Posts by AllTimeJeff

33

Jehovah's Witnesses and their Elders

by AllTimeJeff in

i wonder if the governing body (gb) knows the trouble the whole thing started..... to be sure, when the gb put into effect that all congregations of jehovah's witnesses were to have a body of elders that is in existence today, their goal was to meet their own ends.

under a sub heading "gearing up for explosive growth" in their history book "jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom" they stated..... ***.

jehovahs servants were determined to continue to yield to divine direction.

AllTimeJeff

Still working on the formatting. I copied this from Notepad. I won't make that mistake again....

33

Jehovah's Witnesses and their Elders

by AllTimeJeff in

i wonder if the governing body (gb) knows the trouble the whole thing started..... to be sure, when the gb put into effect that all congregations of jehovah's witnesses were to have a body of elders that is in existence today, their goal was to meet their own ends.

under a sub heading "gearing up for explosive growth" in their history book "jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom" they stated..... ***.

jehovahs servants were determined to continue to yield to divine direction.

AllTimeJeff

PART 2

***

14 Considering others also involves not asking them to approve of something that is against their consciences. For instance, the congregational elders are responsible for permitting wedding ceremonies in the Kingdom Hall, how these will be conducted, how the hall is decorated, and so forth. The elders in one congregation write: "In one wedding all the bridesmaids walked down the aisle fanning themselves. The next wedding had to outdo the first, so the bridesmaids walked down the aisle twirling umbrellas. The next had to be bigger and better; they wanted twenty bridesmaids and twenty ushers. The hall was starting to be used as a circus."

15 Was this ‘a matter of conscience’ for private decision? No. Even if an engaged couple’s consciences would permit something excessive or outrageous, the collective conscience of the elders could not be ignored. While not wanting to impose their personal tastes, they have at heart the peace, harmony and spirituality of the whole congregation. And they should be conscientiously aiding persons to ‘know how to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is a pillar and support of the truth.’—1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 10:31.

We were told that this gave elders permission to make certain judgements appropriate for our congregation, and to even take into consideration the local standards that we live in.

It stands to reason that not all elders or bodies of elders will have the same standards of conscience. Thus, you will often see liberal vs conservative congregations. What a regular member is allowed to do publically or have to keep somewhat hidden will always be traceable to the collective conscience of the elders.

That is why some can watch Survivor (for example) in some congregations, while in others, it would be taboo.
Can a JW admit to watching an edited "R" rated movie on network TV? It's up to the elders.
What about Disney movies? ET or Star Wars? These movies have elements that contradict JW teachings? Can you admit to watching? Depends on your elders.
How short a skirt can a JW women wear? Check with your elders. Ditto cleavage and neckline questions.

Some things are more serious.

What about an elder who wants to go to the police with knowledge they have concerning a pedophile? No conscience decision here, check with the JW lawyers. If you don't have to, you are told not to bring it up.
Spousal abuse? Very hard to prove for a JW woman. In some area's, the mistreatment of JW woman is almost institutionalized due to the culture of an area. (like the bible belt of the USA)
Other forms of child abuse? Not if it makes JW's look bad. Thats the parents job, your conscience be damned.
What about cognitive/psychological therapy? JW's frown on this, and encourage the mentally ill to seek out very unqualified elders to help cope. Elders are taught to provide spiritual help, but that often doesn't take care of the serious nature of someones problems. Thus, JW's who suffer from depression, borderline personality disorder, manics, schitzo-effective disorders, etc, often must go through the emotionally draining process of dealing with the elders and their conscientious feelings regarding mental health. This is especially damaging, as most, if not all elders are not qualified to make any kinds of good recommendations other then "Go see a doctor".
Can you take blood fractions as medicine? While the GB has really shifted on this lately in a most hypocritical way (i.e. no whole blood transfusions or the "4 main components of blood" may be transfused, but blood derived medicine containing fractions can be used....) the elders still assume much responsibility in their consultation with their flock. And it can vary from congregation to congregation.
What if an elder commits a sin? It has happened that a body of elders will keep on an elder if they like him, regardless of what they did, even if the same conduct/sin done by a non-elder gets one in serious judicial trouble. It doesn't happen frequently, but it does happen.

