MrMonroe

Joined

• started 40 topics
• posted 632 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MrMonroe

• 
  45

  Only the Governing Body is the FDS

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hadn't noticed this before but the governing body is actually saying that they only are the faithful & discreet slave.. watchtower 2009 6/15 para 18 .

  similarly, today a limited number of anointed men have the responsibility of representing the slave class.

  they make up the governing body of jehovahs witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  Has anyone tried discussing the issue of the Governing Body and FDS with Witnesses who call at their door? Do they care?
• 
  45

  Only the Governing Body is the FDS

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hadn't noticed this before but the governing body is actually saying that they only are the faithful & discreet slave.. watchtower 2009 6/15 para 18 .

  similarly, today a limited number of anointed men have the responsibility of representing the slave class.

  they make up the governing body of jehovahs witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  @ Awen, very good and thoughtful points.

  @ Listener, thanks for the reference; here the governing body of ... who, all "genuine" Christians worldwide??? .... was formed in the late 1800s. Incredible. And, appallingly, that final appeal to Witness to suspend all reasoning powers and suspend all disbelief: The Governing Body is there because it's there, amen. The proof is that it exists, and the fact that it exists is all the proof you need.

  Reading those words takes me back to the way I thought in the mid-1980s when I joined. I would read such comments and be quietly awestruck, thinking, shit, this is bigger than I can even imagine. This is so real. I am so fortunate to be part of it. This is deep, but it's true. I accepted it with a certain solemnity, influenced by the guy I "studied" with, who impressed upon me the necessity to accept and believe.

  Now I read it and think, you lying fockers. What weak, fraudulent reasoning.
• 
  45

  Only the Governing Body is the FDS

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i hadn't noticed this before but the governing body is actually saying that they only are the faithful & discreet slave.. watchtower 2009 6/15 para 18 .

  similarly, today a limited number of anointed men have the responsibility of representing the slave class.

  they make up the governing body of jehovahs witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  The concept of the Governing Body representing the FDS is an evolving doctrine.

  In 1981 the Watchtower declared:

  While alive on earth, Jesus’ faithful apostles were especially responsible for providing spiritual teaching for the “household of God.” Appointed ‘shepherds’ of the “flock,” as well as others, also had similar responsibility. However, the apostle Peter shows that such stewardship of divine truths actually was committed to all the ‘chosen ones.’ Hence, each respective member of the congregation made a contribution to the building up of the body. Thus we see a clear Scriptural basis for saying that all anointed followers of Christ Jesus make up God’s “servant,” with Jesus as its Master. Accordingly, that servant, or “slave,” as a collective body provides spiritual food for all the individuals of this congregation, which make up the household of “domestics.” These individually benefit as recipients of that food. (March 1, 1981, pg 26).

  In the past 29 years new light has "evidently" shone on God's organization to indicate that it is not, after all, the entire slave class that feeds the domestics, but a tiny representative body.

  Here's the real question, however: to whom was this revealed -- the entire slave class ... or a tiny representative body in Brooklyn? Is this a case of history repeating itself ... the faithful slave class being sacked by the religion's leader, just as it was in 1917?
• 
  44

  Why I Like the "Proclaimers" Book

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  while it is true that the "proclaimers" book is not always as open and honest about the society's history as it claims to be, it is open and honest enough to bring into question the society claim to being god's organization.

  it's a matter of (1) knowing what to look for, (2) where to find it and then, (3) to be able get the sense of what it means.. take for example the extremely important matter of the second coming of christ.... on the top of page 47 the book truthfully explains how president charles russell came to believe that jesus returned invisibly in 1874 to begin his second coming ("invisible presence").

  and then a careful reading of the footnote on page 133 shows that the date of jesus' return was not changed to 1914 until 1943.. it is likely that even if some witnesses notice that fact, they do not get the sense of what it means.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  The WTS has actually claimed that it began to be used by God from the late 19th century, 40 years before 1918.

  Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, page 22: "... In many ways the evidence was beginning to accumulate that, of all the early voices heard, Jehovah had chosen the publication we now call The Watchtower to be used as a channel through which to bring to the world of mankind a revelation of the divine will and, through the words revealed in its columns, to begin a division of the world's population into those who would do the divine will and those who would not. For this reason 1879 was a turning point in the work. This little group, headed by C.T. Russell, had now been tested and had been found fit to undertake the great preliminary campaign leading up to the climax expected in 1914."

  The Watchtower, June 1, 1964, page 338: "We have gained all this knowledge through the arrangement Jehovah is pleased to use at the present time, namely, through his anointed spirit-begotten witnesses, comprising the “faithful and discreet slave” class described by Jesus at Matthew 24:45-47. This slave class has used the Watch Tower Society as its legal instrument since 1884, and the chief publication of dissemination of Bible truth since 1879 has been The Watchtower. It is so even to this day."

  So the moment CTR began publishing the WT, God loved 'em. Or him, really, since CTR was convinced he was the faithful slave. The "inspection" in 1918 (or 1919 as it was for a while), was a mere formality, apparently.

  Interesting to note, as well, the 1931 WT article (June 1, pg 169) that said Rutherford's sacking of the majority of the faithful and discreet slave in 1917 was actually part of the biblical drama of Christ's cleansing of the temple:

  "Christ Jesus was placed upon his throne in the autumn season of 1914, and in the third year thereafter, to wit, at the end of 1917, among those consecrated to the Lord there was a class of insubordinate ones who rebelled against the ways of the Lord. Being in line for the kingdom, and becoming offended, insubordinate and rebellious, these were gathered out at the time the judgment of the Lord began at his temple in 1918."

  "Offended, insubordinate and rebellious." How dare the faithful slave class challenge the president? Who did they think they were?
• 
  31

  G'day from Oz - My Story

  by Gemmel in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  hi, i've been lurking for a few days reading the site, interesting stuff ;).

  i've been out of the org for 23 years, i was 27 i left an agnostic and became an atheist many years ago.

  i knew i was going to leave for 7 years before i did but had stayed in because i didn't want to hurt my family, it hadn't occurred to me that they might shun me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  Hello from Melbourne. It's a great life on the outside! I quit about three years ago. It changed my life in so many ways.
• 
  44

  Why I Like the "Proclaimers" Book

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  while it is true that the "proclaimers" book is not always as open and honest about the society's history as it claims to be, it is open and honest enough to bring into question the society claim to being god's organization.

  it's a matter of (1) knowing what to look for, (2) where to find it and then, (3) to be able get the sense of what it means.. take for example the extremely important matter of the second coming of christ.... on the top of page 47 the book truthfully explains how president charles russell came to believe that jesus returned invisibly in 1874 to begin his second coming ("invisible presence").

  and then a careful reading of the footnote on page 133 shows that the date of jesus' return was not changed to 1914 until 1943.. it is likely that even if some witnesses notice that fact, they do not get the sense of what it means.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  Rutherford had confirmed the 1874 date in 1929 in his "Prophecy" book, page 65. See here.

  Robert Crompton's "Counting the Days to Armageddon," (1996, pg. 133) spends most of a page discussing how Fred Franz's "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" made a grand announcement of the "new light", evidently not aware that the change had been introduced some years before 1943. Interestingly, Crompton, who does a detailed study of the rationale behind all the WTS chronology, takes a dim view of the revision by both Rutherford and Franz, who seemed not to understand how Russell's system had worked in the first place.

  
• 
  50

  JC question: Do you accept the FDS as God's organization?

  by MrMonroe in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  my wife and i had stopped going to meetings in april; in december of that year we travelled interstate and stayed with the witness couple who had "brought me into the truth".

  we had already told them we'd quit meetings and there was a certain tension in the air for the first couple of days until sunday morning, when, over a breakfast that eventually lasted several hours, they began to interrogate us about why we had left.

  had we been stumbled?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  @Vanderhoven, sd7,

  Quite true. On one of the talk pages at Wikipedia I asked a Witness to explain the basis on which people who have simply quit a religious denomination (JWs), but retained a belief in Christ, were dubbed "apostates" and shunned on the basis of 2 John 9,10 -- a scripture that refers to an individual who "does not remain in the teaching of the Christ". (He mumbled that it was the same thing, because JWs were true Christianity).

