if you've been reading here for long, this won't come as news to you.. i don't have my elder book with me right now, but here's the gist of what it says about what the elders should do when they find out a jw talked to a dfed family member.. 'generally, disfellowshiping is not necessary when a congregation member speaks to a close relative who is dfed.
provided there is no condoning or justifying of the wrong course.'.
that is a paraphrase, but i'm pretty sure that "justifying of the wrong course" is close to verbatim.. two questions:.
Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped
for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there
is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or
excuse the wrongful course.
The weasel-word here is "normally", which creates a huge loophole permitting especially agressive Elders to ignore page 103.
the recent "generation" explanation redo says that the generation means the anointed living now, and we can still have more anointed, therefore there is no limit on how long the generation can run.
this is an attempt to keep 1914 alive and healthy.. however, the wts still teaches that the great crowd began to be gathered in the 1930's (ex: rutherford had people stand and said "behold, the great multitude) since revelation defines the great crowd as coming out of the great tribulation, doesn't that create a life span problem?
what is going through the minds of even the youngest baptized 10 year old members of the great crowd in 1935 who are now in there 80's.. the other sheep of john 10 seems to fit a discription of gentiles.
The alterations of the definition of "this generation" in 1995 and 2007 do not get the Society out from the quagmire of their teachings. Reasonably, the words recorded at Luke 21:28 could be meaningful only if the foretold redemption occurred during the lifetime of the Christians who first saw "these things begin to come to pass" (which the WTS claims occurred in 1914) -- emphatically not several human generations later.
this thread contains my thoughts after having read several other threads regarding the garridos being jws.... just because it is reported that the garridos are jws doesn't mean that they are really witnesses.... they may have some link to jws such as her being rasied one, his studying while in prison or any number of possibilites where they came to know a little about jwism.. even if they were baptized along the way somewhere doesn't mean that they were active, participating members in the local congregation.. there's a lot wrong with the jw religion and it's policies have helped protect pedophiles and other sexual predators from being brought to justice but i have reservations about shouting from the rooftops that the garridos were jws, when 1) it hasn't been confirmed and 2) it really doesn't do anything to expose the wt society's culpability in covering up sexual abuse.. the garridos are truly whacked.
i'm sure that local jws are just as horrified at what's happened as the average person is.
if the garridos had any connection with a local hall, i bet that the local jws were wary of them due to his nuttiness.
We have numerous and sundry reasons to be critical of the Watch Tower Society and its teachings and practices.
From the things hitherto available in the media, I do not believe this incident to be among them.
so, after a lengthy discussion with my mom on friday, she asked me ( again) to have a study with a bethel brother because the question i ask are too "above" her knowledge and she feels that only a well trained bethel brother can show me the "truth".. i voiced to her my issue:.
i love my mother, father and sister that are jw's and the last thing i want is to lose them, we had already drifted apart because of their new found faith ( my mom was first, about 8 years ago, then my older sister and just recently, last july 4th, my dad), i told her that if i have these study with a bethel brother i will, most likely, sya thing and state sources that may get me brnaded as an "apostate", i asked her, to be honest and truthful with me and to tell me that, if i get branded that and they are told, suggest to them, to stop dealing with me, would they?.
she said that no organization tells her who to deal with, even more so in regards to family.. i was not convinced, nevertheless i agreed and this wednesday will have my first study with him, first topic the mwt, my issue with certain translations ( such as romans 10:13, colossians and so forth) and the name "jehovha".. .
(old post)
01. April 1986 QfR:Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.
This is most fascinating. When the F&DS was supposedly appointed in 1919, the Watch Tower Society was still teaching that the Resurrection had begun in 1878 -- a teaching not altered until 1927 -- and which teaching the WTS now rejects as false. Does it not bugger the imagination to believe the Lord appointed over all his belongings an organisation that (by its own published standard) would be 'rightly branded apostate, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship'?
the latest flip-flop (allbeit a minor one.).
the "wise instruction" (as described by the society) given is that sisters now have to wear head coverings when interpreting sign language public talks.. differs from the previous instructions that sisters didn't need to do so.. .
w02 7/15p.27 questions from readers.
The irony in all this for our family is that my wife -- of her own volition -- determined years ago that she should wear a headcovering. First she did this only at the meetings and in "service". Several months later she began "covering" fulltime. This created a crisis among the BoE, and I was informed that was displeasing to "some" [unnamed individuals], and my wife may be "creating divisions". I pulled rank and also informed them of the 1964 Watchtower articles which state five times that those who conscienciously feel they ought wear a headcovering absolutely have that right.
