An important question for active JW's

by Honesty 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  inbetween

  heavensgate1, welcome from me too..

  I used to think this way also, but please consider:

  US citzens, British people and even Catholic church (at least most of them all) recognize the wrong course their forefathers/predecessors took, they usually admit their error, and do not claim, they were the only poeple on earth guided by Gods spirit, when this crimes happened (this not sure regarding Catholics though...).

  The point is, that they claim of the WTS for unquestioning obedience has to be put under the closest scrutiny. Since the GB already existed in Rutherfords time (according to their own doctrine), their reputation is in strong connection with what he did or not did.
• 

  Heartofaboy

  What a relief I no longer have to defend the Watchtower & its GB.

  When I was beginning to face up TTATT & a householder raised an issue regarding what the borg had written in the past but years later been proven to be incorrect (1975), it was so refreshing to be able to admit the JW's were wrong rather than stand there trying to find some wriggle room.

  The householders also appreciated the honesty.
• 

  heavensgate11

  Inbetween

  Thank you for your warm become. I accept your rational, and please allow me to explain my past thoughts. At times as a journeyman of history I tend to forget my imperfection and my inability to properly communicate my thoughts with others. Being prominent in many and subsequent in none reflects more often than not. Having said that, what I meant about Joseph Judge Rutherford who became the second president of the IBSA after C.T. Russell died on 1916.

  He retained the ISBA through legal means rather than a vote. After taking office, he compiled a group of board members as any big business does and ran the Watchtower as a business structure rather than a religious headquarters until the split of 1931. After that Rutherford and his board room members were not considered by Jehovah’s Witnesses anything no more than that. Mr. Rutherford never prophesied being a Jehovah’s Witnesses or was he treated as such. I believe the term Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses started in 1951 but don’t quote me on that. It could have been later. I believe after Rutherford’s death in 1942, the ISBA made a reference to The T HEOCRATIC G OVERNMENT of a Faithful Witness in his eulogy, I don’t remember reading about GB under Nathan Homer Knorr, but after that, there was just a theocratic judicial committee.

  Perhaps this will aid me to reflect my comments.

  “Just one of the servants of the Lord”?

  Who was J. F. Rutherford? He stood firm for what he believed in, yet he was also humble and detested the spirit of following a man. An encyclopedic reference says of him:

  Although [Joseph] Rutherford served for 25 years as president of the Watch Tower Society and devoted all his energy to advancing the work of the organization, he was not the leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he did not want to be. At a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1941, shortly before his death, he spoke about the matter of leadership, saying: “I want to let any strangers here know what you think about a man being your leader, so they won’t be forgetting. Every time something rises up and starts to grow, they say there is some man a leader who has a great following. If there is any person in this audience who thinks that I, this man standing here, is the leader of Jehovah’s witnesses, say Yes.” The response was an impressive silence, broken only by an emphatic “No” from several in the audience. The speaker continued: “If you who are here believe that I am just one of the servants of the Lord, and we are working shoulder to shoulder in unity, serving God and serving Christ, say Yes.” In unison the assembly roared out a decisive “Yes!” The following month an audience in England responded in exactly the same way. (emphasis added) (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, pp. 220-1)
• 

  Londo111

  Sometimes a person’s words and actions do not align. The Judge, not by his words, but by his actions, was THE LEADER, more than even Russell. His name and face were plastered everywhere. His word was law. If he felt slighted, he castigated people. During the Great Depression, he drove two Cadillacs, and lived in the Beth Sarim mansion.

  Think about the example Jesus set. He had nowhere to lay his head. He washed his disciple’s feet. Can you imagine the Judge doing this?
• 

  jgnat

  

  Judge Rutherford
• 

  jgnat

  

  He certainly was advertised as the leader.
• 

  Faithful Witness

  (Outlaw took my answer... especially about "change the subject!" I have experienced this many times. I am a curious householder. but never a JW.)

  OK, I am totally confused now. The JW's of today started when??

