Posts by Cold Steel

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

Mindnumbed: ...if they had JW's coming to them with their questions and doubts like members of LDS did to Hans Mattsson, maybe one of them would also come to a crisis of conscience.

Mattsson's problem was that he (and others) had simply joined the church and failed to do any reading or investigating. Most of the stuff he said he'd never heard of, or seen, had been published by the church in its monthly magazine, not to mention apologetics groups like the Maxwell Institute and FAIRLDS. I was baptized a Mormon is 1971 and by 1972, when I left on my mission, I knew about the vast majority of the things Mattsson said he'd never read about. It would be like becoming a first century Christian, then complaining, "Hey, you guys never told me this guy claimed to come back from the dead!"

Mattsson and his wife were contacted by LDS historians, who discussed many of the contentious issues that bothered him (and is often horribly mis-represented by anti-Mormon groups). As FAIRLDS reported, "He didn’t know, for instance, that Joseph [Smith] used a seer stone in hat to translate the Book of Mormon or that he engaged in plural marriage. At this point his world came crumbling down." Hugh Nibley had published an article entitled Strange Ships and Shining Stones years earlier and no one can point a gun at you and force you to read these things. And almost everyone knows that the saints practiced plural marriage in the 19th Century.

In the Society, you can get disfellowshiped for openly questioning, but not in Mormonism. In fact, as one LDS writer noted:

…doubt is a natural part of our mortal sojourn. It is not sin, nor does it always (or even mostly) stem from sin. Faith is not belief without doubt, but rather faith is obedience to imperfectly-understood-but-true principles in the presence of doubt. In general, I would counsel leaders to not assume that doubt stems from transgression and to not assume that doubt is in some way the “fault” of the individual experiencing it. I think leaders can best serve those going through a crisis of faith by being understanding, sympathetic, and compassionate.

And most often, that's exactly how it's handled. Only fools would equate doubt with transgression. But it's also not always the church's fault when misunderstandings occur. Back in 1971, we didn't have an Internet, yet I still was able to educate myself on such things. Mattsson certainly had access to the information he sought; he just looked in the wrong places.

LDS author Michael Nash rightly explained:

It’s important that we understand that questioning the things we do, believe, or accept is normal and part of the process that leads from youth to maturity, as well as from maturity to wisdom. There would be no growth without questioning. Questions lead to answers, resolutions, solidifying convictions, and even to discarding false assumptions. Many doctrines and teachings were revealed as the result of questions petitioned to God.

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

I don't know. A lot of members seem on the verge of dissatisfaction (to be nice). And this 1914 thing can only go so far before they have to change it.

16

Genesis 3:6 - Is it correct or incorrect?

by bytheirworks in

an examination of genesis 3:6.... .

in the 2013 nwt we read: "consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at.".

in the douay-rheims bible we read: "and the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold".

Cold Steel

A lot depends on your theology. Mine tends towards the latter interpretation, that the tree was one of knowledge. Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit in order for Christ's Atonement to effect mankind's progression. In other words, the fall of man was pre-planned with the intention of exalting man to levels impossible to attain for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve both had the capability of living forever, but they would have had their ability to progress severely retarded. This is a doctrine shared by both Mormonism and the Eastern Orthodox, both which believe man's fall and atonement were engineered to advance man to a potential of deification; in other words, for God's children to be able to become as God is.

Man first had to attain a knowledge of good and evil, which was brought about by eating the "forbidden" fruit.

Technically, however, the fruit was not forbidden. God simply said, "You shall not eat of it, lest you die." Or, originally, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." They were told they could freely eat of any tree, but God told them not to partake of the forbidden fruit because it would introduce death into the world, and He could not be seen as actively advocating it. It had to be man's choice. At the same time, it was necessary and God had already set up the plan by which man could be redeemed. In other words, Jehovah had already been chosen and ordained to bring about man's redemption and thus becoming co-heirs with Christ of everything that the Father had. It's also important to understand that Satan did not lie to man. He was right in saying that man would not die...immediately, and he was accurate in saying they would become as the Gods [Elohim], knowing good from evil. But he lied in making them think they would not become subject to death.

When they partook of the fruit, they immediately had their eyes opened to good and evil and began to understand they had been deceived. The Father, however, could not overlook the fact that man had sinned, and, according to the dictates of Justice, He had to appoint an intercessor, an advocate and redeemer. This was Jehovah, who later was born as Christ. It's difficult to read the "old" testament and not see the same names and titles of Jesus being applied to Jehovah (Savior, Redeemer, King of Kings, Lord of Lords; First and Last; Shepherd, etc.). In Psalms 110:1-2, David writes, "The LORD saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." But who was David's Lord by Jehovah? And if Jehovah was the second Lord, who was the first? According to the new testament writers, the first Lord was the Father.

