Doctrinal Flip Flops (page 2)

ackack

Vasectomies & oral sex.

What constitues ground to divorce.

ackack

Shania

70's--don't go to college--------bad influence

85-2005---You can go to college ONLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO PIONEER AFTER.

2005----college is bad---you cannot be a good chistian if you go to college.

The "Holy Place" the disgusting thing stands in. Very interesting because in order to "tack into the course of truth" , the WTS trimmed its sales (or rather adjusted its progressive understanding), in line with the changing winds of contemporary politics - turn of 20th cent end of 1st WW, and 2nd WW.

HB

hamsterbait

"You will never grow old in this system" Awake May 22d 1969 page 15.

At this years DC they said it would be presumptuous to say this. Bet theyll flop when sales by older ones start floppin'!

HB

Leolaia

My favorite is the one we recently discussed in which Abaddon was first thought to be "Satan" but now is "Jesus". How the hell do you get Jesus and Satan mixed up?

TheListener

Excellent! Thank you.

Vasectomy:

'73-79 - Bad, Evil, Wasteful Surgery - you get the picture - will lose congregational responsibilities probably.

'85 - OK but don't let anybody find out.

'96 - OK. References '85 article - don't let anyone find out

'99 - OK. After long long long article telling you how important it is to THINK ABOUT IT!! and use SOUNDNESS OF MIND!! Also don't let anyone find out or you may be unfit to serve on the body or as a pioneer.

This could be a flip flop because it was so evil for two decades then became OK as long as it was secret with not a lot of heavy talk against it. But in '99 they talked about it pretty bad before saying it is your decision.

I'm not touching the oral sex thing. that certainly wouldn't work in my favor.

I've never understood it. When something is my decision why can't they give me unbiased information to help me make it. Why do they lead me down a path and then say "of course, it's your decision." - buttheads.

I will review Abaddon and the Holy Place stuff. I appreciate all the responses I've gotten.

blondie

Until 1970 the WTS taught that the GT started in 1914 and was interrupted in 1918 to start up again. http://www.catholicapologetics.net/JW_bible_manu.htm (NT reliable or not or yes or not) Great crowd in courtyard of Gentiles http://www.docbob.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=50 CTR the FDS or not

PAGE 143 "...the idea that Russell himself was the faithful and wise servant...came to be generally held by the Bible Students for some 30 years." A major doctrinal flip-flop is documented here. First the Society taught that the faithful and discreet slave was "the whole body of Christ." Then the Society taught for decades that it was "Russell himself." And then in 1927 it resumed teaching that it was "the spirit-anointed body of Christ on earth." The Proclaimers book tries to blame on his wife Maria the 30 years of teaching that Russell was the servant, and then blames the Bible Students themselves for the view they "generally held." But the fact is that the Society itself taught this. " The Watch Tower unhesitatingly proclaims brother Russell as ‘that faithful and wise servant..’" (Mar. 1, 1917, p. 6049 Society’s reprints) This back-and-forth change in teaching proves that the Society was lying when it said on page 27 of the December 1, 1981 Watchtower , "At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case." Yes, it has been the case, and this is a prime example. (For another example, see our discussion of Proclaimers pages 146-148.) This also proves that the organization’s "light" is not "getting brighter." Rather, it is blinking on-and-off, changing with the winds of internal politics at Bethel headquarters, and according to the whims of the men in charge.

Leolaia

Here are some more:

MINISTERIAL STATUS

1. All active Witnesses are ministers.

"The anointed ones are God's ministers; therefore God's servants" (Watchtower, 1935, p. 254).

"In 1938 the case of Lovell v . City of Griffin reached the Supreme Court of the United States. In the Lovell case the defendant, one of Jehovah's witnesses, had been convicted under an ordinance of the city of Griffin, Georgia, that forbade 'the practice of distributing ... literature of any kind ... without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager of the city of Griffin.' Holding their ground as ministers, Jehovah's witnesses refused to apply for a permit" (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, p. 178).

"FACTS: Jehovah's Witnesses claim exemption from training and service and classification in Class IV-D as duly ordained ministers of religion under section 5 (d), Selective Training and Service Act of 1940" (Consolation, 17 February 1943, pp. 13-15).

2. Only elders and ministerial servants are ministers.

"In view of all this, what should one do if, as at times occurs, a governmental agency inquires into the profession or position of citizens? By them, the expression 'ordained minister' is understood to mean one who is appointed caretaker and server of spiritual things to a congregation, one who acts as a 'pastor' or shepherd of the congregation...By the term 'minister' such governmental agencies do not describe or mean the service that every individual Christian may perform in or his personal efforts to share the good news with others. In answering inquiries, then, one would reasonably reply in harmony with what the official inquirers are seeking to know, rather than imposing one's own definition on such terms" (Watchtower, 1 December 1975, p. 733).

3. All active Witnesses are ministers.

"Yes, all dedicated and baptized Christians, regardless of sex or age, can be proclaimers, preachers, ministers, 'servants' in an elevated or sacred sense, provided they give proof thereof by their conduct and their witnessing" (Watchtower, 15 March 1981, p. 18).

