The folks in the Writing Department and the GB all need to go take a good long look in the mirror!
Unbelievable!
Latest Watchtower page 30... They have some nerve to put this!
by TimothyT 100 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Nobleheart
Questions for meditation: Does the governing body seek to lay down arbitrary, inflexible rules or to turn their personal opinions into law? Are they reasonable in what they expect of others?
Arbitrary or inflexible rules
How about parents shunning their own son/daughter...
Organ transplants, vaccines and presently blood transfusions being considered unacceptable? Is that reasonable to expect adherence to these rules if the person faces loss of life?
Every witness must preach...otherwise they're not real Christians
Petty rules
Beards not okay
Pants aren't okay for sisters at the KH
and couples shouldn't hold hands during prayers...whoever thought that was a stumbling for others
-
ziddina
I've always been amazed and flabbergasted at the extreme level of hypocrisy within the Watchtower Corporation....
It's either extreme cognitive dissonance, or more likely extreme arrogance coupled with smug self-righteousness....
Zid
-
steve2
There is a depressingly long history of men (and increasingly women) in positions of power and authority telling everyone else to "Be Reasonable".
Or as Oscar Wilde said, "Give me my way in absolutely everything and you will not find a more pleasant man."
-
NewChapter
and couples shouldn't hold hands during prayers...whoever thought that was a stumbling for others
OH I don't know Noble. I mean, I was a SINGLE sister! Watching a married couple holding hands during prayer, really set my imagination to working. I usually left the KH and committed fornication with the first man willing to hold my hand during a prayer. I mean--that's HOT.
NC
-
ziddina
O - M - G!!!
A bucket of ice-water for New Chapter - QUICK!!
-
djeggnog
@TimothyT:
One thing that I have ALWAYS noticed even when I was a JW is that the JW org has LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of rules for allsorts of stupid petty rules which make NO difference.
The article, "Watch Out for the Leaven of the Pharisees" [w12 5/15 30], was written as counsel to those taking the lead in God's organization, the elders. Some of the elders have given evidence that suggests a feeling on their part of being superior as if they are not sinners as much so as the flock of God among whom they serve as shepherds. Those of you that have become stumbled by certain ones in the congregation may wish to know that this article gives attention to a problem, while pointing out how Jesus was able to serve God despite his receiving much criticism for what he taught from religious leaders, like the Pharisees. You say Jehovah's organization has "lots and lots and lots of rules," but what rules in particular do you mean? Could you provide one or two examples of these burdensome rules that were imposed by Jehovah's organization that you found to have been either stupid or petty or both?
When you read the bible you see how they are clearly in the wrong here and are acting like the pharisees themselves, who imposed so much pressure on others to conform to the law. Am i missing something here!?!?
Yes, I do believe you are "missing something here," @TimothyT. What was it in particular did you read in the Bible that makes you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses "act" or behave in a manner that resembles the way in which those religious leadersk like the Pharisees, behaved toward the Jews in pressuring them to conform to the Law of Moses? A citation or two that includes the book, chapter and verse(s) would be a great help toward me understanding what it is you are saying here.
3 The Pharisees’ rules and traditions made the application of the Law burdensome for the common people.
The Mosaic Law furnished the overall structure for Israel’s worship of Jehovah. However, minute details were not provided. For instance, the Law forbade work on the Sabbath, but it did not explicitly define what constituted work and what did not. (Ex. 20:10) The Pharisees sought to fill in such supposed gaps by means of their laws, definitions, and traditions. While Jesus ignored the arbitrary rules of the Pharisees, he did observe the Mosaic Law. (Matt. 5:17, 18; 23:23) He saw beyond the letter of the Law. Jesus discerned the spirit behind the Law and the need for mercy and compassion. He was reasonable, even when his followers failed him. For example, although he urged three of his apostles to stay awake and keep on the watch on the night of his arrest, they fell asleep repeatedly. Nevertheless, he sympathetically remarked: "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the flesh is weak."—Mark 14:34-42.
Errrr yeah... ok... I decided this wasnt reflective enough, so i decided to change it to a more modern day interpretation. See what you think!