Once man's (and Earth's) redemption is complete, Jehovah will present the glorified Earth back to the Father and his work will be completely fulfilled. And even though the Atonement is complete, we're still to ask the Father for the things we need in the name of Christ. Evangelicals don't understand the distinction because I've heard them pray to Jesus and then say, "We ask these things in thy name."

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

Also, had not Raymond Franz been forced to resign, he might not have gone anywhere. It's easy to suffer a crisis of conscience when you've been booted out.

I always wondered what would happen if there was a split. If Franz had denounced the faithful and discreet slave thing immediately and accused the rest of trying to wrest the authority of the "true" slave, he might have been able to seize on a few more unpopular doctrines and create a rift. He might have also made the argument that the GB was the prophecied "man of sin" who was to bring about a mass apostasy. He could have reasoned, too, that the year of apostasy (1980) was the one in which the "generation" in which Armegeddon would happen:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [Armageddon] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

By trying to expel the anointed class as the faithful and discreet slave, this "man of sin" would be trying to oppose the true order of governance and exalt himself above all that are "called of God" (meaning the true FDS) and seek to take the place of God in the temple [Bethel], essentially "shewing himself that he" (the GB) "is God." If Franz had made that claim, he probably could have torpedoed the Society and eased the bruised feelings of dissatisfaction within the Outfit.

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

Frankie: ...which of the currant Governing Body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

Let's see...the deference, the expense accounts, the power, being fed...ummm...Answer: None of Them!

You'd have to be nuts to give it all up. And why would you? God has called you to be part of a collective, spiritual prophet. I'd give anything to know what they think when they look into a mirror. I mean, they have to know the ramifications of being false prophets, so they really have to believe God has chosen them or they have to know the whole thing's a sham. The question really is one of principle. They get up in the morning, shower, shave, go to work day after day. And yet there's no incoming messages from God. No angels, no inspired dreams, no visions, no miraculous happenings. So again, the question is, do the principals have principles?

Apparently not. You'd think they'd have to question this whole gig. They're the leaders of a religion that has a reputation as being kind of an intellectual and theological joke, so as they get older and, perhaps facing their own mortality, they have to deal with their eternal prospects. Is all this stuff you've been preaching, teaching and expounding true, or is it nonsense? At what point do you begin to question your calling?

Jesus warned there would be false prophets and false messiahs, and that many would come in his name. As we look through history, do we have any precedent of anything like a Governing Body? Nope...not one. We have the apostles, but they were called and ordained by Jesus himself, and he told them, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have CHOSEN YOU and ORDAINED YOU." The Lord also told Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ORDAINED thee a prophet...." (Jer. 1:5) The Lord told Moses: "And thou shalt put [the priestly garments] upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and SHALT ANOINT them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office." (Ex. 28)

The list could go on. Moses called by the Lord through the burning bush, Samuel called in his youth, and even David was anointed King. The bottom line is that there's not one place in the holy scriptures where anyone ever called themselves to a position of power or authority. If the Governing Body is of God, it would be the ONLY instance in which God departed from His standard operating procedure and let someone call themselves.

So I'd defect from the GB immediately lest I die of a heart attack or get hit by a bus and then be in the position of having to face God as a false prophet. (You know how sticky He is about things like that!) As it is written: " Thus saith the Lord concerning Shemaiah.... Because that [he] hath prophesied unto you, and I sent him not, and he caused you to trust in a lie: Therefore thus saith the Lord : Behold, I will punish Shemaiah...and his seed...because he hath taught rebellion against the Lord." (Jer. 29)

.

35

What has happened to Jehovah's Witnesses???

by DATA-DOG in

i know this is old news, but as i sit here, and ponder the upcoming agm, i can't help but think, " what happened?!!

" i actually awoke an hour before my alarm went off, just thinking of everything that is bothering me about the wtbts.

approach this list as a born-in, someone who was told that you were different from everyone else.

Cold Steel

DATA-DOG: What has happened to Jehovah's Witnesses???

