Marvin Shilmer

Joined

• started 433 topics
• posted 4,004 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Marvin Shilmer

• 
  81

  Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

  i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

  a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Fisherman writes:

  Believe it. Prior to Pentecost, God used the Jews exclusively.

  That's demonstrably false.

  Evidence: Job
• 
  81

  Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

  i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

  a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The fact that Jackson couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't answer with a simple "Yes" or "No" proves one thing: He is a coward.

  Boy-oh-boy do I agree with that!!! Responding with a big fat and emphatic "YES!!!" is precisely what every JW has been taught to think, and is why Jackson's response is so useful.

  Jackson has given JWs a way to answer the litmus test question in a way that will leave a typical elder's head spinning in stunned silence. Hey! That sounds like a movie!
• 
  81

  Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

  i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

  a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The elders will shoot that response down very quickly by saying that Geoffrey Jackson is not the faithful and discreet slave - that the faithful and discreet slave is only operational when the governing body is acting collectively. Thus Geoffrey Jackson's words to the commission does not carry the weight that you think it does. They will say he was only following Jesus' counsel to be cautious as a serpent but innocent as a dove. They will say that Geoffrey Jackson merely said that it would "seem to be presumptuous" not that it actually was presumptuous, and that he went on to mention the faithful slave arrangement in Matthew 24:45.

  That's fine. My response to all that would be:

  I still agree with what Jackson said and I see no reason to speculate further. Do you?
• 
  81

  Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

  i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

  a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Marvin - this thought just came to me: I wonder how Jackson himself would respond to your reference if he was presiding over your judicial committee?

  I don't see how he could dismiss or disagree with his own words, but of course in a star-chamber session those with the power can do whatever they want, unfortunately with near impunity. Regardless, my point is that with his works Jackson in effect granted a means to say what a lot of us have always said: the Governing Body thinks itself the "faithful slave" and to think this means the Governing Body is the sole spokesperson for God is presumptuous. When confronted with this response, and the fact that a current GB members has publicly endorsed the notion, even a hard-nosed Society Man will have a hard time asking you to speculate further on the matter or, worse, convict you of apostasy for repeating something a GB member already said and said publicly.

  And maybe this is irrelevant to the discussion but it still tends to put things in perspective:
  my dad used to always say "it's not going to make any difference a hundred years from now".
  All things must pass. JWs are like the Millerites... and they will fizzle out too.

  That's all well, good and true. But my recommendation is for those living here and now who want to say what Jackson said to those who ask. Because Jackson said it then it puts legs on the response.
• 
  83

  As a Matter of Conscience, I Am Resigning from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Sail Away in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  after listening to the hearings of the australian royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, i am no longer content to have simply walked away from the organization.

  as a matter of conscience, i do not want my name linked with the organization in any way.

  i know this letter has been posted previously, and i thank the author.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The OP letter is well put together and hits hard.

  Alternately, a current JW who wants to disengage the religion can write a short letter to local elders stating the following:

  Dear ...

  This letter is to inform that several things about the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (a subsidiary corporation used by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses as expressed in each of these organization's legal charters) have come to plague my Bible-trained conscience to a point where I'm very uncomfortable engaging in activities organized by it such as attending meetings at a Kingdom Hall, assembly or convention, or engaging in its public outreach work.

  For the foreseeable future I do not wish to be approached by any authority appointed by one of the aforementioned entities carrying out their duties in that capacity. Personal social approach is always welcomed and appreciated. But, again, I do not want to be further burdened by coercion from these organization's appointed authorities acting in that capacity. I've shared my views with the aforementioned organizations. If they want they will share my concerns with you. That is up to them. It is not my intention to resist anything or anyone, except where I'm compelled by moral, ethical and legal standards I was raised and taught to embrace as my own and that are or should be well known to each of you.

  I have not stopped following Jesus and have not stopped loving all of you. When I meet any of you in public or private I'll always welcome the opportunity to offer encouragement or otherwise interact as love compels me. My pray is that the several troublesome things I've learned about the aforementioned organizations from the aforementioned organizations are dealt with and changed. I'll watch for these changes, and if they occur I'll then reconsider engaging in their organized activities. Until then, as David responded to Saul when he implored David to "Come back," I am compelled to proceed on my way and leave the many troublesome things I see for God to deal with.--(See 1 Samuel 26:21-25)

  Sincerely,

  
  
• 
  81

  Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body is the "faithful slave"?

