or it does flip-flops of some of the more minor doctrines,
##########
see this is the problem Tom you are not being honest, you refer to such changes as "Minor" yet if you disagreed with any of them you would be DFed as if you had renounced the blood of jesus- so please don't use the phrase "minor doctrines" you see you are talking to many folks here who were former elders, co, bethelites and we know there is no such thing as Minor Doctrines, in fact no such phrase has ever been used by the wt to describe ANY OF IT'S TEACHINGS OR POLICIES.
As we used to say "What does the Society say IN PRINT" AND THAT IS LAW-
while we understand the need to downplay doctrinal changes, for we too used to do the same thing, it is much like a house of cards as you continue to remove more cards the house becomes more unstable.
take for example your being here, the mere fact that you are carrying on a discussion of many issues that even you have issues with IS NOT ALLOWED,
IF YOUR co found out you were here would he put you on the next circuit assembly program so that you can relate how you were discussing issues involving the society and many of it's teachings with those who are nolonger a part of the org, of course not instead he would instruct your elders to meet with you to see why you are so spiritually weak- yet i am sure you would agree that you don't consider yourself WEAK merely because you are able to discuss issues with others regardless of whether you agree or not
Whe the wt writes articles they don't present them as merely the opinion of the Writers in the Writing Dept it is presented as if it is inspired by God himself and for that reason they can demand and do expect you and I not to question what they write
if you are out in service and someone ask are your mags inspired, you would say no , but they are based on the bible, yet you can be DFed for what is in the mags this week and then not DFed for what is in the mag next week.
the real issue is Does the Writers in the Writing Dept speak for God as they claim or are they merely giving their opinion which can change next week - yet you have lost your life ASK THOSE WHO LOSE FOLKS TO TRANSPLANT
YOU SEE in my view the wt would have been ok if they stuck to bible commentary, for it allows one to give a human opinion and then change it ,
but the wt moved from merely students of the word to now THE SEAT OF MOSES
THEY CLAIM TO ACTUALLY SPEAK FOR GOD, the wt has long taught that it is only thru the pages of the wt does god communicate with mankind today, any other religious printed material by any other group does not,
while i will be the first to agree the wt right on lots of doctrines, yet by the same token they are wrong on others
the problem is the wt has 2 standards- notice this HIGH STANDARD THAT WT HOLDS OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO:
NOTICE HOW THE WT JUMP IN WITH BOTH FEET ON WHAT SHOULD BE A MINOR DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
*** g70 4/22 8 Changes That Disturb People ***
Changes That Disturb People
One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes,
millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for
salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement,
or even despair, because of what is happening in your church?
Oh yes, how awful. Millions of Catholics have of course been shocked by all the doctrine
shifts of the church. How wonderful it must be a JW, because we all know that the
Watchtower Society NEVER changes anything.
*** g70 4/22 8 Changes That Disturb People ***
Changes That Disturb People
A businessman in Medelln, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.
Tell me, he asked, how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible,
in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our
faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more,
but we are to believe new things. How do I know the new things will be the truth in five
years? What are some of these changes that disturb people?
The businessman from Colombia certainly raised some interesting questions which indeed
demands some answers. Maybe they should ring some bells with the JWs as well.
Anyway, the changes that was so shocking to the poor Catholics was as follows:
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many
sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed.
The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago.
Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered
that Catholics abide by this rule? A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating
approval, states: The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on
Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason. It adds: The
Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.Radio Replies,
Rumble and Carty (1938).
Imagine that! Some Catholics even regarded this as a law of Almighty God and then (gasp) it
was CHANGED!! No wonder they were upset. But Awake! continue to milk this subject for all
its worth.
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure
to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell. But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul
VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as
they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed
Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually
abolishedin France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.
The Effect
The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. All these years I thought it was
a sin to eat meat, explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. Now I suddenly
find out it isnt a sin. Thats hard to understand. If you are a Catholic, can you understand
how a practice that was considered by the Church a mortal sin can suddenly be approved? if
it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand. When a
woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: I dont
know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for
eating meat on Friday?
Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their
confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been
taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be
inclined to question other teachings of your church also?
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as
about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received
satisfying answers.
What Becomes Evident
The inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact:
The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what Gods Word says. Rather, it has
founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men.
The Awake! article indeed raises interesting and good questions. It would indeed be disturbing
for a sincere Christian when the church that he belong to for many years claim that something
is a deadly sin and then suddenly it isnt. This would be especially disturbing if that church
claimed to be the only true Church. In defense of the Catholic Church it can be said that not
eating meat on Fridays didnt put anybodys life in jeapordy. A stupid and inconvenient rule,
yes, but hardly lethal.
The superior and indignant tone of the Awake! article indicates that something like this could
of course not take place in the Watchtower Society. Jehovahs Organization are of course
different from those man made. To display such shifts in doctrine is of course unknown for
Jehovahs Channel of communication. Or is it?
Lets investigate and see what we will find. In the 60thies when transplants was in its beginning
the Watchtower wrote:
*** w61 8/1 480 Questions from Readers ***
Is there anything in the Bible against giving ones eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some
living person?L. C., United States.
The question of placing ones body or parts of ones body at the disposal of men of science or
doctors at ones death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is
frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural
principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for
himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then
he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other
hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement.
As correctly pointed out there wasnt anything in the Scriptures about this so it would be up to
the individual, and there should be no critizism of the decision. Then in 1967 another Question
from the readers gave this answer:
*** w67 11/15 702 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
Is there any Scriptural objection to donating ones body for use in medical research or to
accepting organs for transplant from such a source?W. L., U.S.A.
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the
lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human
flesh, sustaining ones life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or
dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. To show
disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life
taken.Gen. 9:5, 6.