  The Jerusalem Bible refers in those verses to an individual who "does not keep within the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it."

  Isn't that precisely what the question about the FDS, and the subsequent shunning of those who deny it, is doing ... going beyond Christ's teaching?
• 
  50

  JC question: Do you accept the FDS as God's organization?

  by MrMonroe in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  my wife and i had stopped going to meetings in april; in december of that year we travelled interstate and stayed with the witness couple who had "brought me into the truth".

  we had already told them we'd quit meetings and there was a certain tension in the air for the first couple of days until sunday morning, when, over a breakfast that eventually lasted several hours, they began to interrogate us about why we had left.

  had we been stumbled?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  @ Mamalove: Yes, staying with our old friends was quite stressful. "Strained" is probably the best word to describe the weekend. We'd known this couple since the mid-80s and it is clear now the friendship is on very shaky grounds. The wife has twice rung shortly before Memorial night to "encourage" us to attend (on one occasion losing her temper and snapping that we were hypocrites for not attending, because we know it's the truth). They used a lot of emotion, pleading, at one point, "What about the girls?" Luvvy, it was as much for the sake of our girls that we have abandoned this crackpot religion!

  @ Wobble: Maybe you're right about it being a question that's never written in the official textbook. I tell you, knowing this guy, who was never a deep student, that question was not asked of his own initiative. It just wasn't him. It was more like a question an overbearing prosecution lawyer would ask a defendant in a trial, and like I say, he actually forgot about it pretty quickly. Somone fed it to him.

  The answers many of you are so good. Inevitably, of course, asking them how they know God has an organization, and how they know the "faithful and discreet slave" is the cornerstone of that organization won't produce any sensible answer ("It is, because it is!") and will ultimately only give them the answer they want: you're not under the WTS spell any more. You didn't say, in a loud, clear voice, "Yes!"

  Ray Franz discussed the idea so well in chapter 13 of In Search of Christian Freedom: one of the "proof" arguments the WTS uses for the existence of a "God's organization" is that Satan has an organization, so therefore God must have one. Franz's response to that line of thinking: "It says in so many words that what Satan does is a guide for us to know what God does ... in reality, the scriptures show that Satan most often uses methods, not typical of, but directly opposite to God's." (p.459).

  He also turns on its head the old WT claim that if God was part of a trinity that he would have plainly stated this fact in the Bible. Franz reasoned: If it was so critical that people appreciate God had an organization on earth to which people had to be a member in order to survive Armageddon, wouldn't he have plainly stated it? (p. 453).
• 
  22

  How Would You Respond to this PM?

  by AudeSapere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  today i received the following pm from a fairly new poster (last 2 weeks and only 10 posts):.

  audesapere, .

  something in one of your posts tells me i might know you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  It's a PM that would ring alarm bells in my mind. Anyone asking an anon user to identify themselves would, as a matter of good faith, fully identify themself in their request.

  I was thinking today how much of a shame it is, and condemnation of the shitty religion we were in, that so many of us feel compelled to hide behind user names out of fear of the consequences. I have just contacted another JWN poster here who says he's from Melbourne, where I live. It's just crazy that we each tiptoe towards revealing ourselves.

  Someone made the simple point today on another thread: "What a horrible religion." Those four words are so powerful and I wish with all my heart that I'd heard them before I committed myself to them back in '85. It is just so twisted and perverted that a person can become part of a religion because of a sincere desire to learn more about the Bible (or simply be born into it) and then endure such pain to leave.

  Some months ago on one of the talk pages at Wikipedia, where I hang out a lot, a devout (and truly spellbound) Witness trotted out the hoary old line about it being easy to leave the religion. "Just go," he said, and that was a message I heard many years ago when I first started witnessing, chatting to an elder who was genuinely bewildered at why "apostates" were so opposed to the religion. "No one's forcing them to stay," he said. "They were free to join and they're free to leave. No one's forcing them to stay."

