Posts by Etude

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

Greendawn:

I can say that most the ones I knew, were not "anointed". Perhaps what I should clarify is that some who "provided nourishment" or wrote literature for the flock were anointed, like Ray and Fred Franz, but did not technically and exclusively work for the Writing Department. I suppose if a member of the GB wanted to write something, anything, he just did it and passed it on to the writing staff editor. In other cases, anyone, even an "anointed" one could be commissioned to write something.by the GB. If it worked as I put it here, that further erodes the idea that it's the FDS that provides nourishment.

I remember when a brother in our hall "came out" as anointed. We saw him take eat and drink. I remember a conversation with him in which he explained how he "knew" he was one. I think he'd only been associated with he Witnesses about 5 years. Naturally, I had misgivings about this dude. I found out later that he was DFd after the Franz ordeal along with (or around the time) Rene Vazquez was hung out to dry. I knew and realized that the Society simply counted them (since it was diligently reported by the congregation) and that was the end of that. At the same time, I realized that if any of them (the anointed) were asked to do something by the GB or was requested to serve in a special capacity, it was due to their personal ability or connections to those in the "hub" and not due to their "priestly" rank. Hey, that's the way everything worked at Bethel anyway.

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

G Money:

I don't think I'm mistaken, although I could be wrong. My understanding is that those that are of the anointed class, demonstrated by their partaking of the "emblems" are the "Faithful and Discrete Slave":

"Witnesses of Jehovah understand that the "slave" is comprised of all anointed Christians as a group on earth at any given time during the 19 centuries since Pentecost." Watchtower of March 1, 1981

Since only the 144,000 are the "anointed" that would make them all one and the same ("Reasoning from the Scriptures", p. 166). As far as I can remember, the "slave" class was the 144,000. That may have changed in the years that I've been gone from the Organization. And of course, we know that at one time, that's all there was, until they received "new understanding" and found the "Great Crowd". Even if the WTBTS was not equating the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" class with the 144,000, the numerical group is described by them as a "priestly class". There was nothing "priestly" about many of the "anointed" I knew in that they didn't do anything special to mark them as such.

Of course, I can see now (and even then) how someone could delude him or her self into thinking he/she was of the anointed class. It's not unlike what some "Born Again" Christians experience (a kind of rapture) that makes them praise Jesus. I remember one year when their numbers went up when they should have been dying down. They had to come out with an article about it. So, am I confused or is it clear that the 144,000 are the anointed and the "slave" class? If so, what the heck are these other people who don't write literature and are rather marginal in the congregations do to make them part of a "priestly" class? Is the argument good enough to show the holes in the WTBTS teachings?

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

Recently, I've had memories about that topic, which I had suppressed for a long time. My original question came up when I encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).

There was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from Cuba. I learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon. I guess that trying to escape the Castro regime didn't mean you had to be totally destitute. Well, the plan apparently had deleterious effects on her caused some permanent damage.

I learned this because she was staying at our house in Queens, N.Y. when she had no other place to go. I don't remember the reason why she had to leave where she was. Eventually, I don't remember if she just moved away or was asked her to leave by my parents -- Yes, there were problems. It wasn't a big to-do (asking an anointed to leave our house) because my dad, although sympathetic, was not a Witness and, as I recall, she was not the most endearing person. Anyway, I thought about her then and the fact that she was of the "anointed" and I couldn't help but think: "What is her function as a member of the "Faithful and Discrete Slave"?

According to the WT literature, that class "provides nourishment at the proper time" for Jehovah's people. I didn't see her doing that. I knew at least three "anointed" in my congregations. And, except for Ray Franz (he attended at least 2 congregations that I also attended) I didn't know that the others I was acquainted with did anything of significance for the flock. Later, when I ended up living in Bethel, I noticed that there were a lot of individuals in the writing department who wrote and/or managed the "food" publication for "Jehovah's people". What I gathered was that the "anointed" and the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" class did not "map" one-to-one.

It's such an obvious thing to me that I know I must have received some sort of explanation to help me suppress that blatant disparity. I don't remember what it was. I suppose that most dedicated JWs deal with that in their own way. How did any of you here reconcile that discrepancy if you faced it? I suppose that by way of an excuse, I must say that their spell on me was complete.

Etude

33

How I got out of JWs, they showed me the way!

by out of the box in

i have been writing 'my story' in bits and pieces here.

it was pouring out, one of the kids sick, jw husband wasn't going.

i got in the car (this little hatch-back car was a loaner from the garage because our larger car was being repaired) i was stopped at a stop sign and i was on time for the meeting.. i heard something and turned in time to see something coming at me fast.

