Watchtower says JW's can reach different conclusions & it's fine!!!

by Must obey! 37 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Bonnie_Clyde

  Lois reflects on the serious Bible command, `Get out of Babylon the Great,' the world empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:2, 4) She once belonged to the church where the wedding is to take place and knows that during the ceremony all present will be asked to share in religious acts, such as prayer, singing, or religious gestures. She is determined to have no part in that and does not want even to be there and be under pressure to break her integrity. Lois respects her husband and wants to cooperate with him, her Scriptural head; yet, she does not want to compromise her Scriptural principles.

  This situation came up with a friend of Clyde's who attends meetings with his wife of 43 years--only this time it was a funeral. She read this WT article and decided to be like Lois and not attend. Clyde's friend is really ticked. I don't see how this is showing "respect" to her husband. He has shown her "respect" by attending the Kingdom Hall these last 43 years, but she won't attend the funeral of their friend because it's in a church.

  The Watchtower continues to devise ways to break down marriages.
• 

  minimus

  Remember, the WT. states one thing but in personal correspondence to elders they say the opposite.

  The WT. states you can vote. The Circuit Overseer tells the elders, "ignore that. It only applies in some foreign countries".

  The WT. states you will not be disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion but they tell elders that the action could simply mean that the person himself, disassociated from the Christian Congregation by his actions.

  The WT. states that the elders should clearly extend mercy to those that are in judicial hearings. The CO tells the elders, "Now everyone is extending too much mercy. We'd rather you judge (and err) on the side of justice than mercy. We don't people to contaminate the Organization".

  So, the WT. can spin or say anything they like. It means nothing.
• 

  yknot

  Umm this was all under the guise of headship to an unbelieving husband.

  If the WTS outright says to disregard her husbands headship (authority), then what is the difference in disregarding the FDS self-given authority?......

  The only conclusion that made this fine was the wife being in subject to her non-JW hubby.

  ****of course I know this tatic well******** as my hubby is not a Witness*******

  (BTW if the Hubby was a JW and his wife was not and had wanted him to attend, the answer should/'would have had to be NO)

  Ahhhh reverse sexism.....a rarely seen sight.

  Y
• 

  flipper

  MUST OBEY- Very good thread . Really well done by you.Well, all I can say is it certainly doesn't surprise me, the double talk and confusing takes on what one person's concsience will allow as compared to what another persons concsience will allow ! Is it any wonder these people and this organization is so messed up in relation to what is allowed and what is not ? The flip flops in the view of oral sex over the years, hell even their policy on child abuse has continually flip-flopped depending on what congregation or elder body was dealing with each particular case ! This was a big reason I got out of the witnesses, because one elder would tell you one thing, another would say something different . Then, when I would go back and do research myself, I'd find out both were wrong and not doing things according to how the governing body instructed ! That's when I through my hands up, and walked away, never going back. They were all full of $hit ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  It's my opinion that they put statements in their as is found in paragraph 13 just in case they need to quote something later in the press. They won't point to the decades of rules. They will point to this WT quote and say "See? We encourage people to think for themselves, except in cases where the bible clearly condemns a certain course of conduct." (I have heard this line of reasoning so much it makes me ill to type it right now...)

  This is a cover their @$$ quote. I find it ironic that the article sort of contradicts this statement throughout....
• 

  WTWizard

  OK, so I have reached the conclusion that Jehovah is nothing more than a baghead that makes promises He knows He will not keep, japs on them every time, and then has the nerve to order me to act as if He had kept them anyways. I wonder how the Watchtower Society will react to that--maybe that is fine, too.

  It had better be, since that is the conclusion I have reached.
• 

  blondie

  Remember that insisting on your own conscience but stumbling another is the most important point according to the WTS. So even if your conscience allows something, if it disturbs that of another jw perhaps stumbling them you are to set aside your conscience.

  *** w06 3/15 pp. 24-25 par. 15 "Each One Will Carry His Own Load" ***Often, the choices we make affect others, and we need to give consideration to this. The first-century Christians, for example, were no longer under many of the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law. They could choose to eat certain foods that were considered unclean under the Law and were not objectionable in other ways. However, the apostle Paul wrote about meat of an animal that might have some link with an idol temple: "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat flesh at all, that I may not make my brother stumble." (1 Corinthians 8:11-13) The early Christians were encouraged to show consideration for the consciences of others so as not to stumble them. Our decisions should not make us "causes for stumbling."—1 Corinthians 10:29, 32.

  *** w05 4/1 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***Above all, he should pursue a course that leaves him with a good conscience, that brings no reproach on Jehovah’s name, and that does not stumble others.—Matthew 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:31-33; 2 Corinthians 6:3; 1 Timothy 1:5.

  *** w99 4/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***

  What

  istheeffectofdoingthework;willithurtone’sownconscienceorstumbleothers? Conscience should be considered, both our own and that of others. Even if a certain work (including its location and source of pay) seems acceptable to most Christians, an individual may sense that it would trouble his personal conscience. The apostle Paul, who set a fine example, stated: "We trust we have an honest conscience, as we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things." (Hebrews 13:18) We ought to avoid doing work that would leave us disturbed; yet, we also should not be critical of others whose consciences differ. Conversely, a Christian might see no conflict with the Bible in his doing a certain work, but he realizes that it would be very disturbing to many in the congregation and in the community. Paul reflected the right attitude in his words: "In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, that our ministry might not be found fault with; but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers."—2 Corinthians 6:3, 4.
• 

  DaCheech

  the problem is that some people will tell the elders EVERYTHING.

  some MS in my area was just ratted by his own sister!

  I DONT tell anyone in my congo private matters.
• 

  moshe

  They can't let this very far or a free for all will break out in the KH amongst the brothers.
• 

  DaCheech

  there is a certain something that happened to me personally (as far as witness stuff goes) that I cannot even tell people on this board for the fear of some brothers knowing who I am