3 The governing body’s rules and traditions make the application of the Jesus’ Laws burdensome for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Law of Christianity furnished the overall structure for all worship of Jehovah. However, minute details were not provided. The governing body seek to fill in such supposed gaps by means of their laws, definitions, and traditions. While Jesus ignores the arbitrary rules of the governing body, he does observe the Law of Christianity. (Matt. 22:36-40) He saw beyond the letter of the Law. Jesus discerned the spirit behind the Law and the need for mercy and compassion. He was reasonable, even when his followers failed him. For example, although he urged three of his apostles to stay awake and keep on the watch on the night of his arrest, they fell asleep repeatedly. Nevertheless, he sympathetically remarked: "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the flesh is weak."—Mark 14:34-42.
Questions for meditation: Does the governing body seek to lay down arbitrary, inflexible rules or to turn their personal opinions into law? Are they reasonable in what they expect of others?
Reflect on the contrast between Jesus’ teaching and that of the governing body. Do you see ways in which they could improve? If so, why do they not resolve to do so?
Just as you did, I have redrafted Point #3 in the hope that what follows will be help you to discern the purpose not only of this point, but of the article itself:
3 Of course, Christians have never been obliged to keep the Law of Moses, but they are obliged to adhere to the law of Christ, which law embodies many of the principles of the law.
Adherence to the law of Christ is based on loving one's neighbor from the heart, which is how Christians demonstrate their love for God and his commandments. (Luke 10:27; 1 John 5:2, 3) While not all, but some of the elders in God's organization today have imposed their own rules ad precepts upon Jehovah's people according to their own inclinations, Jehovah's Witnesses would ignore all such rules by strictly adhering to God's commandments despite what criticism some elders might heap upon them while being submissive to them. (Heb. 13:7, 17) The elders in the congregation are being led by God's spirit, and they endeavor to fulfill "the law of the Christ" as they "go on carrying the burdens of one another" by being merciful and compassionate to those placed in their care, especially when some in the congregation are slow to respond to counsel. (Gal. 6:2; 1 Tim. 1:16; Eph. 4:32) For example, when it becomes apparent that circumstances make it difficult for an elder to carry out his responsibilities toward the congregation because of the manner in which he treats the flock, the elders know that God does not want anyone to be made to carry more than he can bear since they acknowledge the principle that "they are many members, yet one body."--1 Cor. 10:13; 12:20.
Questions for meditation: Do I seek to lay down arbitrary, inflexible rules or to turn my personal opinions into law? Am I reasonable in what I expect of others?
Reflect on the contrast between Jesus’ teaching and that of the Pharisees. Do you see ways in which you could improve? If so, why not resolve to do so?
Like Jesus, are you reasonable about what you expect of others?
Above, I do ask you a couple questions, @TimothyT, and maybe you won't mind answering them, but if you do, that's ok. However, if you should have any follow-up questions of your own, please feel free to ask them.
@Nobleheart:
Arbitrary or inflexible rules
How about parents shunning their own son/daughter...
There is no rule in place that requires a parent to shun his or her own son or daughter, but Jehovah's Witnesses are admonished to avoid the kind of spiritual fellowship that they may have had in the past with their children, although, as parents, the giving of counsel might become necessary. Of course, I must distinguish a point that is made in this same issue of the Watchtower on page 25-26 in the article entitled, "Are You Reflecting the Glory of Jehovah?" Paragraph 13 of this article reads as follows:
"Jehovah hates sin, and so should we. Indeed, we ought to move as far away from wrongdoing as possible and not see how close we can get to it without being overcome by sin. For instance, we need to guard against succumbing to apostasy, a sin that would make us unfit to glorify God. (Deut. 13:6-9) Let us therefore have nothing to do with apostates or anyone who claims to be a brother but who is dishonoring God. This should be the case even if he is a family member. (1 Cor. 5:11) We are not [benefitted] by trying to refute the arguments of apostates or those who are critical of Jehovah’s organization. In fact, it is spiritually dangerous and improper to peruse their information, whether it appears in written form or it is found on the Internet."
Notice that the "family member" mentioned here does not have to be a baptized brother, but would include associating with anyone that dishonors God or belittles God's word. If a family member should live in the same household as a servant of God, all spiritual association should cease, and if this family member should live elsewhere, then as long as he or she continues to treat God with contempt, his relatives, including his own parents, should have nothing to do with such a person.
Organ transplants, vaccines and presently blood transfusions being considered unacceptable? Is that reasonable to expect adherence to these rules if the person faces loss of life?