  What about the study article in the Watchtower of July 15, 2013, which includes a time line, showing that the harvest began in 1919. Please review the article titled, "Look! I am with you ALL the days."

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-parable-wheat-and-weeds/

  Jesus came in 1914, inspected them, and then appointed them as the faithful and discreet slave in 1919. Paragraph 12 states:

  Since 1919, anointed ones have been gathered into the restored Christian congregation.

  Can you explain this? I am really trying to understand...

  PS: Welcome. It is good to see a JW who has the courage to speak up.
• 

  heavensgate11

  Being lead astray.

  Consider the caption below when researching the past. Keep in mind that not all information is available on the internet. The obvious is never what it seems.

  There is the IBSA that supported Rutherford for sometime, but then most of the ISBA community severed their relationship with him. Ironically the ISBA disowns any affiliation with JW’s of today.

  “The picture is clear. The historical data reveals beyond a doubt that the Bible Students founded by

  Pastor Russell and Jehovah’s Witnesses founded by Judge Rutherford are two separate movements”.

  There is a big difference between the IBSA of Rutherford, and the JW’s of today. However the JWN community promotes guilt by association or affiliation.

  Below is a sample of a protest against JW’s that was lunched back on the 60’s. The caption emplys JW’s are deceptive. However if you read the article by the Watchtower they chose to mislead the public for whatever reason to promote this sensationalist advertisement, you will see the lie was with the author not the Watchtower.

  Here you can see the difference how quickly the public can be deceived by the Watchtowers own publications. Here the difference between being obligated to tell the entire truth or reframe from saying something that would be hurtful to someone or it would be painful for someone to hear.

  Theocratic warfare and deception?

  Incorrect

  JW Public Relations: JR Brown is he authorized to lie to the press? Yes!
  “He is in theocratic warfare…we must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive” Watchtower 1960 June 1 page 351

  Correct

  JW Public Relations: JR Brown, is he authorized to lie to the press? No! “We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. But we may not tell a falsehood. ... He is in theocratic warfare ... he must utter the truth.” Watchtower 1960 June 1 pages 351-2

  Questions From Readers

  ● From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the Christian’s obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given:

  God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor.” (Eph. 4:25) This command, however, does not mean that we should tell everyone who asks us all he wants to know. We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. But we may not tell a falsehood.

  Example: Your friend’s mother died in a horrible car crash. You were there when it happened. You witnessed the grousim outcome. You go to notify your friend. Do you explain to your friend that their mother just passed away in a car accident and her head and guts were all over the windshield, or do you simply say, your mother was in a terrible car crash and she passed away. Empathy suggests the latter.

  Then your decrement is needed within the JWN community. It’s not always just back and white.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Oh I see your argument is built on guilt by association. Not that the JW’s of 1931 departed from those views and doctrines but are to be held accountable for others previous actions and views

  I guess then if that’s the case

  All modern U.S. citizens are guilty of slavery as their forefathers were

  All modern British citizens are guilty of murder for all past British Military massacres in Africa

  All modern Catholics are guilty or have blood in their hands for past Pontiff massacring the Crusaders

  Etc, etc. Got it!!!!!! Thanks outlaw for your good reasoning.....heavens Gate11

  The above is your own WatchTarded Reasoning..

  You Fabricated a story,destroyed your fabricated story,then declared yourself the winner..

  Your Misleading and Decietful..

  .

  JW`s aren`t responsible for WBT$ Doctrines..

  The WBT$ Makes Up the Doctrines,JW`s follow them..

  It was the WBT$ that departed from those old doctrines..

  JW`s would still follow them,if they were told to by the WBT$..

  .

  The WBT$ still makes up the Doctrines..

  The WBT$ Followers still follow the WBT$ Doctrines..The WBT$ is still in Charge..

  Pretending the Outside world is attacking JW`s,is an Old WBT$ Trick to take the spotlight off themselves..

  For their endless F*cked Up Decisions/Doctrines,they impose on their followers..

  The WBT$ is Misleading and Decietful..

  ............................................................................................OUTLAW
• 

  heavensgate11