Another recent thread about any disfellowshipped anointed, inspired me to bring up this topic.
Has there ever been a case of an anointed getting disfellowshipped for doctrinal disagreements with the GB?
If this did occur then there are some interesting ramifications: are the non GB anointed really equal to the GB anointed? If they are then why can't we accept their light even if it's contrary to that of the GB and given the fact that the latter very often gave light that proved to be false later on?
Can the local non anointed elders deal with and disfellowship an anointed especially one that is a long time active and loyal JW member? If yes by whose authority can they do so?
Finally how can the GB be the spokesman of all the anointed making themselves the elite of all the elite among the JWs, when they are both self appointed and have absolutely no regard for their (the anointed) status treating them to all intents and purposes just like the non anointed?
The GB and the anointed, a strange dodgy relationship
by greendawn 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
greendawn
-
BlackSwan of Memphis
Finally how can the GB be the spokesman of all the anointed making themselves the elite of all the elite among the JWs, when they are both self appointed and have absolutely no regard for their (the anointed) status treating them to all intents and purposes just like the non anointed?
I knew a man who considered himself annointed and he was disfellowshipped. Well, from my understanding, he had absolutely no intentions of returning. Still doesn't. He was a bit younger which raised a stir amongst the brothers and sisters. So it got me to thinking eventually... If he left due to doctrinal disagreements, and He is annointed....
Did the holy spirit make a mistake both in his annointing and his disfellowshipping? And as what you said above...
This was just another thing that really started to make me wonder what the bleep was going on.
meagan
-
unclebruce
There were those of the 'heavenly class™' tossed out on the street during the Rutherford coop .
There have been a number of remnant rejects post online. Bruce Bainbridge (Hawaii) had issues with the number of animals allowed on Noah's Ark as illustrated in 'My Book of Bible Stories™' and was 'removed™'. Robert King (You Know/e-watchman) had issues related to his delusions of grandeur and was 'removed.™' There are a number posting here who consider themselves to be 'of the heavenly calling™' and most have been 'removed.™'
Is Ray Franz a prime example of a fallen remnant™?
-
BlackSwan of Memphis
There were those of the 'heavenly class™' tossed out on the street during the Rutherford coop.
Where might one find the specifics on this unclebruce?
thx
meagan
-
greendawn
That is the question BlackSwan, but there are also older JW members that do not agree with the GB and the JWs can't find the excuse that they are too young to be such.
I knew back in 1980 a celibate anointed who had been baptised in 1930 and spent his life serving this org, however as he told me he wrote letters to the GB regarding needed changes in doctrine and general behaviour, with full scriptural backing, that were ignored, they replied to him that it was not necessary to write letters to the GB. He also wanted the elders to allow him 10 or 15 minutes to give a small talk at the KH but they refused.
Such things made me think: does the Spirit inspire only the GB members to acquiring some light? Does it ignore the rest even some very loyal members like this old JW with decades of dedicated service behind them? Surely not though the GB would have us believe that this is the way the Holy Spirit operates. It's really a case of abysmal greed on their part, they want to hold all power out of a demonic lusting and passion for it.
The Spirit surely does not discriminate against anyone but gives gifts and revelations to all so that they will all work as parts of the same body each one with his own function. -
BlackSwan of Memphis
Such things made me think: does the Spirit inspire only the GB members to acquiring some light? Does it ignore the rest even some very loyal members like this old JW with decades of dedicated service behind them? Surely not though the GB would have us believe that this is the way the Holy Spirit operates. It's really a case of abysmal greed on their part, they want to hold all power out of a demonic lusting and passion for it.
Hm, I'm going to look something up.
I'm thinking of it like this:
According to the wts theology, Who really Is the faithful and discreet slave?
Is it the 144,00? or is it the annointed (sic) members of the Governing Body? I had always thought that according to current jw teaching the Faithful and Discreet slave would be the class of 144,000.
If that brother was a member of the heavenly class (how do I add that little tm thing???) as are so many others, like the others mentioned so far, then wow, they according to their own teachings regarding this special class...
They are actually sinning agaisnt the holy spirit themselves, aren't they? By refusing to acknowledge the workings of the Holy Spirit amongst the annointed, then isn't that oh something like the refusal to acknolwedge the blessing of YHWH on Moses and Aaron by the Israelites? Y'know the whole Korah and whoever story?
If they refuse to acknowledge the workings, leading of the Holy Spirit isn't that, also according to their own teaching, sinning against the Holy Spirit?
Or maybe I just need to wake up a little more (it's 8:48 am over here)
meagan
-
unclebruce
Where might one find the specifics on this unclebruce?
g'day meagan,
You've sent me on a search. I thought the Rutherford Coop was recorded on Rand's site but I'm having trouble finding it.
I remember seeing pics of the 'Dawns Bible Student" HQ too (the unfaithful virgin class). They are still publishing Russells works including a black and white version of the Photo Drama of Creation.
Link to: The Evil Slave Class on the Net.
Link to Randy Watters "Watchers of the Watchtower World": Rutherford's Armageddon
-
BlackSwan of Memphis
(slaps head 'where are my manners?')
good day UncleBruce
Thank you for doing the search and coming up with those links. So far...very interesting read.
meagan
-
unclebruce
Hi meagan,
This is from Kent Steinhaugs Watchtower Observer:
Rutherford's Hi-jacking of the Watchtower
The self-proclaimed "Judge" Rutherford violated Charles Taze Russell's last will and testament by taking over the Bible Students Association, and he performed a powerplay. Here is one reaction: A quickly mimeographed notice handed out at a Convention in Boston, Massachusetts to clarify that the claims in "Harvest Siftings" were inaccurate.
OPEN LETTER TO CONVENTIONERS:Boston, Mass., August 4, 1917.