And yet, some conscientious elders have followed their own conscience. Instead of knucking other to what is in the best interests of the Governing Body, elders (such as Bruce Bowen) have dared to speak up on matters regarding pedophilia within the JW. Of course, that is where the limits of conscience go. Bowen was disfellowshipped.

Other elders have tried to bang the drum for battered woman and children dealing with abusive family members.

Other elders still try to get those who are mentally ill the real medical help they need, instead of trying to play amateur physchologist.

It's these elders who are more liberal that cause the GB its greatest grief. It is also these same liberal elders who are most likely to resign their eldership due to the stress, strains, and outright contradictory standards they are asked to promote. Thus, since 1994, their is 1/3 less elders worldwide today. Much of the attrition is due to these men burning themselves out playing the GB's version of theological whack-a-mole.

Thus, when you study what JW's believe and do, remember that much depends on the elders of each congregation. They serve as the nerve center, the filter, for what the GB teaches. And while the GB generally controls elders pretty well, there will always be liberal and conservative congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, as a result of the individual body of elders that inhabit these congregations.

33

Jehovah's Witnesses and their Elders

by AllTimeJeff in

i wonder if the governing body (gb) knows the trouble the whole thing started..... to be sure, when the gb put into effect that all congregations of jehovah's witnesses were to have a body of elders that is in existence today, their goal was to meet their own ends.

under a sub heading "gearing up for explosive growth" in their history book "jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom" they stated..... ***.

jehovahs servants were determined to continue to yield to divine direction.

AllTimeJeff

I wonder if the Governing Body (GB) knows the trouble the whole thing started....

To be sure, when the GB put into effect that all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses were to have a body of elders that is in existence today, their goal was to meet their own ends. Under a Sub Heading "Gearing Up For Explosive Growth" in their history book "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" they stated....

***
jvchap.15p.233DevelopmentoftheOrganizationStructure

***

Jehovah’s servants were determined to continue to yield to divine direction. At a series of conventions held in 1971, attention was directed to the governing arrangements of the early Christian congregation. It was pointed out that the expression pre·sby´te·ros (older man, elder), as used in the Bible, was not limited to elderly persons, nor did it apply to all in the congregations who were spiritually mature. It was especially used in an official sense with reference to overseers of the congregations. (Acts 11:30; 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3) These received their positions by appointment, in harmony with requirements that came to be part of the inspired Scriptures. (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) Where enough qualified men were available, there was more than one elder in the congregation. (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1) These made up "the body of older men," all of whom had the same official status, and not one of whom was the most prominent or powerful member in the congregation. (1 Tim. 4:14) To assist the elders, it was explained, there were also appointed "ministerial servants," in accord with the requirements set out by the apostle Paul.—1 Tim. 3:8-10, 12, 13.

Fair enough. There is plenty of debate within the Christian world on whether a congregation should have one or many "shepherds", and one's reading of the bible and their interpretation of it determines their structure. When it comes to the world of Jehovah's Witnesses, the history of those men who would be leaders in its individual congregations is fascinating.

Originally, C T Russell, the founder of the movement, was resistant to the idea of having recognized leaders within their study groups. But as they grew in number, he allowed and even encouraged individual congregations to vote who would be the leader, or shepherd.

Russell's sucessor, J F (Judge) Rutherford, was able to take control of the group via legal means, against the wishes of Russell as he stated in his will. When he finally assumed the presidency of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) he quickly moved to consolidate his power. One move he made was to have a "Service Overseer" appointed by Rutherford in each recognized congregation. The idea ostensibly was to make sure that congregations were limited in control of their own destinies. Rutherford wanted to have more centralized control of the congregations. He knew that to totally eliminate democratic elections at that time would cause a coup. It wasn't until 1938 that he was finally able to have all elders appointed directly by the WTBTS. The WT called this "theocratically appointed". It shined up what was essentially another move to centralize power to the President of the WTBTS.

Since then, the "elder arrangement" as it is called has morphed. From 1938 to 1971, a single elder was responsible for each congregation. As the above quote shows, in 1972, multiple elders were appointed where they were deemed qualified.

