Overseer's wife accompanied my Elderette, to answer my question, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"

by Faithful Witness 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Faithful Witness

  As usual, I was unprepared for a "drop-in" visit by a JW. They seem to have a knack for coming when you're in the middle of something, or your house is a complete disaster... for me, both things are almost always true. It's better if you call me and warn me before you come over. Today, my blood sugar was also crashing, so I had a hard time concentrating and speaking clearly. (I'm sure I looked like a fool).

  The CO's wife (new to me) was a convert. I didn't ascertain how long she has been a JW, but she was pretty excited about the fact that she had found the one true religion. She explained that God has ALWAYS had an organization on earth. She made a couple of claims that I noticed, but was not feeling equipped to challenge. She also had stated that she only had 5 minutes to chat, but she kept on talking... hahaha (how atypical for a JW!)

  There were only 2 points I challenged her on.

  1. She claimed that nobody was making any profit off this... (!!!) She went on to say how nobody gets a salary, nobody: from the elders, overseers, right on up to the governing body. "Nobody gets paid!"

  • I noted (to myself) that this statement was coming from a woman who has a very nice salon hairstyle, the latest style of fashion boots, and most likely has her housing, vehicle, meal and living expenses paid by the society (or do the CO's have to pay their own living expenses... ??). From the things I have heard and observed, wherever they go, everything is provided for them, while they brag about how they don't make any money...
  • I interjected and said, "But there IS a Watchtower Corporation. They DO have billions of dollars."
  • To which, she nodded and said, "And WHAT do they DO with that money? (bats eyelashes)" ...
  • and here is where my reason went out the window and I lost it (I am blaming the blood sugar). I said, "They are paying court costs. They are shelling out milliions of dollars to lawyers, to cover their tracks. They cover up crimes by calling them sins. Millions... Candace Conti??"
  • I admit it, I lost my cool... oops. (But really, "nobody is making money....???")
  • Her response: "Oh, there are WEBSITES that will try to defame the name of our ORGANIZATION (her word)..."
  • I said, "Like NBC News?"
  • She came back with, "If you want to know the truth about someone, what do you do? If I want to know more about you and how you run your house or take care of your kids, do I ask you personally, or do I go run around and see what your neighbors say about you?"
  • and I said, "True, but if I want to know more about a business or organization that I am considering, I do ask for the perspective of outsiders. I would ask their previous customers about their experiences, and I would look at the history of that organization." (There is a big difference between her example and reality. I am not asking anyone to donate their time and money to serving me and my purpose. I am also not claiming to be God's mouthpiece in the time of the end, or asking anyone else to follow my instructions as if they come from God.)
  • They went way over their time limit, but I don't regret saying something to the visiting overserette.

  2. On their way out, I repeated one other statement she had made to me...

  • "God has always had an organization on earth? There was never a time without one. Who represented that organization in the 1700's or 1800's?"
  • She then said there had been many imperfect reps before, and that Jesus had told the disciples that he would appoint the slave during the LAST DAYS... (at this explanation, I heard my elderette let out a quiet, "Oh!" like she was so glad there was actually an answer to that question).

  So elderette has my phone number now, so hopefully she will call in advance next time, so I can clear a path and put on the tea kettle first. She has agreed that she will come back, but only wants to talk about what is IN THE BIBLE. She claimed that she had already spoken to our previous BS teacher, and that he was happy to hear that she was coming by. Apparently, he has stopped here to find our house empty on several occasions... interesting to hear!

  I'm pretty sure she is scared of my bringing out apostate information. I wonder if old Watchtowers will also be apostate information? I think next time she comes, we may have to clarify what information is accurate to consider. She said she only wanted to review words that are "inspired."
• 

  Faithful Witness

  Is jw.org inspired?
• 

  wannabefree

  Pretty hard to keep your cool with people who see only one side and accept only what that side says.

  Nice job.

  I wonder if old Watchtowers will also be apostate information?

  Not really ... but because of progressive understanding, they have no problem ignoring stuff from the past ... and if a JW quotes articles from the past that are not current understanding, instead of addressing the issue, they question where you heard the information and if you have been visiting apostate websites ... active JW's accept new understandings, they love it, to question the past makes you a trouble maker.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Hi Faithful Witness, For someone who has not prepared much to overcome BITE control (and has low blood sugar) you did good.

  What did you learn from this experience? Did you learn that you must be more prepared? Did you learn that you either must have some excuse to make an appointment when they can come back, or to have something for you to boost your low blood sugar? Did you learn to always ask (in an inquiring tone of voice) where is that in the Bible and to ask more questions that lead the JW to trip over the WTBTS's logic and thought-stopping platitudes? Did you learn to forgive yourself for making mistakes with JWs who you don't know so that you are better prepared to help JW family and friends?

  Remember to be prepared and to control your emotions.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  quellycatface

  Wow.Great post.

  You did brilliantly.
• 

  cultBgone

  Faithful, that was awesome! It's mind-blowing how few actually know about Candace Conti and all the covered-up sex abuse. Sadly, I know some very well who think the borg can do no wrong despite being aware of (or even having been victimized by) sexual perverts in their cong. Keep tossing out those gems, maybe something will resonate and one of those two may (gasp) Google some of the things you mention.
• 

  leaving_quietly

  She then said there had been many imperfect reps before, and that Jesus had told the disciples that he would appoint the slave during the LAST DAYS...

