Greetings! From an Existent JW! (page 10)

jgnat

I've taken the time to cruise this thread and come up with the major themes and topics. Some Ethos has promised to address. Two posters have taken up the challenge and started related threads. Ethos has responded on one of them. The major themes I've categorized in order of interest, Shunning, Blood, Christian Unity, Changing Doctrine, Bible Interpretation, and my own personal favorite, "Best of the Best".

I think that Ethos has already apologized to Mouthy/Grace, so I would say that already Ethos is admitting to judicial failures and that there is unjust shunning.

On blood, other than expressing disappointment in the quality of the argument and the age of the referenced materials, Ethos's argument has been soundly beat to death.

We are yet to hear on the topic of Christian Unity, something you have expressed interest in, Ethos.

We are yet to hear on Changing Doctrine, and flip-flops. Ethos, you may suggest that changes can be expressed as improvements, but if the society goes back and forth on the same doctrine, you can't use the improvement argument.

Ethos has not expressed any interest in the bible interpretation challenges, or my personal favorite.

My breakdown and categorization:

SHUNNING

The parable of the Prodigal Son compared to modern judicial meetings (stillajwexelder)

Love is kind, shunning is not (lisaBObeesa)

Why should [Grace’s] family shun her because she doesn't believe that Jesus came invisibly in 1914? (Mouthy/Granny Grace and Oppostate)

BLOOD

Blood is my big issue. I simply cannot see any justification for this to be a matter someone would be disfellowshipped for. I think it has to be a conscience matter by the very definition of what that means. (problemaddict)(TD)(panhandlegirl)(Ethos)

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/242021/1/Transfusion-and-Eating-e28093-no-difference

CHRISTIAN UNITY

I believe true Christian unity is based on love, not total agreement on all issues. (Londo 111)(Marvin Shilmer)(Ethos)

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/241995/1/For-Ethos-The-Basis-of-Christian-Unity#4546319

CHANGING DOCTRINE

…the new " Slave " doctrine (DATA-DOG)

flip-flops (New Chapter and 00DAD)

Russell believing that 1874 was the actual year that Jesus came back invisibly and 1914 was originally thought to the end of all human governments? (NotJustYet)

Have you read the book published by the WTS in 1881 called "Tabernacle Shadows". Bro. Russell wrote this book. I would highly recommend reading this. All Bible Students at the time accepted this as "the truth" on the doctrine of the atonement. In a nutshell it taught that Jesus sacrifice at Calvary did not result in a finished work of atonement.(FWFranz)

Past errors/wrong teachings JWs have relinquished and what they signify.(Ethos)

BIBLE INTERPRETATION

If you can prove JW beliefs from the bible… (LouBelle)

the fall [of Babylon]...+70 = 609 BC approx beginning......(pterist)

BEST OF THE BEST

…the WTS being the closest to following God's Holy spirit in our day? (jgnat)

Londo111

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/236786/1/For-Recovery-A-discussion-about-the-Great-Crowd-and-the-Other-Sheep

Ethos, if you've time to spare, perhaps you can pick up Recovery's mantle in this thread as well.

problemaddict

Thanks Londo. I will check out whats there.

Ethos

Jgnat thats a nice analysis. I considered replying in greater detail to the blood thread but I did not think it wise to involve myself in so many discussions concurrently. I dont think it would be beneficial to me or others as I could not focus fully on one subject at a time and would be forced to put on hold many questions and responses.

Im starting a thread on the 'changing doctrine' as I feel it is the most commonplace and to many unsatisfactorily addressed. I appreciate your response.I wouldnt say im admitting to judicial failures, I'm simply acknowledging that if such a disfellowshipping transpired it would be unjust and simply wrong. I related my own case and this did not happen to me. The issue would henceforth be with those individuals on her judicial committee, not the instructions from the WTS. My response is qualified by saying IF it transpired then the disfellowshipping would be wrong, not that it WAS wrong because I do not know all the details.of her judicial case.

Hypothetical speech anyone?

Christ Alone

.I wouldnt say im admitting to judicial failures, I'm simply acknowledging that if such a disfellowshipping transpired it would be unjust and simply wrong.

Hmmm...I think that would be a judicial failure. If a judge condemned you unlawfully...that would be a judicial failure. Since the claim is made that the elders are directed by God's Spirit...and they failed....it would be a judicial failure.

Basically the Judicial Committee system is as unbiblical as you could get. The only thing close to it is the Judicial System that was hastily put into place by the Pharisees on the night that they condemned Jesus.

The BIBLICAL judicial system was to be done in public so as to discourage the elders from doing what they do now. The evidence would be available to anyone that wanted to review the evidence. This whole "No RECORDING!!!" of judicial committees is not biblical. The non allowance of observers or witnesses is not biblical. The secret elders hand book is not biblical. When you get into the policies of the Watchtower, it is EXTREMELY unbiblical. And yet they feel like they can keep saying things like, "EVERYTHING we do is based on the Bible." Or "We have no secret materials for different kinds of members."

I find it interesting when elders are asked about any sort of secret info, they will passionately reply, "NO!!!!" But then when it's discovered that someone knows about the "Shepherd" book...they get immediately defensive.

Our own RayPublisher produced this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=776UyRpno-Q&playnext=1&list=PLC334CA48BA2238F9&feature=results_main

A VERY fair overview about the elders.

jgnat

Ethos, we have you down for one admitted judicial failure (thank you Christ Alone for explaining what that means).

I'll also put you down as having abandoned the blood argument. Your reasons sound like an excuse to me. The thread was very focused on blood as nourishment and deserved to be completely worked out. But I understand if you are not up to it. It is obvious any argument you may construct would be thoroughly demolished before you could even lay the cornerstone.

Londo111

"The issue would henceforth be with those individuals on her judicial committee, not the instructions from the WTS"

Unfortunately, it is not just between her and those three imperfect men, the decisions made by a judicial committee have far reaching repercussions. Seven million people must shun her on the basis of what at least two of the three elders have said, including her family.

However, just as Catholic priests represent the Papal Hierarchy, elders represent the Watchtower Society. The Society has created this environment, they are ultimately responsible, they will render an Accounting. In this case, I firmly believe the Society’s wishes were represented. If a person doesn’t relent on accepting a teaching like 1914, they are eliminated. From their viewpoint, a person cannot even privately believe another opinion. Even unexpressed, it is apostasy. A thoughtcrime.

Christ Alone

Also, Ethos, keep in mind that the elders in Mouthy's case were NOT doing something that would be condemned by the WT. They were actually following instruction.

In a letter to the Circuit Overseers, the Watchtower drove the point home that an "apostate" is not only one that speaks about his disagreements to others. An apostate is one that simply BELIEVES something different than the WT teaches. If this individual is told the "right answer", they are REQUIRED to believe the Watchtower. Otherwise, they are an apostate.

In a 9/1/1980 letter to all CO's and DO's...it said:

"Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. As mentioned in paragraph two, page 17 of the August 1, 1980, Watchtower, "The word 'apostasy' comes from a Greek term that means 'a standing away from,' 'a falling away, defection,' 'rebellion, abandonment. Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrine despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing. Extended kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking. However, if after such extended efforts have been put forth to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe his apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the slave class, then appropriate judicial action should be taken.

So your comment that those 3 elders were not acting in harmony with the Governing Body is actually wrong. They were acting EXACTLY as the GB wanted them to act.

Christ Alone

In case you think that is a misquote, here is the letter that states that merely BELIEVING (or not believing)something different is apostasy:

james_woods

Do not feed the troll.

Don't be a dope.

Greetings! From an Existent JW!

Share this