Yes, indeed. What has happened? Back in the early 70s, the JW missionaries seemed to know the scriptures and could at least give one reasons why they believed in some of their more bizarre doctrines. I actally had a number of very pleasant discussions with them. But now, everything has been dumbed down. About three years ago I had a couple of guys in and they kept pestering me about my religion, which I refused to tell them. "If I tell you, I fear the discussion will turn from what's right with your religion to what you think is wrong with mine." They finally backed me up against the wall and, sure enough, on the next visit they brought an elder who was an "expert" on mine. He wasn't pleasant at all and the other two guys were clearly treating him with a great deal of deference and a certain amount of fear. He sat on the edge of the sofa with the other two guys looking at him as though he were Gandhi. When it came to the soul sleeping doctrine and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C., he pretty much folded. And when they left, they never called or came back.

On another thread, SloppyJoe describes an encounter with his in-laws. He writes:

I was truly amazed about how very little [my mother-in-law] knew doctrine. She has been in 46 years. No idea how to calculate 1914. No idea how vital 1914 was to the organization. No idea 1919 has no biblical backing. No idea how the governing body receives communication from God. I had to tell her I was amazed she didn't know any of it. I showed 587 in an encyclopoedia and she was shocked it didn't say 607. Even still she just didn't seem to grasp the importance of 1914 and it's lack of foundation. To end this story after I explained all this she even acknowledged that they make stuff up to suit what they want.

They now seem to believe doctrines because to believe otherwise would risk being disfellowshiped. They also were more optimistic about the 1970s being the decade where everything would come to a bloody end. Now they just seem to have been whipped too much. It's like Mario and Vito are enforcing the doctrines. I have a whole Watchtower dedicated to Armageddon, and whoever wrote the article didn't know squat about the subject matter. I would have been embarrassed to give it to anyone.

What would happen if someone took an investigator to one of the Watchtower meetings and he or she questioned the material. Would they be angry or would they patiently try to explain it to them?

60

Paul belived paradise was heaven

by DS211 in

now i want all to add whatever they want to.

i was just reading the bible reading for tonights meeting and started 2 cor 12...and what i noticed was that paul here is revealing something, a revelation or vision of sorts, here it says (and its from the nwt for lurkers).

12 i have to boast.

Cold Steel

If you're going to get converts, you have to either offer them an incredible future or scare them silly with prospects of a horrible destruction. I've never quite figured out what the JWs do to keep people active. I suspect ritual shunning is number one in why people stay. After that, I'm clueless. When it gets to the point you'd rather be destroyed at Armageddon than to attend one more meeting dissecting the latest Watchtower, even fear doesn't work.

From what I've read, if I were a JW who was staying active simply to keep my family, I'd definitely get the word that I was of the anointed, heavenly class. I could at least survive if I could lose myself in the part. First comes the realization, followed by the rationalization, followed by the revelation to the elders, then making sure it discreetly made its way around the KH. Then comes the act, partaking of the emblems at the Memorial Service as if no one was watching but knowing everyone was watching. It would be the only way I could survive without slitting my wrists!

What really gets me are the expectations of some of the leaders that people will have to work in Paradise Earth. They'll have to build their homes, plant their own crops. Yeah, I know there won't be any horrible heat or any weeds or noxious plants (except for poison ivy...God's got to leave one reminder not to screw up again). But still.

60

Paul belived paradise was heaven

by DS211 in

now i want all to add whatever they want to.

i was just reading the bible reading for tonights meeting and started 2 cor 12...and what i noticed was that paul here is revealing something, a revelation or vision of sorts, here it says (and its from the nwt for lurkers).

12 i have to boast.

Cold Steel

The relationship between the Father and Son doesn’t seem overly complicated to me, but there’s a great deal we don’t know. Why, for example, is the Father’s normal and natural state is in the form of a man? Why does the Almighty God have hands, feet, head, arms, and also, why does He wear clothing while all of His creations, besides man, live in the buff?

I recently read an article by a Jewish scholar and I was intrigued by one of the things he said early on; and that was a given: God, he said, was an all encompassing spirit and was everywhere present. It is presently a popular notion, even among some Christians; however, it is never taught anywhere in the Bible or any of the apocryphal literature that’s related to it. In fact, it’s more of a far east religious concept that’s even foreign to the Greeks and Romans. Yet it’s found it’s way into the creeds of men.

Instead, we have an anthropomorphic God. Jesus, we’re told, is in the “express image” of the Father.

The scriptures teach that man has the potential of becoming like God through the heirship of Christ. Actually, we’ve got the potential to become as the resurrected Christ, and he is like the Father. But if Jesus was resurrected as a perfected physical being, and if he now is like the Father in every way, wouldn’t that indicate that both Father and Son would both be glorified physical beings animated by spirit?