I do wonder if that incident will cross their minds when they read this QfR. Not bloody likely.
as far as i can remember i have never seen any counter argument from the wts in refuting this scripture in any of it's publications.
they call themselves the elijah class, the jonnadab class, the greater david, the faithful &wise servant, the governing body, the faithful and discreet slave(lol) etc, and even by their own admission's they have been wrong when their light got brighter in making bible prophesies, the failed prophesies of 1874,1914,1919,1935,1975 and the recent lies and failed prophesies concerning the generation and the cut off date for anointed christians of 1935, show this.
so the passage from deut is clearly very serious if those who have spoken in gods name things that have failed to come true, the bottom line is death to that prophet , pure and simple.
They refer to the false prophecies and unscriptural teachings as "old light", "previously cherished views", "expectations requiring adjustment", &c. They are never called what they were/are. Perhaps the term "old darkness" needs to be introduced...
i had asked my wife, who is in the study phase with a jw sister about the selection of the jws by jc in 1918/1919 time frame and she had actually never heard of that.. the husband of this woman she is studying with has been chomping at the bit to talk to me...well my wife said she will ask him to come show me, using only the bible, how this selection was made...of course she did not clear this request with the dubman before telling me she would do this.. i am guessing he will be there when i get home from work tomorrow, she is also torturing our son with a bs now (her son from a previous marriage).. what sort of reach do you think he will try to make to show this...i am guessing he will try to show 1914 from the daniel/revelation stuff, if he does this i am going to ask him to show 607bce from a non jw source....since i believe it is 586/587 bce as a starting date......i hope to keep him on the 1918/1919 topic, and have some examples of their beliefs from that era to talk about as well.
Also, you asked about whether it would be wise to mention that modern Bible Student groups adhere more closely to what the WTS taught in 1918-19. I don't think it would add much to the conversation to bring this up. The JW response is that the light gets brighter and those Bible Students are stuck in the past. It would be a distraction and would likely lead off on a tangent.I guess the only reason I would ask this question is to show that the folks who are presently known as JWs were not exclusive to their beliefs/thinking at that time...
I would be inclined to ask why Jesus did not choose the Associated Bible Students (Pastoral Bible Institute). They were teaching everything the Watch Tower Society was in 1918, excepting the bizarre new doctrines found in The Finished Mystery and Millions Now Living Will Never Die! (e.g. the false prophecies regarding 1918, 1920 and 1925).
my wife encountered a jw today at the uptown laundry where she goes to dry blankets and large items from time to time.. i had just asked her an hour earlier to look around and see if any mags were laying around there - i don't know why.
i just wanted to see if any major layout changes were taking place with the watchliar and asleep lately.. i have not opened them.
i am looking though at the cover of the tower - cover title 'how can you choose a good religion?
This is the article which quotes Jesus' words at Matt. 7:15 ("Beware of false prophets...)
The Society has quite the stones, hasn't it?
well, here's my latest "thing"...i plan on speaking with my siblings & their mates in the near future.
i have told them that i have questions regarding some doctrines, mainly stuff like birthdays, mother's day, father's day, etc.
my hubby has some questions for them regarding their wacky blood doctrine (but i wont cover that in this thread).
If the celebration of birthdays is wrong BECAUSE in the scriptural accounts ONE person died at each of two such celebrations, would it not be forbidden to give (wedding) presents???
(1 Kings 9:16NWT: "(Pharaoh the king of Egypt himself had come up and then captured Ge'zer and burned it with fire, and the Ca'naanites dwelling in the city he had killed. So he gave it as a parting gift to his daughter, the wife of Solomon.)")
you gotta love good old russell.. http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/2009/03/beware-of-apostates.htmlpastor russell said (in 1908).
all who cut loose from the society and its work, instead of prospering themselves or upbuilding others in the faith and in the graces of the spirit, seemingly do the reverseattempt injury to the cause they once served, and, with more or less noise, gradually sink into oblivion, harming only themselves and others possessed of a similarly contentious spirit.
if some think that they can get as good or better provender at other tables, or that they can produce as good or better themselveslet these take their course.
The quote comes from the 01. October 1909 Watch Tower, reprints pages 4482-4.
I believe the controversy came about because Russell had begun to deny that the New Covenant is for the Church, and because of the curious incident of the "Vow".