One of the biggest misconceptions I have observed by both those in and out of the JW organization is the idea that uniformity exists in all congregations. It is an easy assumption to make when you read about all the rules the Governing Body puts out. But to really understand Jehovah's Witnesses, you have to understand the sum of its parts.

One cannot help but realize that when you read Watchtower literature, the agenda behind it is to convince and reassure its readers that the faithul and discreet slave is in charge. But since 1972, the trend has been a de-centralization of power. In 1976, the Governing Body, and not the President of the WTBTS was in charge. Power and responsibilities were divied up. Decisions within committees often reflected the personalities of the men on them.

It stands to reason that the personalities of each body of elders in a single congregation would do the same. Thus, the unity that the GB claims exists is somewhat of a confusing misnomer. Much depends on a body of elders interpretation of the rules the GB sends out, and how (or if) they are applied.

JW's frequently talk about the personality of a congregation. This is a good description. Of course, any church or group will have certain dynamics. But JW's are unique because these dynamics are directly attributable to the personalities, likes and dislikes of the elders for each congregation.

When I was an elder, a Circuit Overseer (CO) met with our body, and he shared a WT article quote that he encouraged us elders to view and use when administering rules in the congregation.

***
w827/15pp.24-25pars.14-15BenefitingFromYourGod-givenConscience

***

14 Considering others also involves not asking them to approve of something that is against their consciences. For instance, the congregational elders are responsible for permitting wedding ceremonies in the Kingdom Hall, how these will be conducted, how the hall is decorated, and so forth. The elders in one congregation write: "In one wedding all the bridesmaids walked down the aisle fanning themselves. The next wedding had to outdo the first, so the bridesmaids walked down the aisle twirling umbrellas. The next had to be bigger and better; they wanted twenty bridesmaids and twenty ushers. The hall was starting to be used as a circus."

15 Was this ‘a matter of conscience’ for private decision? No. Even if an engaged couple’s consciences would permit something excessive or outrageous, the collective conscience of the elders could not be ignored. While not wanting to impose their personal tastes, they have at heart the peace, harmony and spirituality of the whole congregation. And they should be conscientiously aiding persons to ‘know how to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is a pillar and support of the truth.’—1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 10:31.

16

Should you believe in the Trinity book says...

by middleman in

just put together a little document comparing the watchtower's misquotes from page 7 of their trinity book.

i have been reading much of the ante nicene fathers lately and the more i read them it amazes me that the society would even mention them to refute the trinity.

by reading the writings from these early church fathers we can truly see that they belived the core doctines that mainstream christians follow today (for the most part).

AllTimeJeff

After leaving the borg, I was very surprised to learn the Governing Body's efforts to take down the trinity by the use of their selected, out of context quotations from early church fathers.

In addition, many Christians do not believe the trinity the way JW's say they do. I can't tell you how many times I went to a door and told a householder that they worshipped the trinity in a certain way. JW's present only one way that the trinity is presented, but there are many other versions of the trinity in mainstream Christianity.

Again though, this demonstrates a GB ploy: They take control of the issue, and raise all the questions, or at the least the questions that they want to answer. Outside information and questions are not welcome. There are only certain questions on any subject that serves their agenda, and they limit it to that.

They set up the trinity debate as a straw man. They trot out their one version of the trinity, get people to think this is what they have been taught (often this isn't true) and then tear it down. Very disingenuous.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

Perry

It would be good news if your god showed up. A lesser god "punishes", a more powerful god would heal. If god exists in some manner that you describe, I doubt very seriously that punishment is in order. Frankly, (using analogies common in the Christian world) if a child misbehaves in the absence of a parent, the parent is held responsible. From a theistic point of view (which I do not subscribe to) god has not been around, leaving man to his devices. HE is the one responsible, a sin of omision.

Obviously, I do not subscribe to your beliefs Perry. And my taking things from a theistic point of view was for your benefit, as you for whatever reason, do not seem to want to argue this from a non theistic point of view. Thus, I speak of god for the sake of discussion, not because I believe. Remember, you said:

Note: These are simple questions. You have already assummed the existence of God for this discussion. (italics mine)

You then take my premised answers and run with it and say

I'm glad we agree that God has the right to punish wrongdoers. The bible agrees with your order of events as well.