There is no rule in place that prevents anyone from accepting an organ transplant, a vaccine or one or more blood transfusions if this is what the individual should decide they want to do. Often when a person faces a medical emergency where loss of life is possible, one may cave in to the pressure brought upon them by physicians desirous of administering medical treatment that involves the use of blood, which, of course, is unacceptable to Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses believe blood to be sacred and that life is symbolized by blood, as we are ever mindful of how God only permitted the shedding of blood as substitutional sacrifices for a time, which sacrifices were replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus' life for the life of the world, by means of which we ourselves can be saved. If one's conscience should begin to accuse one of sin in this regard, the elders can help to bring the indisposed one back to health that he or she might be forgiven his or her sins. (James 5:15)
Every witness must preach...otherwise they're not real Christians
This is not an arbitrary or an inflexible rule. Like Paul said, "necessity is laid upon me" to proclaim the good news of the kingdom. (1 Corinthians 9:16)
Petty rules
Beards not okay
If one does not wish to cut their beard, whether it be a man or a woman, there is no requirement that he must do so. There has never been such a rule. In fact, some Jehovah's Witnesses, not living abroad, but living right here in the US that wear beards, in particular, black Jehovah's Witnesses, who cannot shave due to the unsightly bumps that become apparent.
Pants aren't okay for sisters at the KH
and couples shouldn't hold hands during prayers...whoever thought that was a stumbling for others
If someone does not wish to wear pants, he or she may wear a dress or a kilt for that matter. Likewise, if a sister does not wish to wear a dress or a skirt for any reason, she may choose to wear pants, and just as there is no rule that requires brothers to wear pants and sisters to wear dresses, whatever one wears should be clean and presentable, not dirty and wrinkled.
Jehovah's Witnesses regularly gather at the Kingdom Hall, in the grand courtyards of God's spiritual temple, God's house, a holy place, where God dwells in person, to render sacred service to Him, to render direct service to God, and if someone chooses to hold someone's hand when prayers are being said in the congregation or elsewhere, whether the hand holders should be a married couple, friends that are dating, or just siblings, what of it? I've never heard of such a rule being imposed on anyone, and there is no rule in place that prevents anyone from holding another's hand.
@djeggnog
-
poopsiecakes
Oh Eggykins, you're so cute when your head is up your butt. No rule on beards? Any brother who has a beard can't give a part on the platform or even pass mikes - this happened to my ex husband. And yes, a sister can show up at the occasional meeting wearing slacks and probably nothing will be said but she certainly can't do one of the little skits that they relegate women to (because a scripted conversation spoken into microphones isn't teaching after all). Let that same sister wear slacks more than a few meetings in a row however, and she will be approached and reminded of how sisters should dress. And kneecaps are apparently very seductive because that kind of skirt will make a woman look 'worldly'.
Come on, just admit that it's all about appearances with the religion you hold so dear to your heart. Come on, admit it already.
-
poopsiecakes
oh and I almost forgot...
The elders in the congregation are being led by God's spirit
Really? Are you sure about that? Does that fall into the 'spirit inspired' or 'spirit directed' category? Either way, if what you say is true then there shouldn't be any errors made whatsoever when it comes to how judicial matters are handled. They should 'know' without debate or disagreement among themselves the way to act and if a mistake is made, then the elder making it should be immediately removed because clearly this one is not being 'led by God's spirit'. By extension, any CO who appointed this one should also be removed for the same reason. It's a slippery slope, yes?
-
djeggnog
@poopsiecakes:
Oh Eggykins, you're so cute when your head is up your butt. No rule on beards? Any brother who has a beard can't give a part on the platform or even pass mikes - this happened to my ex husband.
There is no rule against brothers wearing a beard, but the elders in the local congregation have discretion in deciding who should deliver parts on the platform and who should handle microphones during the meetings and so forth. What you have observed and that which had occurred in your ex-husband's case isn't personal, and if you think it was personal, then they would just be your opinion, would it not? I think you are entitled to believe that it was personal the decision of the elders to not let him give a talk or pass the mikes around, but, again, you see the body of elders' decision in your particular congregation as being an oppressive rule, but there are congregations where brothers do these things and more in some of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, including their delivering parts at larger gathering in the circuit,
And yes, a sister can show up at the occasional meeting wearing slacks and probably nothing will be said but she certainly can't do one of the little skits that they relegate women to (because a scripted conversation spoken into microphones isn't teaching after all).