Etude

out of the box:

That's an amazing story. Do you ever wonder, had you not suffered such adversities, whether you would have proven you metle? Do you think you would have accomplished as much, in particular your significant triumph of persistence to just get better? I think that the average person would have given up or would have become dependent on others for help.

Etude.

31

Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y in

hello, it's lynne again... how's everyone doing?

um..i have a quick question.. haha.. .

one of the most distinguishable doctrine(?

Etude

the_classicist :

Well, if you take the Bible as it is accepted today, I'm sure that you would find somewhere within it's pages that it is a "two-edged sword", capable of discerning. . . etc, etc. There are also many claims in it about how true the "Word of God" is, whatever that may be. I understand that other people (in particular, the Catholic Church) made the decision for us as to what the "Bible" would consist of. Therefore, by no means am I suggesting that it's an infallible book. I'm not denying it either.

What I was suggesting in the words that you cited from my previous message is that we could assume (assume being the key word) the Bible to be infallible, simply as a place to start. That by no means suggest a conclusion. It's simply a point of reference. Contrary to the popular gist, it does not make and ASS our of U and ME. Assuming (a premise) is what scientist sometimes do in order to prove a point or arrive at an end. You could just as easily assume the opposite and proceed with the same process by putting it under scrutiny with whatever internal or external evidence there is. In other words, you could assume that all of the Bible is false and go from there to see how well it holds under evidence.

I realize that for some individuals, the very thought of proceeding as I last suggested is almost blasphemous. I'm aware of such sensitivities. That's why I suggested the opposite first. I'm just trying to take a neutral (more objective, less subjective) stance and not come up with an answer to the question but a process that will make someone genuinely think. Sorry if I confused the issue.

Etude.

31

Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y in

hello, it's lynne again... how's everyone doing?

um..i have a quick question.. haha.. .

one of the most distinguishable doctrine(?

Etude

Big Dog:

The problem I have with the last 1/3 is what is ascribed to it. What I have read in the Bible tells me that there's a marked difference, one that belies the claim that a Godhead is composed of three omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent beings, what the Trinity is by the accepted definition. Don't think for a minute that I'm towing the Dub's line. My conclusion, doesn't negate that Christ should be revered and even worshiped as a God, if you should choose and it doesn't support it either. However, whether you choose that or not, it doesn't make him part of Trinity, as the concept goes. It only makes him another God if you choose to worship him as such. Besides, like I said before, the idea of a trinity is old hat. Why would so-called "Pagan" religions originate that concept? Could it be that the Godhead itself imparted it to them and they are right all along? In that case, we should start looking elsewhere, to the pagan religions, for truth.

I really don't care one way or another. I can come to terms quite easily with what God is or is not. The gist of my sentences, and in spite of the things I have proposed should in no way make anyone conclude that whatever I have said supports or rejects the idea of a Trinity. I'm simply making arguments that may make someone else think and ask the right questions of him or herself. There's too much missing or contradictory information to come to a quick conclusion. Each individual would have embark on his own journey and eventual conclusion. This place is not a bad place to start. So far, it's been quite an active and stimulating exchange.

Etude.

31

Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y in

hello, it's lynne again... how's everyone doing?

um..i have a quick question.. haha.. .

one of the most distinguishable doctrine(?

Etude

Rex:

I guess you must have been writing when I made a second entry on the board. I did read Neonmadman's post (a good effort) and I commented on it. Did you read my comments? I think I made some points. I would appreciate your comments on my comments, unless you have no comments at all to comment.

Etude.

8

Watchtower destroys historical evidence.

by Etude in

i wonder if anyone else on this board can recall this incident.

i think i mentioned it in a previous post (on an unrelated subject) but can't find it.. when i was at brooklyn bethel (1974 on) i remember a comment that was made at the breakfast table (over the loud-speaker system) by someone recapping for the "family" the acquisition and remodel of the old towers hotel and the tunnel that was being constructed to connect that property with the rest of the complex.

it struck me even then (although as a good witness i quickly ignored it) how the speaker, with an air of disdain, proclaimed how they had found a shaft that apparently had been used for the "underground railroad", which smuggled slaves, had been promptly filled in with dirt and kept under wraps so that the brooklyn historical society could not stop the work.. has anyone else heard of this incident?.