  No he didn't. He finished his "signs of the conclusion of the system of things" in Matt 24:31. After that, he started in with the illustrations of what the Kingdom would be like, what it's arrival would be like. Before discussing the slave, he said, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows". Then, he said to stay awake because that day would be like a thief. Then he said this:

  "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed...?" PAST TENSE. He did not say "whom his master WILL APPOINT". Nor did he indicate when this appointment would occur. Logic would indicate that the master would appoint the slave BEFORE he leaves, not just before his arrival, or even during his "presence".
• 

  LostGeneration

  Nice job. You seem to have more JW encounters than I could ever tolerate! They must be viewing you as that fish that got away!

  Never feel obligated when they "drop by", that is how they assert power, however subtle it may be. Turn them away if you aren't in the mood, and tell them to call you first.

  That said, if she wants to only use the bible, you can hammer her all over the place. Just don't allow them to bring out literature, remind them over and over that you agreed to discuss the bible only.

  Start with the situation with your sister shunning you, and you need a rock solid biblical explanation on that before you will go any further. They won't be able to get over that hump.
• 

  Watchtower-Free

  Ask them why the Watchtower has stopped publishing both
  the "Trinity" brochure and the "Divine name" brochure.
• 

  Island Man

  " She said she only wanted to review words that are "inspired.""

  Well then that means she will have to use only the bible and no WTBTS publications. That should give you the advantage if you can show from the bible alone how JW teachings are wrong. Some ideas:

  Their interpretation of the word "unrighteous" at Acts 24:15 is unbiblical. You can counter it easily with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 2 Peter 2:9 which both show the word "unrighteous" being used to refer to the wicked (esp. 2 Peter 2:9). For ideas on how to reason about why Jehovah would resurrect wicked people only to consign them to condemnation and death see this comment made on a posting at meletivivlon.com.

  Their interpretation of Romans 6:7 as meaning that a resurrected person is automatically acquitted of his past sins by dying is wrong. Just read the preceding verses from the start of chapter 6 and it becomes clear that Paul was actually saying that a dead person, while dead is acquitted from the ability to sin because his sinful body is inactive. This is why he was telling them not to practice sin by reckoning themselves as being dead. Coupled with this, you can share Matthew 12:41 where Jesus speaks about his faithless contemporaries being resurrected and condemned for their failure to exercise faith in him. Also, 2 Corinthians 5:10 shows that anointed christians will be judged for what they did while still in the body - i.e. before their death and resurrection. The preceding verses make it very clear that Paul is referring to their resurrection after living in physical bodies. You can also compare the latter part of 2 Corinthians 5:10 with John 5:29. The thoughts expressed in both verses are uncannily similar showing that John 5:29 is talking about people being judged for what they did before they died.

  You can also reason that if a person's dying automatically acquits him of his sin then that essentially invalidates any need for christ's ransom as it would mean that we can all pay for our own sins by dying and Jehovah can thereafter re-create us without there being any legal hindrances to him doing so.

  Their interpretation of John 10:16 is wrong. You can make the real meaning of that verse (talking about the ingathering of gentiles) evident by reading these 4 texts in the following order:

  1. (Matthew 10:5, 6) . . .These twelve Jesus sent forth, giving them these orders: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter into a Sa·mar′i·tan city; 6 but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

  2. (Matthew 15:24) . . .In answer he said: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

  3. (John 10:16) . . .“And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold [i.e. not of the sheepfold of the house of Israel]; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.

  4. Ephesians 2:11-18. This text perfectly harmonizes with John 10:16 essentially describing it's fulfilment.

  These scriptures give a more reasonable understanding of the meaning of John 10:16 - one which is supported by the Jewish-gentile context of the NT. The JW interpreation of John 10:16 is a strained, anachronistic and eisegetical one that is not explicitly supported by the NT.

  Their 1914 invisible presence doctrine is provably wrong. Here are two texts you can use to prove it wrong:

  1. You can read and reason on 2 Peter 3:4,9 as follows: In verse 4 the ridiculers ask where is the promised presence. As part of his response to their question Peter says Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [clearly alluding to the promised presence mentioned in verse 4] but is patient because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.This statement in verse 9 leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the presence is being held back to allow people opportunity to repent because when the presence starts there would be no time left for any to repent. Do you see how this contradicts the 1914 century-long invisible presence doctrine? The 1914 invisible presence doctrine invalidates 2 Peter 3:9 because it necessarily implies that wicked people have had a whole century of time to repent after the start of the promised presence! You can also comment by saying it is noteworthy that Peter in responding to the ridiculers' question about the presence repeatedly makes reference to the destructive flood and the future destructive day of Jehovah. This shows that the inspired writer understood that the presence starts, not with a century of invisible rule, but the very destructive day of Jehovah.

  2. James 5:7 tells christians to exercise patience until the presence of christ. The use of the word "until" shows that when the presence does start they would no longer need to exercise patience since anointed christians will then be gathered out of this trialsome world to christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:1) However, the 1914 invisible presence doctrine invalidates this verse because it necessarily implies that an anointed christian alive at the start of christ's presence in 1914 would have had to still continue exercising patience his whole life long after the start of christ's presence.

  3. At Matthew 24, Jesus didn't tell his followers of events that will indicate that is presence has already begun. Rather, he gave them events that would indicate when his presence is near. At Matthew 24:33 Jesus used the expression "near at the doors". He was implicitly using the illustration of the master returning to the house. The master's presence would be denoted by him being inside the house with his slaves. "Near at the doors" indicates that the master is just outside the house about to knock the door to enter - about to be present, but not yet present.

  4. At Mathew 24:36-44, Jesus used "presence" and "coming" interchangeably because he knew that his final coming to destroy the wicked is what will mark the start of his presence. This harmonizes with 2 Peter 3:9 alluding to there being no time to repent when the promised presence starts.