by Perry 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Thanks to Blondie, A veritable mine if information, i have saved the updated link.
Incidendely, if anyone doubted the authenticity of it, I checked it against some few photocopied pages from my book before they made me give it back. The weblink is spot on gunuine
*** km 10/72 p. 8 Question Box
?
What is meant by "some years ago" on page 170, paragraph two, in the "Organization" book?This indicates more than a year or two. It may be noted that it did not say "many years ago." So it is not an exact number of years, but more like two or three years. It was not intended to have a brother go back into the distant past to bring up wrongs of which he repented years ago and that have evidently been forgiven by Jehovah and are not being practiced now. In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
If a brother has been serving faithfully for some years and has seen evidence of Jehovah?s blessings upon him, why should he now step down from office? If he has the right viewpoint now on conduct and will give good counsel he should be able to continue to serve. If the local body of elders see that he has the respect of the congregation and has shown the proper qualifications over the last two or three years, he may remain in his position of service.
Must wrongdoing be brought to public attention after many years? The book (page 168) under "Public Reproof" quotes 1 Timothy 5:20 and mentions reproof of those who confess to committing more than one offense. But it really has to do with recent events. The "Interlinear" refers to those "sinning," something going on at the time. So if repentance occurred some years ago, three years ago or more, and sinning ceased, and he is respected by the congregation, it is not necessary now to publicly reprove one who committed more than one offense "some years ago."
double post
Perry - it was an OKM in about '72 as HS said. I'd guess that a BOE of the sort you mention would very likley be on the authority of that OKM. It is unlikley (but might happen) that a BOE would have 'new light', more likley a new shade on an old lamp.
Max,
That's probably true about the authority source; and that it was meant for a smoking loophole. I'm still convinced that I read some reference to this in a fairly recent BOE letter and it specifically referenced pornia or sexual misconduct. I hope my mental transmission isn't slipping in first gear on this. Thank you very much for your light on the subject.
So it is not an exact number of years, but more like two or three years. It was not intended to have a brother go back into the distant past to bring up wrongs of which he repented years ago and that have evidently been forgiven by Jehovah and are not being practiced now. In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
If a brother has been serving faithfully for some years and has seen evidence of Jehovah?s blessings upon him, why should he now step down from office?
Blondie,
Thanks so much for putting that up.
So let me get this straight. If a brother seriously sins (not necessarily because of ignorance about its sinfulness) and then is (1) friendly to everyone in the Hall and is looked upon favorably and (2) then campaigns for an office of oversight and gets appointed; he can then tell the other elders about it and be reasonably sure there won't be a public scandal and he won't need to say goodbye to all his family and be handed over to Satan as an enemy of God. This is partly because, as Max pointed out that since the H.S. appointed him we know he's forgiven and this is confirmed because people like him. I bet he won't be required to fall on his knees and cry his brains out either.
This seems to put the sisters (and those not politically disposed) at a big disadvantage. If a sister sins and then confesses early.... or late, because she cannot run for office, there will never be and indication of the H.S. appointment and hence God's forgiveness. So at anytime that she confesses and doesn't cry a bucket of tears she could be disfellowshipped, lose her entire family and perhaps support structure for kids etc. and be convinced she and children are slated for eternal distruction.
There are so many loopholes in this policy that a judicial committee could really read almost anything they want into this direction; and depending on which conditional point they feel inclined to get hung up on, could feel equally justified making two totally opposite decisions.
Perry, I think you are starting to understand the WTS way of "thinking."
My husband, an ex-elder, said they were constantly being told that they were "mighty men," "princes on earth," that they were going to run things in the paradise.
The elders got cut a lot of slack.
There are so few men in the organization, and even fewer that make the minimum qualifications, especially nowadays. Women are a dime a dozen and can't be used for "chores" as my hubbie calls them.
This is the phrase I found especially interesting:
In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
Who determines what is sin, God or the WT? What misconduct would that be?
Perry,
In many cases the wrongs occurred prior to the time when the "Watchtower" drew attention to what the Scriptures say on such misconduct.