  He was a decent guy and I'm sure he truly believed it. I hope that over the years he has opened his eyes a bit and realised how false that statement is. Perhaps it's only those who want to leave who see how false it is and how paranoid and fearful it makes those who bridle against the control. But then again, his family is all in the "club" and maybe, just maybe, he feels as trapped as we know many other desperately unhappy Witnesses are.

  "What a horrible religion." That's a slogan.
• 
  50

  JC question: Do you accept the FDS as God's organization?

  by MrMonroe in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  my wife and i had stopped going to meetings in april; in december of that year we travelled interstate and stayed with the witness couple who had "brought me into the truth".

  we had already told them we'd quit meetings and there was a certain tension in the air for the first couple of days until sunday morning, when, over a breakfast that eventually lasted several hours, they began to interrogate us about why we had left.

  had we been stumbled?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MrMonroe

  The original posting has corrupted for users on IE. Here 'tis again:

  My wife and I had stopped going to meetings in April; in December of that year we travelled interstate and stayed with the Witness couple who had "brought me into the truth". We had already told them we'd quit meetings and there was a certain tension in the air for the first couple of days until Sunday morning, when, over a breakfast that eventually lasted several hours, they began to interrogate us about WHY we had left. Had we been stumbled? It's not about the people, you know! Well, we said, that's our private decision. We left, we're not going back, but we'd rather not discuss our reasons.

  It was a session I described in my diary as the Breakfast Grill. They told me there was a Watchtower that very day was addressed at our very situation, about how Jesus cares for his lost sheep, and they assured me that when we returned to Melbourne, we would surely have contact from our old congregation. Stirred up by the timely article, those loving, concerned brothers would definitiely inquire after our spiritual wellbeing. If he was a gambling man, he'd put money on it. Rubbish, I told them. They'll attend the Watchtower study, answer the questions and give us no thought at all. It's a Watchtower study, just words on a page. That's the way it is. I didn't want them to visit in any case: we'd made a definite decision to leave, based on very firm grounds.

  And so on they went, hour after hour, tears in their eyes as they grieved for our loss. OUR loss! But then there was curious question.

  He looked my wife in the eye and asked her,

  "Do you believe Jehovah is using the faithful and discreet slave as his organizaiton on earth?"

  My wife paused. How the hell do you answer that question? The answer, of course, was , No, absolutely not. I jumped in and deflected and quickly the question was forgotten.

  But I've never forgotten that question. Why did he ask it? It's a loaded question, a bit like a Witness being asked by a householder, "Do you accept the divinity of Christ, yes or no?" Well, there's a trap, because it depends on your definition.

  His question assumes several things:

  1. God has an organization (which is an interpretation peculiar to the Witnesses).

  2. If he does have one, it is the Watch Tower Society. (Please God, no!)

  3. The faithful and discreet slave is more than just a figure in a parable: it is a "class" of Christians as Russell decided. (Again, among all religions, only the Witnesses have decided that parabolic figure represents a group of Christians who would be represented in the last days).

  4. If the Watch Tower Society is indeed God's organization, the faithful and discreet slave "class" actually plays a role. (There is no evidence that those 11,200 self-professed anointed scattered throughout the globe play any role in the formation of doctrine or direction of the beliefs or activities of Witnesses. As Ray Franz pointed out, they mean nothing, zilch, to the Governing Body).

  So why did he ask it? Did someone suggest it to him? Reading threads on this forum, and listening to the recordings at the Death or Obedience blog, it seems this is a question commonly asked at judicial committees. I searched in the "Shepherd the Flock of God" book for a suggestion that elders ask the question, and couldn't find it. Is there some unwritten convention that elders ask that question of those they suspect are apostates, searching for the evidence that would allow them to disfellowship them? Because answering in the negative is an immediate confession that one is no longer a believer, no longer under the spell of the Watch Tower Society.

  Have you ever been asked that question? Do elders share it among themselves as the $64,000 question? Why did he ask it?