Paul wrote to the Romans: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:16-17) And John notes our incredible potential when he wrote: “Now are we the sons of God,” and “we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.” (1 John 3:2) And, finally, Paul goes so far as to call the elect the “offspring” (Greek genos, Acts 17:28-29), which indicates, literally, “descent” or “race.”). Thus, if we are the sons of God, literally, then this would explain why we look like God and vice versa. We are essentially of the same race.

This is hard doctrine for most people, even though it’s staring them square in the face. It also would have been impossible had not Adam and Eve transgressed in the Garden. That’s why the concept of Jesus’ sacrifice simply returning man to the status of living in a garden is so foolish and, frankly, annoying. The Watchtower constantly running art where people are hiking, petting lions, playing musical instruments and having family get-togethers for eternity shows a startling lack of understanding of the Atonement and man’s incredible potential.

7

Adam: OMG, WTF Eve?!!

by laverite in

the new [revised] nwt (n-nwt) apparently has simplified, contemporary language that can be understood by the people of today (with 13% less clutter, and fewer references to kidneys) who are now contemporaries of the 1914 generation.

i can only imagine some of the newly revised passages (starting with a conversation between adam and eve after the big oopsie).i know the pdf version will be online soon.

i do wonder about the full searchable version on jw.org and when that will go live.

Cold Steel

I'm looking forward to the reviews on NWT 2.0. And regardless of the Society's intentions, there's no way the new version can help being bereft in doctrinal exegeses. In John 17:26, where Jesus tells the Father, in prayer, that he has made His name known to them. Even if that is a literal translation, it ignores the fact that making one's "name" known to someone is a Greek idiom for making one known to someone. If you're a name-oriented religion, and you think the Father's name is "Jehovah," then the emphasis on the name means much more than that of teaching the apostles about the nature and being of the Father. Then, JWs will point out that scripture to show the ignorant how important the name is, while missing the actual point. That's what makes translation such a difficult process.

It would be like talking about the "road to destruction" and emphasizing the road rather than hell or destruction.

34

The relationship between the Father and Son. What's your opinion?

by DATA-DOG in

i am curious about this.

ever since i realized that there is no proof that jesus=michael the archangel, i wondered about who jesus was.

that's how i think of the father and the son, or the word.

Cold Steel

Yes, correct. Jehovah is not the Father, but he is the Father's only Begotten Son. I believe all men and women are the sons and daughters of God, but of us all, he is the greatest and most intelligent. As an eternal being, he was born half man and half God. In the beginning, he directed the creation of this world and many others. Is the Father and Son aspect more metaphor than literal? I don't know. If it is metaphor, God is the one who originated it. Fathers have wives and children; however, we also know that we're created beings. In the beginning, the Father knew that Adam would fall, and He knew that it was as necessary as the Atonement. So the Father walked and talked with Adam in the Garden, but when Adam fell, the Father knew there would be a rift between Him and all mankind. That's why an intercessor was needed, and that intercessor was Christ. As the intercessor, Jehovah carried out the will of the Father, and the only words that He ever spoke to mankind were, "This is my beloved Son. Hear him!" In other words, He was one witness of the Son, and the Holy Spirit was the other. Thus, in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

After the Atonement, Jesus was raised in the flesh and formally given all power and dominion. And John the Beloved later testified that Jesus, now resurrected was in the "express image" of the Father. And because of Jehovah's sacrifice, he made it possible for all men to become joint heirs with him. And this means that all men have the potential of becoming like Christ, meaning they may inherit "all that the Father has." We continue to pray to the Father directly in the name of Christ. And as world events take shape, Jesus will eventually come and judge all mankind. Throughout the scriptures, Jehovah is said to come and judge the nations of the earth, but John said that "the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the son." (See John 5:22) That would be considerable power for an archangel! The reason the Son judges all mankind is because he died for us and is our advocate to the Father. Thus, when the earth is glorified and redeemed, it's not going to be merely a garden, but will shine like the Sun; and those who inherit it will become like God -- not because they earned it, but because as sons of God they inherited it through the Atonement.

So once man has been resurrected and assigned to their various places in the afterlife, and the earth has been redeemed and glorified and Satan and his angels are driven out into outer darkness, Jesus will have finished his work and will turn it back to the Father. As the Lord said in one of our scriptures, "For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and the eternal life of man."

Anyway, that's how I see it.