This would fall into line with what the UK Branch wrote to me about this KM, and that is that the sorts of 'sins' that need not be reported are ones such as smoking, which as you will remember was not a DF offence prior to 1972.
I cannot recall any BOE letter which allows for the ignoring of carnal sins that took place even twenty years previously, and I believe that the WTS view would be that any person serving as an elder, Pioneer, CO etc and who confessed to such a sin that took place even decades before would be removed and reproved.
As I note above, I knew of a member of a Branch Committe who was removed for fornication committed twenty-five years previously It was his experience that prompted me to write to the Branch about the issue in the '72 KN as I was serving as a Temp CO at the time and being questioned on this matter by many local JW's.
Best regards - HS
That makes me wonder, HS, what about things like having murdered someone when not a JW but having never confessed it to the proper secular authorities, or someone who had molested children before they were a JW, but never confessed to the secular authorities; would they be required to correct those crimes before being appointed an elder?
Blondie
Hi Perry,
Actually I believe there was a Watchtower article in the 70's that said the same as you mentioned. It said pretty much the same as what Blondie posted from the KM.
I must agree with HillaryStep on what he said......even though the WTBTS has used "doubletalk in this matter. They also have had much discussion on "confessing sins" because it's Jehovah's arrangment for erring ones to get a healing from the shepards. They also have used the illustration of "Achan" who hid some spoil in his tent and covered his sin.
I cannot recall any BOE letter which allows for the ignoring of carnal sins that took place even twenty years previously, and I believe that the WTS view would be that any person serving as an elder, Pioneer, CO etc and who confessed to such a sin that took place even decades before would be removed and reproved.
Serious sins......especially by ones that hold positions, are dealt with no matter how many years pass by because the society views this as "covering over ones sins".....if something is kept secret for a number of years. My son-in-laws mother was DFed after she confessed to fornication 3 years prior....even though she was doing well as a dub when she confessed it. The article in the Watchtower I believe was about the mid to later 70's.
Gumby
Yes Blondie, that is disturbing. Many men could reason that the way to deal with sin is to just keep quiet about it and reach out for an office of oversight. If accepted.... bada-bing, eureka! ...sins are forgiven and he can now look forward to being a prince over all the unlucky members that didn't figure out the loophole.
Aren't heretics great? Since they reject Christ's ransom for the Great Crowd, the only recourse they have for dealing with sin is to get some sort of blessing from the only ones in their mind that he did die for... the G.B. And, in the form of an appointment no less!
The actual truth is so simple. Christ did for all. He is the one who declares people righteous.... and only by faith. Human efforts to reduce sin is of no use at all. Only after accepting Christ can the indwelling of the Holy Spirt change personalities and morality.....only after the conversion or exchange has taken place. Since JW's refuse to accept Christ as their Savior, and instead, accept the G.B. as their Savior, they cannot have the help of the H.S. and hence have no help against sinning against Law but their own will power.
1 Cor. 15: 56 - "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law."
It has taken me a lifetime to understand this simple truth.
Blondie,
That makes me wonder, HS, what about things like having murdered someone when not a JW but having never confessed it to the proper secular authorities, or someone who had molested children before they were a JW, but never confessed to the secular authorities; would they be required to correct those crimes before being appointed an elder?
Funny you should ask that. A number of years ago an article appeared in a WT, the life story of a man now in Bethel who has been a rough sort before finding WT Nivarna. In this article he admitted that he was present when two men raped a young women, though he spinelessly excused himself saying 'I did not take part' in the rape, he just watched it seems.
I was absolutely incensed when I read this article, which I posted here http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/66107/1.ashx and wrote to the WTS asking why this man had not turned himself in to the authorities as he was an accessory to a serious crime. As well as being appalled at the consequences of this act in this poor girls life, I was stunned that they would use such an experience as a marketing ploy.
They wrote back saying that this was between his conscience and God and quoted Cornithians, 'This is what some of you were'. I wrote back to them asking, what if he had helped to murder the girl afterwards? They informed me that in such a case it would be neccessary to insist the person reported this to the authorities, rape obviously not being as serious a crime to their way of thinking than murder!
Sickening.
Best regards - HS