When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest
removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a
shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human.
That is cannibalistic.
From being a question of individual conscience it was now regarded as cannibalism to accept
transplants. If you remember one of the statements from the above Awake! article that said:
For centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many
sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. So like these Catholics, Jehovahs Witnesses
who had sincerely believed that transplants was up to them to decide, now very sincerely had
to believe that it was cannibalism and a law of Almighty God. In obedience to the
Almighty all JWs abstained from transplants. Compared to the meat on Friday business
this was a much more serious matter, because it involved peoples health.
But that didnt stop Jehovahs Channel in Brooklyn from continuing the tragedy. 13 years
later it was time for Jehovahs Witnesses to once again sincerely believe that transplants is
a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovahs Witnesses
*** w80 3/15 31 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant,
such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a
matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovahs Witnesses. While the Bible
specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the
taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision
on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously
what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5)
The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an
organ transplant.
The Catholics meat of Friday change, completely pale in significance compared with this
insane mess of wishy washy rules who puts peoples life and health in danger. Look at how the
Awake! ridicule of the Catholics approach to the Bible:
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in
the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any
Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God.
Oh, dear. You cant find anywhere in the Bible instructions about refraining from eating meat
on any Friday. Yet the same complete lack in the Bible of instructions about refraining from
transplants, didnt stop the Governing Body from presenting them as a law of Almighty God.
That this so obviously wasnt a requirement of God didnt seem to bother them a bit. But of
course Catholics has every reason for being disturbed and upset. JWs obviously hasnt.
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not
been holding strictly to Gods Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does
not do so is worthy of their confidence and support. But there are other changes that are also
disturbing people today.
According to Awake! this shift in doctrine had the effect that truth-seekers now could se
that: the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to Gods Word. Apparently there is no
reason for any truth-seekers to draw such conclusions about the Watchtower Society despite
the fact that their changes are far more serious.
Imagine what would happen if a Witness in Medelln, Colombia, had expressed these
questions: how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or
have faith? Just ten years ago we Jehovahs Witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our
faith in this. Now the Governing Body and our elders are telling us this is not the way to believe
any more, but we are to believe new things. How do I know the new things will be the truth
in five years?
Let us do another experiment, lets take another part of the Awake! article and substitute
Catholic with JW, etc and see how well these things fit the Watchtower:
The Effect
The effect upon many devout Jehovahs Witnesses has been devastating. All these years I
thought it was a sin to take an organ transplant, explained a housewife in the midwestern
United States. Now I suddenly find out it isnt a sin. Thats hard to understand. If you are a
Jehovahs Witness, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Society a
mortal sin can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin 13 years ago, why is it not today? Many
Jehovahs Witnesses cannot understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt
about the changes in her religion, she replied: I dont know. Maybe you can tell me. What are
they going to do with all those people who was disfellowshipped for accepting an organ
transplant? Not just a few Jehovahs Witnesses have asked such questions. The change in
teaching has shaken their confidence in the Society. Would you not feel the same way if what
you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary?
Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?
Why dont we see such relevant questions posed by Jehovahs Witnesses. Because the person
asking them would immediately find himself outside the organization. It is only Catholics and
others who can afford the luxury of being disturbed by doctrinal changes.
Jehovahs Witnesses have of course no reason to do so. When the teachings of the Watchtower
changes it is of course an entirely different matter.
*** rs 205 Jehovah's Witnesses ***
Why have there been changes over the years in the teachings of Jehovahs Witnesses?
The Bible shows that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive
manner. (Prov. 4:18; John 16:12) Thus, the prophets who were divinely inspired to write
portions of the Bible did not understand the meaning of everything that they wrote. (Dan. 12:8,
9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12) The apostles of Jesus Christ realized that there was much they did not
understand in their time. (Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12) The Bible shows that there would be a
great increase in knowledge of the truth during the time of the end. (Dan. 12:4) Increased
knowledge often requires adjustments in ones thinking. Jehovahs Witnesses are willing
humbly to make such adjustments.
The Catholics of course not being Jehovahs servants cannot claim that they understand Gods
purpose in a progressive manner. I mean when the Prophets of old didnt understand what
they were writing how can one expect that the GB should understand it.
They have time and time again demonstrated their inability to understand anything in the Bible.
So when Catholics realized how utterly unbiblical the meat on Friday ban was and simply
stopped the charade, that would lead to truth-seekers realizing that they was less than
strict with the Bible. Jehovahs Witnesses are unlike these detestable Catholics willing
humbly to make adjustments.
The moral of this matter is that when other religions make doctrinal shifts, that is a a matter of
great concern for their members who then has every reason to be upset, disturbed etc. Sincere
truth-seekers should then realize that: the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to
Gods Word.
When Jehovahs Witnesses does much more serious full circle shifts from regarding transplant
as a individual decision to regarding it as cannibalism back to being an individual choise. It is
painted as understanding Gods purpose in a progressive manner, and perfectly in order. You
can say whatever you want about the Watchtower Society, but honesty isnt one of their most
noticeable characters.
Cheeky,I wonder what your leaders would write about how one should view "disturbing"
changes now? (If they're writing about Catholics) Maybe they would tell them that it's ok for
Catholics to make changes...that they are waiting on Jah too. Perhaps they would tell them that
if they don't understand changes, it will be revealed in time and therefore, it's no reason to
believe that one should apostate from their religion.
One thing for sure.....I've noticed that in almost every single watchtower that comes of the
press at society, there is Catholic bashing in it. The writers CONSTANTLY referr to old info
regarding Catholics too and make sure that it is of importance but, of course, their old material
isn't. It's just old news, old light, and makes no difference. I've yet to see the Catholics writing
articles that bash JWs.
I can understand why Tantulus and others get upset reading stuff like that.
