every word . The box says to ask is the infrmation from a reliable source . ? Good point . Thanks brothers .

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-28 13:19:39

    It is instructive to consider the October 15 2015 WT article, "The Naive Person Believes Every Word". To me, this article, while seemingly advising people to be cautious, a commendable thing, acts to spread fear and enforce WT's propaganda tactics, and is very insulting and demeaning to its readers. The very title is condescending, for it presumes that its readers are naïve unless they can prove otherwise.
    They categorize information on the internet as "true and false, useful and worthless, harmless and dangerous", knowing that their readers will tune out the positive words and only focus on "false, worthless and dangerous". It goes on to say that the internet contains "hoaxes, urban legends, swindles, and other misinformation". Right off the bat, they begin scaring their audience.
    They caution against relying on information from "an unknown source", overlooking the fact that none of their own writers identify ownership of their works, that they hid the authorship of the New World Translation to cover up that the translation committee was unqualified, that when called to testify in legal matters, they refuse to appear or claim they can't remember or that it's not their area of responsibility, and that they regularly settle lawsuits against them by imposing gag orders against the plaintiffs. WT is hardly "open" about their own matters, so complaining about "unknown sources" seems rather disingenuous.
    They then go on to say, "when the information discredits others, think about who would benefit from such news being spread and whether the source has ulterior motives in spreading it." This is a thinly-veiled reference to "apostate" web sites, and is filled with misleading innuendos. If a site correctly points out the flaws and shortcomings in the WT organization, is that really "discrediting" them, or simply telling the truth? Further, how do such sites "benefit"? The ones I have seen are neither seeking members for a church or organization of their own, nor are they soliciting funds. Where does the "benefit" part come in? And, what about "ulterior motives"? Do they really want to start that discussion? How would they know what a person's motives are? What are THEIR motives? Are they saying that anyone that questions the WT must, of necessity and without exception, have bad motives - because (in their eyes) they have the "truth" and so no one could 'possibly' have honest motives for scrutinizing the WT?
    The article says we should 'think about the possible damage that spreading information could cause, perhaps to the reputation of a person or an organization.' Again, this is a veiled reference to their own concerns about potential damage to the WT. However, I would submit that no one is under obligation to protect the "good name" of an organization that does not deserve that "good" name. If I publicly criticize someone for being a criminal, a child molester or wife beater, that will harm their reputation and "damage" them. But, if such charges are actually true, protecting other people from the danger this person poses is of higher priority than protecting his reputation from "damage", since any "good" in their "good name" is in reality a misrepresentation of the facts, and they never deserved a good name in the first place.
    They then present this curious paragraph: "It takes effort to verify news. That is why some decide simply to leave it up to the recipient to determine if it is credible. But how much time will it take for him to do that? Time is precious. (Eph. 5:15, 16) Instead of thinking, "If in doubt, send it out," it would be better to adopt the motto, "If in doubt, throw it out!"
    They portray the task of verifying facts as so time-consuming and burdensome that it is "better" to reject all internet-based information, rather that attempting to verify it. It hardly needs pointing out how self-serving this advice is. If someone encounters negative information about the WT, WT's advice is that checking the facts is so horrendously time-consuming that we should forget the whole thing and not even try. That is good for WT, but bad for everyone else that wants the real facts.
    If there was any doubt about WT's position on this, the next part removes all doubt: "And what should you do if you find slanderous news about Jehovah's organization on the Internet? Such material should be firmly rejected. [Otherwise, it would] propagate the malicious information. ... We need to use "thinking ability" and "discernment" to identify "the man speaking perverse things" and those "whose entire course is devious."
    And, if the preceding was not enough, here the 'final nail': "Above all, love refuses to believe malevolent insinuations about Jehovah's organization or lies about our brothers that are circulated by people who are slaves to "the father of the lie," Satan the Devil."
    Did I get that right? Any statements whatsoever that disagree with WT are "slanderous" and "malicious information", and anyone making such statements are "perverse", "devious", "malevolent" and 'slaves of Satan'.
    Wow. Pardon me for a moment, while I pick my jaw off the floor ...
    Is there any depth to which WT will not stoop in its efforts to demonize, name-call and smear anyone that questions them? In their eyes, anyone that dares who dares to do that is, by their definition, a liar and in league with the Devil.
    Something else occurs to me here. If reading information on the internet that disagrees with the WT makes a person a malevolent slave of Satan, is that a disfellowshipping offense? It sure sounds like it. Any guess as to whether this will become a new WT policy, that anyone who even reads "apostate" or dissenter information online will be DF'd just for that? Time will tell ...

    • Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-29 18:52:14

      Yes totally agree again T R A there was so much in that article that i found extremely hypocritical . There was so much there that could be applied to the religion itself . The naive person believes every word , and thats exactly what they are expecting the R and F to do as regards thier own publications . I felt what they were saying was that anything said against the organisation is lies ,slander by evil people and they are not from a trusted source . I wonder does that include the Australian Royal Commission as well . This article says to me that they are determined to carry on as they have been doing and keep driving these issues underground and out of sight of most of its members to their detriment .

      • Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-29 19:19:26

        I used to wonder why god allowed me to go through the persecution i had in while in this religion . It was hardly ever from anyone on the outside but mainly from those on the inside . I realise now that he never . I allowed it myself because i was naive , and trusted its members and its leadership thinking they were all people who had the same attitude i had . Its so sad but i honestly feel that those who believe in god and display the fruit of the spirit are a target and easy prey for those who want to take advantage of us .

        • Reply by Out of Africa on 2015-12-30 06:13:26

          Our family has also until recently endured a lot of persecution at the hands of elders and circuit overseers, and that was before we started looking at 'apostate' sites on the web.
          My answer lies in the parable of the wheat and the weeds. Jesus allows wheat-like christians to grow among the weeds. There are possibly wheat like ones in all different religions. In our case, the brothers couldn't stand us as we were diligently trying to serve Jehovah wholesouled. They then tried to uproot us. I believed that Jehovah was rejecting my worship, seeing his organization was rejecting it. At this point Jesus had to intervene to show our family that it wasn't Jehovah as this isn't his organization.
          I believe that wheat-like ones are eventually expelled/vomited out by the organization as they don't fit in. Could this be an indication that we are right near the end and the wheat is being gathered into the storehouses? Time will tell.

          • Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-30 10:13:47

            Pretty much the way i see it as well out of africa . Except i feel that this gathering work is done at the very end of the age by the angels . When they will gain enterance into the kingdom of god .

            • Reply by Out of Africa on 2016-01-01 06:07:46

              I agree with you, Father Jack. Just in some cases, like ours, we got 'weeded' out by bad elders and Jehovah had to intervene and transplant us before we were lost.

              • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-01 10:00:10

                Yeah it seems we got "wheated "out i was pretty close to those elders , but they had thier hands tied . I heard they were upset about the whole episode ., but the very last thing one said to me was telling . That they were dedicated to the organisation but i was not and that was the problem . How sad . 20 years of friendship down the drain .

Comment by Bob Griffco on 2015-12-29 21:03:22

Hello....I left the Watchtower in 2008. How many major teaching changes have been made and what are they? Any helpful answers will be appreciated. Thank you.

• Reply by Out of Africa on 2015-12-30 00:37:45

  Hello Bob
  To my mind, there were 3 significant changes to the teachings:
  1. The generation of Mat 24:33-35 is now an overlapping generation: "He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." See WT2010 15 April.
  2. The Faithful and Discreet Slave is no longer the anointed remnant, but is only the Governing Body when they meet. They along with the other anointed will be appointed over all Jesus' heavenly belongings when they are in heaven. WT 2013 15 July.
  3. It is going beyond what is written to assign types and antitypes unless this was done in the bible. wt 2015 3/15 pp. 17-18
  And then from next week, there will no longer be a Theocratic Ministry School. The WT used to be printed fortnightly with the study articles in, now there is a study WT only with the study articles, and then a public WT and Awake of 16 pages each, and from 2016 they will be printed every second month. i.e. the public WT for Jan and the Awake for Feb, etc etc. The reason is that the publishers are not keeping up with the abundant supply of spiritual food, so the org had kindly and lovingly decided to provide less to make it easier for us :-) (their excuse, not mine)

  • Reply by Willy on 2015-12-30 03:24:01

    Hello Bob,
    And on the WT and Awake the dates are gone. Now they are given numbers. For example: WT nr. 1 2016.

