Honest mistakes? The Governing Body's excuses for their actions

by Terry 49 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  In all reality the GB is not the problem. Infact I think they are cute. JWs on the other hand dear lord. It is like how some americans believe in bill of rights yet think flag burning should be illegal. On one hand when the jws feel like it they toss the GB, watchtower, and bible out the window to enforce their own pet peeve, but wont grant others the same liberty.

  For example if I started to pray to the GB and promoted this idea I am sure I could be DFed, but if I promoted ignoring the GB I could also be DFed. THe reason the JWs love the GB is it gives them I dont know authority, credibility, and history? Any time the GB becomes too real a treat the JW tightens the noose. I wonder whom is serving whom.

  Look at the blood issue. THe have basically ordered JWs to stop writing them and stop asking the elders what is acceptable. The say dont question the GB when it gives the JW in charge authority. When it subtracts from their authority JWs get coincidental amnesia, or out right imply you are a free moral agent or there is some clause to subvert the power of the GB. Really the halls are ran by the elders. The CO is a bean counter and PR man. I was reading here about a case of a teenage homosexual that molested a child and the CO told them the case was not severe enough to report to NY. THe problem is what wordly people call corruption. JW leaders have a bad habbit of looking the other way when it suits them.
• 

  Terry

  The Governing Body IS NOT INSPIRED. Okay.

  They ARE directed by God. (They say).

  HOW do you parse that?

  How are those two statements different from each other. There is a distinction being made. I would like to know the difference it makes.

  A semantic sleight of hand is being used for outright deception.

  Somebody explain how Jehovah is the editor of the magazine, angels direct the preaching work, they are the mouthpiece of god and YET, they are not INSPIRED?

  HOW do you break that down and make it understandable? How does the rank and file publisher attending meetings put the above straight in their mind???

  Terry
• 

  loveis

  I wonder if any of the authors they misquoted has ever sued them or at least crtiticised them.

  Well, there was this case back in 1988 when "From Our Readers" in Awake acknowledged a letter from a ticked off Professor who said he was misquoted.

  It began with this paragraph:

  ***

  g87 4/8 p. 22 Speaking in Tongues?Is It From God? ***

  Dr. Vinson Synan of the Pentecostal Holiness Church stressed the dilemma sincere worshipers face concerning the role of speaking in tongues. He said: "Speaking in tongues is an embarrassment to us." Why? Dr. Synan noted that tongues today may not seem to make sense to us. "Embarrassing as it may be," he continued, "glossolalia [speaking in tongues] is the gift that God has chosen at strategic points in history to expand and renew the Church."?Italics ours.

  Then Dr. Synan protested how he was portrayed, and the WTS acknowledged it and apologized:

  ***

  g88 2/8 p. 28 From Our Readers ***

  I have received copies of your article where I was grossly misquoted. (April 8, 1987, "Speaking in Tongues?Is It From God?") You misconstrued my words to make it appear that I am embarrassed by speaking in tongues, when that is definitely not the case. In truth I was quoting C. S. Lewis, who said that tongues were an embarrassment. Then I proceeded to tell the mighty importance of tongues in church history, i.e. why it should not be an embarrassment to the church. . . . This misquotation actually makes it seem that I oppose tongues, which I certainly do not.

  Vinson Synan, United States

  We

  regret that we inadvertently attributed the statement of C. S. Lewis, "Speaking in tongues is an embarrassment to us," to Vinson Synan. However, we correctly quoted Dr. Synan?s statement appearing in the publication "One in Christ": "Embarrassing as it may be, glossolalia is the gift that God has chosen at strategic points in history to expand and renew the Church." We did not quote Dr. Synan to indicate that he was opposed to speaking in tongues but to show that he acknowledged that the matter of speaking in tongues could be a dilemma for some sincere worshipers today. In that article Dr. Synan indicated a possible dilemma for some: "I agree with Larry Christenson who stated . . . ?God has sovereignly chosen to use the gift of tongues as a catalyst for renewal . . . it may not make sense to our own reason . . . but he comes knocking where he chooses . . . ?" We hope that this clarifies Dr. Synan?s position with regard to speaking in tongues, which differs from ours.?ED.
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Somebody explain how Jehovah is the editor of the magazine, angels direct the preaching work, they are the mouthpiece of god and YET, they are not INSPIRED?