Etude

I don't think there's anyone that can do anything about it now. I was just wondering if anyone had heard of it or something similar. I suppose if someone really wanted to, a Federal agency or something like that, they would question anyone who was around at the time. I'm sure that there are a lot of ex-Bethelites who are ex-Witnesses who wouldn't have a problem naming names. On the other hand, no one who is still a Witness would want to give up anything. The cloak of secrecy covering the loyalty to the Organization will protect those involved and in particular those who made the decision.

I couldn't vouch for any of it, except that I was there when it was announced. The moral of the story here is what length the collective will go in order to further their cause and disregard what may be important to someone else. It's typical of them.

Etude.

8

Watchtower destroys historical evidence.

by Etude in

i wonder if anyone else on this board can recall this incident.

i think i mentioned it in a previous post (on an unrelated subject) but can't find it.. when i was at brooklyn bethel (1974 on) i remember a comment that was made at the breakfast table (over the loud-speaker system) by someone recapping for the "family" the acquisition and remodel of the old towers hotel and the tunnel that was being constructed to connect that property with the rest of the complex.

it struck me even then (although as a good witness i quickly ignored it) how the speaker, with an air of disdain, proclaimed how they had found a shaft that apparently had been used for the "underground railroad", which smuggled slaves, had been promptly filled in with dirt and kept under wraps so that the brooklyn historical society could not stop the work.. has anyone else heard of this incident?.

Etude

I wonder if anyone else on this board can recall this incident. I think I mentioned it in a previous post (on an unrelated subject) but can't find it.

When I was at Brooklyn Bethel (1974 on) I remember a comment that was made at the breakfast table (over the loud-speaker system) by someone recapping for the "Family" the acquisition and remodel of the old Towers Hotel and the tunnel that was being constructed to connect that property with the rest of the complex. It struck me even then (although as a good Witness I quickly ignored it) how the speaker, with an air of disdain, proclaimed how they had found a shaft that apparently had been used for the "Underground Railroad", which smuggled slaves, had been promptly filled in with dirt and kept under wraps so that the Brooklyn Historical Society could not stop the work.

Has anyone else heard of this incident?

Etude.

31

Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y in

hello, it's lynne again... how's everyone doing?

um..i have a quick question.. haha.. .

one of the most distinguishable doctrine(?

Etude

I'm with you, jwfacts and greendawn. It's a confusing issue and the Bible does not make it easy to unravel. And, I disagree with you, the_classicist, because it is not incorrect or illogical to assume the Bible as an ultimate irrefutable source, even if we do it as a starting point for academic reasons. If you don't, then you have to pick and choose what is right or not in it and then that puts everything and anything it says in doubt. The ideal thing would be to have "outside" evidence corroborate what is in the Bible already. If external facts contradict it, then we must put it into question. If they agree, them we can trust it. If outside facts are unclear, then we would have to leave it at that.

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death on this forum, but I think what we all need, not a definitive answer, but a way to ascertain if the discovery method we select is appropriate and correct.

For example, I can't buy the argument in the article that NeonMadman graciously supplied. I come up with a third alternative other than: "We are left with only two alternatives: 1: The Bible is incorrect, or 2: God is a plural personality consisting of three persons in one Being." I can for example say that the conclusion is: "The Bible is unclear regarding the subject and the historical and scientific evidence seems to contradict and/or agree with it while it shows that the concept did not originate in the Bible but in other religions." I can say that because the article makes some incorrect assumptions: 1) that the "Us" referred to in the Genesis quotes is indicative of plurality of individuals and not as a pronoun of grandeur, as the English royalty used it in the past. Also, it could very well be that it is as the JWs explain it, that if it refers to more than one person, it would be God's son and/or the angels. But the quotes in the article for that argument really say nothing regarding the duality or relationship of the members who comprise the "Us". In itself, it's does not support a trinity. 2) The argument regarding the use of the term "Elohim" falls flat on it's face because the term is also applied to humans in other places in the Bible. Although the article is extensive and is careful to say:"There is much evidence to support the fact that God exists as a Trinity", many of the quotes follow the same vein as I explained above. That makes it a bit shaky. I would have like it better if it also showed a more balanced view and cite the Biblical reference that appear to contradict the trinity. Also, the statement from it I cited above, indicates that it considers the trinity a "fact", which means that the "evidence" that follows may render it a biased view. It should let you render your own conclusion based on a balanced presentation.

All this may leave us nowhere. However, I'd rather be there than in the wrong place. I do like to discuss topics such as this one because it helps me to question my position and allows me to exercise my ability to reason logically. If I'm faulty there, I would hope that someone can kindly point it out. I'm not sure if the correct procedure would be to take it off-line or continue to use this forum for the benefit of others.

Etude.