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-30 06:54:29

  All major changes are listed in the 2016 Yearbook pages 25-27 under the heading "The Light Keeps Getting Brighter". Put your sunglasses on before proceeding

Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-30 08:06:16

TRA,
Nice summary of the October 15 2015 WT article "The Naive Person Believes Every Word." Of course the internet presents a major quandary for the GB. They can't control where an individual goes or where innocent surfing might take them. I think the "gist" of the article is to cast doubt on anything said about JW's anywhere but the official website. For certain, a person who has read something negative (even shocking) will be fearful of passing it on.
On my laptop a couple months ago, I showed a pioneer couple the CNN report in Australia regarding the Royal Commission investigation. They were both very uncomfortable while watching the clip, afterward she said "they tell us not to look at these types of sites in pioneer school, but then she said "BUT THIS IS CNN?" I could see the dismay in their faces.
So where did CNN get their information? From a bunch of apostates speaking lies and half truths wanting to damage the reputation of the organization? Is it all a hoax? Did CNN have an ulterior motive in reporting the story to the citizens of Australia and the world?
The fact is, "the naive person believes every word" in print in WT publications. This is purely damage control. They know that news within the org can travel like wildfire. They are attempting to put a "lid" on any information being spread other than what is posted on the official website or in WT publication. Anything else should be regarded as "questionable" and to spread it will label a person as one needing counsel. The elders can quickly call this person to the back room and share points from this article.
Censorship is defined as:
"The practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought." The use of group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
In effect this article constitutes a "law" designed to prevent information from being propagated. Only the naive will not see this for what it is.

Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-30 08:33:35

TRA,
Nice summary of the October 15 2015 WT article "The Naive Person Believes Every Word." Of course the internet presents a major quandary for the GB, they can't control where an individual goes or where innocent surfing might take them. I think the "gist" of the article is to cast doubt on anything said about JW's anywhere but the official website. For certain, a person who has read something negative will be fearful of passing it on.
On my laptop a couple months ago, I showed a pioneer couple the CNN report in Australia regarding the Royal Commission investigation. They were both very uncomfortable while watching the clip, afterward she said "they tell us not to look at these types of sites in pioneer school, but then she said "BUT THIS IS CNN?" I could see the dismay in their faces.
So where did CNN get their information, from a bunch of apostates speaking lies and half truths? Is it all a hoax? Did CNN have an ulterior motive in reporting the story to the citizens of Australia and the world?
The fact is, "the naive person believes every word" in print in WT publications. This is purely damage control. They know that news within the org can travel like wildfire. They are attempting to put a "lid" on any information being spread other than what is posted on the official website or in WT publication. Anything else should be regarded as "questionable" and to spread it will label a person in need of counsel. The elders can quickly call this person to the back room and counsel with points from this article.
Censorship is defined as:
"The practice of limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought." The use of group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
In effect this article constitutes a "law" designed to prevent information from being propagated. Only the naive will not see through this.
Sopater

Comment by sopaterofberoea on 2015-12-30 09:58:35

Anonymous,
Thanks for the reference to the article in the 2016 Yearbook "The Light Keeps Getting Brighter". I counted 26 different "rays" of new light over the last 4 years. This means that 26 "current light" items have run their useful course and are now laid to rest in the taped off aisles of "old light" JW publications. In a few years, some of these "old light" items will move over to the "apostate" aisle.
If we traveled back in time to when these 26 "old light" truths were new light, imagine all the buzz and excitement? For certain, the rank and file would have viewed these truths as Jehovah's thinking. We could take that to the bank.
And those who conceived these now "old light" teachings told us they were absolutely certain that God's light and truth guided them to their understanding. But now that the former understanding is officially "wrong", did God's "light and truth" guide the former GB to their understanding, or not?
In time, these 26 new light items will mature into "current light"..... and "future" new light will replace some of them. And the rank and file are expected (required) to be just as excited with the replacement teaching?
How clever to misapply Proverbs 4:18 and create the ultimate "out" loophole. The GB can replace a former teaching on a whim, without admitting error and without having to prove scripturally that the former reasoning was flawed. Who can challenge former light when it is current light? Who can challenge new light that replaces it? In secretive closed door sessions (with no published minutes), seven imperfect individuals in Brooklyn hold the trump card. .
Where it gets personal is when their "new light" doctrine impacts life decisions (eg 1975, the generation of 1914). These teachings expired and no apology was given to those who hung their hats on these "truths" while making major life choices (having children, education, career choices, etc).
Adding insult to injury, they deny responsibility for their error, and rather blame the rank and file for having placed too much confidence that a given truth was actually "the" truth.
I would love to be a fly on the wall while the GB sits around the table discussing the potential fallout (impact within the organization) from a new light teaching:
"Haven't they (the rank and file) learned by now that God's 'light and truth' is subject to change at any moment? Shame on them for believing it was actually "the" truth.
Let the buyer beware.
Only the naive would be so gullible.
Sopater

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-30 11:55:38

  These comments remind me of james 1 v17 every good and perfect gift is from above ,, it comes down from the father of lights , with whom there is no variableness , neither turning of shadow .

Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-01 07:27:42

Oh my . While we are on the topic of research ,ive just found out about this new meeting schedule . So am i correct in saying the weekly bible reading is still going , but then the bible highlights are handled in a question and answer format based on questions found in the book . Wow if thats right the screw is thought control has been tightened a bit more at the meetings . The bible is a dangerous book .

• Reply by Out of Africa on 2016-01-02 02:04:42

  The elders are given an answer sheet for the christian life and ministry part, and are instructed to make sure that these answers are brought out. Definitely mind-control. Also the program is worked out only a few months in advance, not a year like the TMS, so the org can chop and change it as need be. I have the answer sheets from Jan to March if anyone wants to see. Don't know how to upload.

  • Reply by Out of Africa on 2016-01-02 02:19:14

    This is the first answer for January:
    "1. What is the most practical step we can take to prepare for future difficulties? (2Ch 32:7, 8) [Jan. 4, w13 11/15 20 ˚17] We should strengthen our faith in God and help our brothers to do the same. We must all be ready to obey any instructions that we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking."
    These are the instructions to elders: "During the meeting the chairman should pay careful attention in order to verify that the question is answered correctly by the audience. If necessary, he may clarify the main point or highlight reasons for the answer or briefly comment on how the material can be applied. Of course, any answers given by the audience that are appropriate and in harmony with our present understanding are acceptable, even if the point is not found on the answer sheet. During the three-minute conclusion of the meeting, the chairman should briefly review the question and answer from the current week,.."

    • Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-02 06:17:43

      Thanks Out of africa . Wow what a first answer . So all the highlights are cherry picked as well now . From a reading of about 5 years of the old testament , when do they start reading the CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES about 2019 .

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-01 10:33:56

100 comments ! This has certainly been one of the most interesting, and best supported, articles on Beroean Pickets in a long time. Allow me to thank all of the participants for making this such a worthwhile place to be.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-01 18:43:36

  Thank you for your contributions TRA. Your well written comments are powerful in content and message. You help make this a worthwhile place to be. Thank you brother.
  Sopater

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2016-01-01 19:15:47

    Thanks, Sopater. I appreciate the complement. I am continually reminded of the importance of choosing one's words carefully, to not be argumentative, high minded or unkind, and to modestly stick to the facts. I know I don't always succeed at that goal, but I can't think of better place where making the effort to do so is so worthwhile.

    • Reply by Willy on 2016-01-02 01:13:49

      we are all clay in our Fathers hands and learn each day, to stay soft so He can mold us ? Thank you being you, brother TRA

Comment by The Problem With Research – Part 2 | Beroean Pickets on 2016-01-01 15:05:23

[…] Part 1 of this article, we discussed why outside research is helpful if we are to arrive at a balanced, […]

Comment by Martin D. on 2016-01-11 18:16:27

A very interesting article, thank you. During the Australian Royal Commission, Bro. Jackson stated something quite startling to me. It was when he said that it would be "presumptuous" to think that the GB were the sole channel of Gods truth. Now, I had never doubted that they were (when I was an active witness), the only source of truth. I would love to have been able to cross examine this statement myself. I would have asked him to substantiate that statement with his opinion on who else or what other group of people may currently be involved in the dispensing of truth today. No one seems to be challenging this statement though. For me, it was one of those jaw dropping moments that rarely occur. It surely has a huge impact on everything the GB say, if they are all of the same opinion. And if they are, then on the subject of research, they cannot insist on looking only at their own publications. To do so would immediately invalidate his comment and in turn the collective GBs standing on this. It would mean that they are insisting on ignoring potential "light" from other sources.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-12 10:28:15

  Martin,
  A very thought provoking post, thank you.
  And yes, we can certainly mention this in defense of our doing outside research.
  Look forward to more encouraging comments.
  Sopater

Comment by cc visnesky on 2019-07-05 21:02:49

no wonder my Bible study teacher discourages me running off to learn on my own with NON JW sources. GASP!