  HOW do you break that down and make it understandable? How does the rank and file publisher attending meetings put the above straight in their mind???

  Because the FDS are anointed with holy spirit. If they were trinitarians they could say god is inside of them. Since the teaching of christianity is that the holy spirit guides people then you can be "spirit directed" but that is not the same as inspired. Yes i know the words mean the same thing, but that is the case when a religious belife does not mean the same as a dictionary definition. Angels direct the work by unknown supernatural means, they are also holy spirits, and the name means messenger. Preaching is a message.

  THe problem is that the RF does not have the holy spirit. So the fds is dependant that they listen to the people with the HS in their bodies with absolute obidiance. Because a great crowd is no different intuitavely than a pagan or a acient isrealite.

  Some of JWs flaws are flaws in christianity in general.
• 

  garybuss

  What could be the possible difference between the Watch Tower Publishing Corporation's owners claiming to be divinely directed or divinely inspired if they are never right about one single real thing? And to my knowledge they have never been right about anything real yet. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
  
  How can never ever being right be credible credentials? Why on earth do these people have any followers at all?
  
  
  
  
• 

  AlanF

  To attempt to resolve the obvious contradiction between Watchtower leaders' claim to be divinely directed but not inspired, JWs generally come up with various excuses. Here are some that I've heard:

  First, they argue that "inspiration" was something that happened only with the Bible writers and certain prophets. Of course, they ignore what the word "inspiration" actually means, one of which meanings is "divine direction". I.e., anyone who is inspired certainly is divinely directed.

  Then they argue that "inspiration" and "divine direction" are not necessarily the same thing. They claim that when they receive "divine direction", it's more of a gentle push from God to get them moving in a certain direction, and they can respond or not to this gentle push. Of course, there's not a trace of biblical justification for this idea, but hey! JWs have all sorts of unbiblical ideas. A point of particular note is that they claim that any JW, not just GB members, can receive this "direction".

  The contradiction between the above excuses and reality in the JW community becomes clear when an individual JW claims to have received "divine direction" that goes against the "divine direction" that the GB claims to have received. Here we observe that the GB members are more 'equal' than are any other JWs. Indeed, they claim that only the "divine direction" given to them has any spiritual weight, and therefore that when other JWs claim to have such direction, they're either fooling themselves or are lying. Thus we find that the Watchtower disfellowships JWs who claim that their "direction" is equal to the GB's.

  AlanF
• 

  Earnest

  I agree that "inspiration" and "divine direction" are not necessarily the same thing, at least in the sense that the writers of the bible were inspired when they wrote what eventually became "scripture". Anything else may have involved "divine direction" but would not have been inspired. How do we know. Because it never became (or remained) part of scripture. I know the argument is circular but it is just as circular as saying we know the Bible is inspired because it says so.

  Earnest
• 

  Terry

  The Bible canon:

  1.Who made the decisions? Do you know? (or care?)

  2.What writings were rejected? (On what basis?)

  3.What other decisions did these people make and do you agree with those too? You'd have to, wouldn't you?

  4.How would you find out the above?

  My point is: consider the source.
• 

  onacruse

  My first thought to mind is: situational ethics.

  The gb (lower case deliberate) does what it sees needed to be done, to perpetuate the "God-ordained" organiation.

  As does Bush, and to the contrary (or, for that matter, the same, as does Kerry).

  Not to make this into a political thread, but...

  it's all the same "game."
• 

  Earnest

  Terry,

  I'm well aware that determining what is actually included in the canon has never been universally accepted. The decisions actually came to be made (as far as the NT is concerned) in the second century AD when Marcion excluded certain writings as inspired because he taught that the God of Jesus was not the OT God. This necessarily required some sort of imprimatur on what was part of scripture, which developed over several centuries, was revised by Luther and others during the Reformation, and remains a cause of difference today.

  What has been rejected ? The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas come to mind, both being highly regarded by the early Church. I know that the whole subject of biblical inspiration is untenable, as I suggested in saying that the argument for biblical inspiration is circular. But...in discussing the distinction between "inspiration" and "divine direction" I do think that is how JWs see it. Most of them would view the traditional canon as inspired. None of them would view the Watchtower as inspired in the same sense.

  Earnest