"If a dedicated, baptized Christian lives in a country where exemption from military service is granted to ministers of religion, he may avail himself of this provision, for he is in fact a minister" (Watchtower, 1 May 1996, pp. 18-19).

"All Christian ministers share in the preaching of the good news. There are no exceptions. It is sharing in this work that identifies one publicly as a genuine Christian minister. Most of Christendom’s ministers expect to be given special respect, and they take such titles as 'reverend' and 'father.' However, a Christian minister knows that Jehovah alone is worthy of reverence....Yes, the almost six million ministers of Jehovah today can say with the apostle Paul: 'In every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, by the endurance of much.' (2 Corinthians 6:4)" (Watchtower, 15 November 2000, p. 19).

CONTACT WITH DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSONS

1. Disfellowshipped People Should Be Treated Courteously.

"Such an excluded brother or sister should not be treated as an enemy nor thought of as such; but as an erring brother, as the Apostle says further on in the same epistle: 'If any man obey not our word by this epistle note the man, and have no company with him, to the end that he may not be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother' (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15)....He should not be passed on the street unnoticed by the brethren, but be treated courteously. The exclusion should be merely from the privileges of assembly and from any special brotherly associations, etc. peculiar to the faithful" (The Battle of Armageddon, 1897, p. 303).

"We would not ask the publican or a sinner to take part in the service, either as an elder or as a deacon or in any other capacity; so the offending brother is not to be asked to offer prayer, or to do anything that an outsider would not be asked to do. Thus the congregation would withdraw its fellowship. It might be possible, however, for a whole calss to go astray in its judgment in a matter and to decide against a brother who was in the right.... He is a brother still, but not in the best of standing" (Watch Tower, 1 March 1912, pp. 82-83).

2. Disfellowshipped People Should be Completely Shunned.

"It is a great tragedy for one to be disfellowshiped. For this means a cutting off, not just from God’s visible organization on earth, but it means a cutting off from Jehovah and his favor....A disfellowshiped person is cut off from the congregation, and the congregation has nothing to do with him. Those in the congregation will not extend the hand of fellowship to this one, nor will they so much as say "Hello" or "Good-bye" to him. He is not welcome in their private homes, even if such home serves as a center of worship for a local group of Jehovah’s witnesses" (Watchtower, 1 July 1963, p. 411).

3. Disfellowshipped People Should Be Treated Courteously.

"Congregational elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish rabbinical writers fomented toward Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way.... What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.... Not "mixing in company" with a person, or treating such one as 'a man of the nations,' does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane. ...If a disfellowshipped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren, that is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring" (Watchtower, 1 August 1974, p. 467-472).

4. Disfellowshipped People Should Be Completely Shunned.

" 'Disfellowshiping' is what Jehovah’s Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13....Discussion of business matters with him or contact on the job might be necessary, but spiritual discussions and social fellowship would be things of the past. ...Would upholding God’s righteousness and his disfellowshiping arrangement mean that a Christian should not speak at all with an expelled person, not even saying 'Hello'? ... A disfellowshiped or disassociated person who is trying to promote or justify his apostate thinking or is continuing in his ungodly conduct is certainly not one to whom to wish 'Peace.' (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple 'Hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?" (Watchtower, 15 September 1981, pp. 21-26).
"Someone may ask, 'is it not harsh to expel and then refuse to talk with the expelled person?'.... Christians do not hold themselves aloof from people. We have normal contacts with neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and others, and witness to them even if some are 'fornicators, greedy persons, extortioners, or idolaters.' Paul wrote that we cannot avoid them completely, 'otherwise we would have to get out of the world.' He directed that it was to be different, though, with 'a brother' who lived like that: 'Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that [has returned to such ways], not even eating with such a man.' .... Why is such a firm stand appropriate even today? Well, reflect on the severe cutting off mandated in God’s Law to Israel. In various serious matters, willful violators were executed. (Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 15:30, 31) When that happened, others, even relatives, could no longer speak with the dead lawbreaker. (Leviticus 19:1-4; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 17:1-7) Though loyal Israelites back then were normal humans with emotions like ours, they knew that God is just and loving and that his Law protected their moral and spiritual cleanness. So they could accept that his arrangement to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing" (Watchtower, 15 April 1988, pp. 26-31).

"Loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved. God’s Word states that we should 'not even eat with such a man' (1 Cor. 5:11). Hence, we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant. What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? While the Bible does not cover every possible situation, 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah’s view of matters: 'If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him' (Kingdom Ministry, August 2002, p. 3).

Fatfreek

Leolaia, what a great series of quotes. Thanks. Instead of a flip flop I would call it flip flop flip flop. I suspect no JW with a modicum of reasoning could resist pausing on those.

Fats

carla

With the ministers thing- couldn't a jw confess some crime to another jw (both not elders or ms or... just rank & file) and then not tell the elders because they were using their minister status to keep things confidential? Yet if they don't tell on each other it would be sharing in the sin. Do I have this right?

Doctrinal Flip Flops

Share this