Beloved Brethren in the Lord:-
Our hearts have been grieved that a paper, "Brother Rutherford's Harvest Siftings," should be circulated amongst you at this Convention in the name of our beloved Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society which contains so much of misrepresentation and evil speaking.
We will not attempt to reply in kind. We will not discuss personalities; nor return evil for evil; railing for railing; slander for slander. We will follow the inspired advice, "Recompense to no man evil for evil." The Lord is our judge. We willingly leave all to Him whom we earnestly endeavor to serve and please and to His own due time the clearing of our good name. We believe that the Lord's dear sheep will not be misled in this matter; that they will realize that this difficulty is in no sense a personal controversy.
RE BROTHER JOHNSON
Brother Johnson is in no sense the cause of the controversy between the President on the one side and Brothers Pierson, Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh on the other side. The President's treatment of Brother Johnson is only one of the circumstances in which we could not approve of Brother Rutherford's course. Our contention is that Brother Johnson, in whom Brother Russell reposed great confidence and who has manifested much love and zeal for the Truth during the 14 years of his public service, during which he has travelled as a Pilgrim paying all his own expenses except for one year, should be given a full and fair opportunity to present his case. At present he has been condemned without a trial, and to our personal knowledge shamefully misrepresented and treated.
SOME OF THE POINTS AT ISSUE
SHALL BROTHER RUSSELL'S CHARTER
SHALL BROTHER RUSSELL'S WILL AND TESTAMENT AND
SHALL BROTHER RUSSELL'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS BE RECOGNIZED AND SUPPORTED BY THE FRIENDS OR SHALL ALL THESE BE SET ASIDE AND DISREGARDED?
We believe that this should not be so. For your information we present below in parallel columns the fundamental differences which have arisen between the President and ourselves:
BROTHER RUTHERFORD:
1. Believes one man, (himself) can better manage the Society's work than the Board of Directors; thus taking an exactly opposite view to Brother Russell on this subject.
2. Personally interprets resolutions passed by Shareholders on Jan. 6, 1917, at Pittsburg, Pa., to give him practically absolute control of the Society's finances and affairs in general. He has uniformly acted in harmony with this interpretation and never given the Board, during his term of office as President, a statement of the finances and other affairs of the Society, of which we are today still ignorant. It will be a matter of interest to you that Brother Rutherford himself wrote the By-Laws even before his election.
3. Through his interpretation of certain technicalities of law, but positively contradicted by eminent counsel, he declares four of the undersigned illegally elected Directors (though himself served for years as a Director, elected exactly as they were), and assumes to appoint other brethren to take their places.
THE BOARD'S VIEW:
1: We believe Brother Russell's plans for carrying on the Harvest Work after his death should be followed: "The corporation is to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members."- (Extract from Society's Charter, written by Brother Russell.) "It being understood that they (the Board of Directors), should come to the front in the event of my death." (Extract from booklet published by Brother Russell.)
2. The Common Law or practically universal interpretation of said resolutions passed at Pittsburg Jan. 6, 1917, is that the President as "Executive and Manager" is subject to the Board of Directors, whose directions he is required to follow. The entire responsibility of the Corporation both to the Shareholders for the use of funds donated to the Society, and to the Business Public for the obligations of the Society, rests, not on the President alone, but upon the full Board of Directors. They cannot escape this responsibility.
3. (a) Upon the best legal advice we can obtain, and concurred in by Attorney Brother MeGee, assistant to the Attorney General of New Jersey, it appears that Brother Rutherford's interpretation of these technicalities is erroneous, and we are still the legal Directors of the Society.
(b) We recognize a still higher law—Divine Justice—and a moral obligation to fulfil the trust reposed in us by the Lord and Brother Russell. Three of us having been elected under the direction of Brother Russell, served harmoniously with him on the Board for years, and whose wish it was that we continue to serve as Directors during our life time, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the Shareholders.—Extract from Charter, "The Directors shall hold their respective offices for life."
"It is required of stewards that a man be found faithful, every man according to his several ability," and our greatest desire is to be faithful to the Lord and to the Shareholders of the Society, organized by Brother Russell and conducted so successfully by him for 34 years.
We, and hundreds of other friends, have endeavored to find some legal means of calling a special meeting of the Shareholders of the Society to pass upon these matters, but so far without success. It may be that the law which created our beloved Society shall have to be invoked to determine the validity of its very existence, since its life has been threatened by our President in setting aside its Board of Directors. If he cannot himself rule absolutely, he has apparently determined to put to the front the Peoples Pulpit Association, of which he claims to be President for life.
In regard to the relationship of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society to the Peoples Pulpit Association, and to the I.B.S.A., our dear Pastor in "The Watch Tower" of Dec. 1, 1915, page 359, 2nd col., says:
"Thus the whole management is by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and these auxiliary organizations merely help in carrying on its work."
"In other words, the Peoples Pulpit Assn. cannot transact business except through the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has the management, and the Peoples Pulpit Assn. does the work—absolutely."
Brother Rutherford now repudiates all this and says he will act through the Peoples Pulpit Assn., and has issued a command that Brothers Wright, Ritchie, Hoskins and Hirsh shall, like Brother Johnson, be required to leave Bethel.
In conclusion, dear friends, our only desire is to be found faithful to our trust. We believe this is the essence of the text: "It is required of stewards that a man be found faithful."
The Lord bless you and keep you. Pray that all concerned may have wisdom and grace to walk humbly and circumspectly before our Maker, that we may thus be prepared for His presence and kingdom.
Your brethren and fellow-servants of our dear Redeemer and King,
A. N. Pierson,
J. D. Wright,
A. I. Ritchie,
I. F. Hoskins,
R. H. Hirsh. -
unclebruce
Bloody Hell - we all know Kent's Demonised but ..