With respect, we do not agree. And you merely subscribe to an interpretation of the bible's "order of events". Other Christians do not agree with you. Have you been asking me questions just to look for something we "agree" on?

Allow me please, to offer a critique of your methodology when it comes to arguing your position.

I have written several times about a peculiar habit the Governing Body engages in. Which is, they do not entertain questions that they do not raise. The only questions they answer are the ones they raise. They have an agenda. Outside questions regarding their positions and interpretations do not serve the interests of their agenda.

As you are well aware, JW's are taught when in conversation with householders to "flip" conversations by asking questions, which serves to change the subject. The reason of course is simple: They aren't their for a 2 way conversation, but to preach.

I find the same pattern with you. I do not in any way question your motives. Sincerity though is a poor litmus test for truth and fact.

You have frequently taken the "devils advocate" role, raising questions in response to questions posed to you. If you doubt this, I will simply allow any reader to review this thread, and I will let that stand.

I don't wish to charecterize why you do this, I am simply saying that this method you use shares much in common with the aggressive indoctrination techniques championed by JW's.

Why is this relevant? Because like JW's, it is my view that instead of offering an intellectually honest account for your beliefs, including an acknowledgment of what you believe as opposed to what you can prove (hellfire being a big one) you choose to try to flip the conversation to try to get those who don't believe you on the defensive, thus sparing you the need to quantify your beliefs.

I have spend much of this thread answering your questions. The quotes I provide in this response from you prove that you are more then willing to cherry pick responses to support your beliefs.

I have much respect for theists who are willing to acknowledge that there are a few things they must take on faith, because they can't prove them. I also appreciate an acknowledgement from these theists that they understand why others can't feel as they do.

In another thread, you spoke of a very personal experience you claim with your god. At best, that must be good enough for you. Nonetheless, you can't transfer what that did for you to others. If god did that for you, then only god can do that for someone else. At best, you can only make theological arguements. While I respect your beliefs, I cannot be persuaded simply because you tell me so.

This thread discussed at length your views of punishment from god. As I understand it, your basic arguement is that god does indeed have the right to punish to enforce his laws and standards. I disagree with you for all the reasons I have written previously.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

(1) Should God punish liars Jeff?

(2) Should our courts punish liars?

Jeffs Answers

1) God should punish liars once he stops the suffering of billions and explain himself to the world. I am sure once liars see god manifest and make himself clear, god will not need to punish the repentent. Instead, he will likely forgive those who lied without realizing that god existed. No punishment needed. All god has to do is show up.

2) Courts of various governments around the world will punish liars to the extent that their laws allow, and with the understanding that their unique laws define a lie. No one is immune from this.

93

Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda in

it is a fallacy that the early christians weaved the tale of a dying and rising god-man on the loom of mystery religions.

the idea of the dying-rising god as a parallel to the christian concept of the death and resurrection of christ was popularized by james frazer in the golden bough, first published in 1906. scholar edwin yamauchi (1974; easter: myth, hallucination, or history?

) has observed that, although frazer marshaled many parallels, the foundation was very fragile and has been discredited by a host of scholars since frazers ideas were at the height of their popularity in the 1960s.

AllTimeJeff

Perry said

Slowly but surely, good happened. Blessings happened. Marriage happened. Children happened. Obstacles happened with no way out. God happened. Then, one day he presented himself to me through the Holy Spirit and for several days thereafter. I believe my spirit went on up into heaven one particular night and addressed angels. He just didn't show himself like someone asking for a magician to do another trick. He showed himself as my father, his spirit bearing witness with my spirit in utter peace and tranquility. The Holy Spirit is AWESOME let me tell you.

I remember the first time I was praying and called God Daddy. I was shocked that it slipped out so easily. But, that is what he is to me. He spoke the name that is reserved for me in heaven into my spirit early one morning as well.

Believe it or not Perry, I respect this. You have made this choice. You have also admitted that god spoke to you. That can only be good enough for one person of course.

While it raises in my mind more questions then it answers about god, it fullfills your spiritual needs. It certainly doesn't help what you can prove of course. But I am glad that this gives you peace.