I don't believe an unbaptized eight-year-old child that acquits himself or herself well during a skit at the Kingdom Hall is qualified to teach either, whether or not the child is wearing slacks or a dress, even if you should opine that child is teaching you: You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but in my opinion only, such a child isn't teaching me and cannot teach me, ok? Maybe one day he or she will, and if it's a "she," she will be unmarried and I will be the only baptized male in the Kingdom Hall and in an incapacitated state, so that this child, now a baptized minister of God, will teach me with "her" head covered to signify her submission to God's arrangement.
Let that same sister wear slacks more than a few meetings in a row however, and she will be approached and reminded of how sisters should dress.
And when this should occur, that "same sister" can disregard what things are said to her and continue to dress as she feels she must. No one is going to fight over this. The body of elders can make rules and make concessions to them, but disregarding these "rules" aren't sins, but tell of someone that may not wish to respect the authority of the elders, and anyone has the right to do as he or she pleases in God's organization. Anything. There may be consequences, like the sister wearing slacks may not be asked to do a skit on the platform with someone else or someone else might be substituted in at the last minute to deliver the part that the brother sporting a beard had evidently decided, by his conduct, he did not wish to give that evening. If anything is seen to be at all "oppressive" about any of this, it would be so in your own mind, @poopsiecakes.
And kneecaps are apparently very seductive because that kind of skirt will make a woman look 'worldly'.
You lost me there, @poopsiecakes. I like kneecaps. Being that I am both a married man and a Christian, I would have a problem telling a woman that I like kneecaps, and for reasons I won't get into here as to my problem accepting the sexual deviancy with which some in the world operate just fine with no problem whatsoever, I would never tell a man this either. But I told my wife very recently that I liked her kneecaps. I didn't use those words exactly, but this was just a paraphrase.
Come on, just admit that it's all about appearances with the religion you hold so dear to your heart. Come on, admit it already.
It is about appearances, but we have another word for this: It's about the impropriety of men wearing beards and women wearing pants in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses here in North America. There are congregations on the continent of Africa, for example, where in Nigeria, for example, men wear daishikis and cotton robes (not suits and ties like here in the States) and women don't normally wear pants to church, including those that go to the Kingdom Halls, but wear dresses, that cover their entire body, arms included, and nothing that is tight-fitting, so if a woman should decide to wear trousers (pants) at all, they will be loose-fitting, both at the hips and in the butt.
You are essentially balking at what is the custom here in North America and seeing what is the custom attire for brothers and sisters in Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses as oppressive. Maybe it is to you. @poopsiecakes, but it isn't to others. Let me put it this way: You would not want to walk into a Kingdom Hall or into one of Christendom's churches where you should be on vacation in Nigeria wearing pants, ok? You may be forced to leave not just the country, but the continent because of your disdain in disregarding the customs of that country!
One more thing: There is a kind of custom in my home initiated by my wife and enforced by me: You cannot come into the house past the vestibule wearing the shoes that you wear on the street. Everyone that knows my wife knows this; if you just know me, I might have forgotten to tell you, but my wife (or someone that knows us well) will stop you at the front door. We buy crew socks for those that don't want to go bare-footed in the house or who don't want to walk about in nylons to wear and keep many six-packs in the garage for such occasions. (We have many guests for some reason.)
Maybe you and I are friends, and I invite you to come over, but if you should be seen by my wife walking on her "white" carpet (it's our white carpet and it really isn't white, but close enough) wearing your street shoes, I'm pretty sure she will order you to stop walking and to remove your shoes immediately as she hands you a pair of socks, and at that moment I can guarantee that she will not be smiling back at your nervous, caught-in-the-headlights smile. But my wife is really a nice person when you're not wearing shoes on her carpet.
A few months ago actually, I took one of the speakers I use outside to play music outside in my gazebo into our living room with my friends to do a little karaoke, and each speaker accepts two mikes, so I hooked up both mikes and took my friends into the living room, and all I got from my wife when she sauntered in there for no real reason (except to chuckle over the would-be singers holding the microphones if they had been born with such a gift) was a smile (why?) because everyone in the living room was observing the custom.
@djeggnog