I hope you understand that there are many people who do not share your beliefs and are at peace, just as you are now. I hope you will respect them. They know that god won't damn them, and they do not believe as you do on many levels. Superiority of viewpoint is not the point where peace of mind is concerned.

93

Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda in

it is a fallacy that the early christians weaved the tale of a dying and rising god-man on the loom of mystery religions.

the idea of the dying-rising god as a parallel to the christian concept of the death and resurrection of christ was popularized by james frazer in the golden bough, first published in 1906. scholar edwin yamauchi (1974; easter: myth, hallucination, or history?

) has observed that, although frazer marshaled many parallels, the foundation was very fragile and has been discredited by a host of scholars since frazers ideas were at the height of their popularity in the 1960s.

AllTimeJeff

From the Koran

"I bear witness that there is no God but the Almighty God and that Mohammad is a messenger of God."[1]
"For God hath said, 'Take not to yourselves two Gods, for He is one God.'" (Sura 16:53; cp. 20:7)
"Verily God will not forgive the union of other gods with Himself." (Sura 4:51)

I bring these out not to mock anyones personal beliefs, but to demonstrate that in the search for god, all religions claim to be the one way to worship and understand god. To act as if Jesus were god as a foregone conclusion is without merit.

There is just as much evidence for these verses from the Koran as there is for the verses used to support Christianity. The exact same thing. Thus, to merely throw scriptures around is a moot point.

Theology be damned, not people who are confused by a confusing god.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

Perry has concluded about my arguements:

Ok. I think this is your main point. You don't like the word "standard" used in the sense where failure would be possible. You seem to think that if you can play with the definition of words, you can avoid failure. I am not impressed. So, when YOU claimed that man could live up to ANY (just one) standard of right or wrong, (becasue that is what you said), what you really meant to say is that man has the right to choose "each for himself" what is right and wrong". That is just anarchy.

So you have proven my point. You cannot come up with even ONE standard of right and wrong that man can keep as you clearly claimed. So, it follows that if man makes punishable laws like, lying (under oath) should not God punish those that judge others but then go ahead and violate this law themselves? This would seem to be the height of hypocrisy to exercise this punishble law and then turn around and say God is unjust for punishing liars wouldn't you say?

For the sake of clarity, I will limit my use of paragraphs. I maintain in all of my posts on this subject that

Failure to meet a standard isn't sin. I do not believe in sin. There is no such thing, as it is a religious term used in the context of belief in god. In the absence of belief and evidence of god, there is also an absence of sin.
The standards I am talking about are not crimes where another person is harmed, such as murder, assault, rape, theft, etc.
The standards I am specifically referring to are fundamentalist Christian beliefs that certain personal behaviours are offensive to god.
Whether or not man can keep a "standard" perfectly isn't the point at all. It doesn't matter, nor does it demonstrate the need for "bible god" or Christ. In fact, go ahead and claim a win on this one. I don't care, it doesn't matter if a standard, god ordained or otherwise is perfectly kept. I concede the point. It doesn't matter.
I differentiate between theistic standards and civic standards that a study of history shows all civilized societies adopt, regardless of religioius persuasion or sexual mores.

Perry, lets assume you are correct. What difference would it make? Keeping a standard perfectly or not proves what?

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

we can judge how and omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act.

Like the way a small child can tell how his parent should act? My two year old cries his heart out when we try to limit his sugar. He is in my image. From his point of view, I am no doubt a tyrant.

Your reasoning seems extremely arrogant.

And your reasoning seems very childish. Children and those who have child like thinking frequently view a more nuanced and mature arguement as arrogant, as it goes against their overly simplistic world view. Oh well. Your analogies do nothing more then defend your right to believe as you wish, it doesn't prove your personal assertions at all. I have no qualms with that. And if by pointing out the very large holes in your arguements, that makes me arrogant, I can live with that.

Let the record show that you believe in a heretofore derelict, invisible person that no one has seen or heard, whom you believe lives in the invisible heavens, who loves us yet ignores us, who demands we act a certain way under pain of death, even though only his followers up to now have enforced any of "gods" ideas. And by pointing this out, along with alternative and legitimate ways to interpret the human experience, that makes me arrogant?

I can live with that.