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this question is known to be posed by jws to other jws as an acid test of loyalty.

  i'm not the first to notice what i'm about to point out and comment accordingly, but today i felt compelled to add a short article on my blog highlighting the new language that governing body member geoffrey jackson supplies as a response.

  a person who honestly hesitates to respond with a robust "yes!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  For the purposes of the WT publications there is no doubt, no question.
  The GB are Jehovah's spoke person, there is nowhere else to get salvation, you cannot question them.

  Precisely! Which is exactly why this statement from Mr. Jackson is so useful. If it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander.

  An elder sitting on the receiving end of what Mr. Jackson said will have his head twisted trying to figure out how to respond because he's been trained to hold the GB as the sole spokesperson for God, only to have Jackson yank that right out from underneath their foundation.
• 
  14

  Jackson on Deuteronomy 22 and "two witnesses"

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in his testimony before the royal commission geoffrey jackson said he did not have the answer to the question posed to him regarding deuteronomy 22:25-27 and was unable to ask jesus at this time.

  two things stand out to me about this piece of jackson's testimony.

  1. he said he could not ask jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  It does in principle state that even when there is one witness, a man can be put to death.

  The text never suggests that. Rather, your presuming that in order to force a bifurcation. This is the making of a false dilemma.

  The basis for putting the man to death is not mentioned.

  Then it is false to say "in principle even when there is one witness, a man can be put to death".

  This is what Mr. Angus wanted Mr. Jackson to explore as it seems to deviate from the position that an allegation can only be acted upon when there are two witnesses. In that situation, the man can confess. Then there would be the two witnesses required for executing him. Mr. Jackson would have said that to get out of the noose.

  I'm sure Stewart wanted Jackson to explore alternate means of achieving justice for a victim. That's fine. My point is that using the text of Deuteronomy 22 was a gamble because that text does not suggest any person would be punished based solely on an allegation made by one person. It's just not in the text. You have to read that into the text to put it there.

  A secondary point, but revealing nevertheless, is that His Highness, Mr. Guardian-of-Doctrine Jackson failed to see the blatant false dilemma when it was presented to him supposedly with scriptural merit. How can anyone be some kind of Guardian-of-Doctrine when they don't immediately see a false dilemma presented on the very turf which they are supposedly a guardian of?
• 
  14

  Jackson on Deuteronomy 22 and "two witnesses"

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in his testimony before the royal commission geoffrey jackson said he did not have the answer to the question posed to him regarding deuteronomy 22:25-27 and was unable to ask jesus at this time.

  two things stand out to me about this piece of jackson's testimony.

  1. he said he could not ask jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Marvin, I would like to think your reasoning is close to how this matter was actually resolved by the ancient peoples. However, I think you unintentionally bring an enlightened, human rights perspective to a collection of laws that were often brutal and peremptory in their everyday application.

  I don't disagree with that. As mentioned earlier, more than anything else punitive measure was determined by whether the woman was owned by a man (or ownership was promised, i.e., "engaged"). From a contemporary perspective the whole concept was practically barbaric! That said, what astounded me was that Mr. Guardian-Of-Doctrine Jackson didn't know this thing inside-out and realize a false dilemma was presented to him. The man has snake oil; but sharp he's not.
• 
  22

  Geoffrey Jackson's Amnesia at the Royal Commission!

  by The Searcher in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  at 20:00 - 21:30 in his testimony, mr. geoffrey jackson - in answer to mr. stewart's question about the governing body claiming to be god's spokespersons - claimed that it would be presumptuous of them to say that they were the only spokespersons which god was using.

  mr. jackson doesn't seem to know what he and his fellow g.b.

  members - and the providers of his lifestyle, the wtbts - actually teach as "bible truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The good thing, though, Marvin, is he has expressed his "view" on the matter under oath.
  In the context of the powers of the Royal Commission, his "view" paves the way for a subsequent policy shift within the organization.
  This demonstrates that sometimes the light gets brighter not due to "the holy spirit" but because secular authorities threaten penalties and public shaming.

  I could not agree more, and was glad to hear Mr. Jackson assert that elders SHOULD encourage victims and/or guardians to report these things.
• 
  14

  Jackson on Deuteronomy 22 and "two witnesses"

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in his testimony before the royal commission geoffrey jackson said he did not have the answer to the question posed to him regarding deuteronomy 22:25-27 and was unable to ask jesus at this time.

  two things stand out to me about this piece of jackson's testimony.

  1. he said he could not ask jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Maybe the "circumstantial evidence" that is left out in this text is the woman's emotional condition itself, who can say...

  The most likely scenario I can see would be the accused having evidence of or on his person of a rape. Though the rape itself went unwitnessed by anyone other than the victim and perpetrator, had the perpetrator been seen, for instance, coming home in a state of emotional or physical dishevel, with wounds, or maybe with torn or even bloody clothing, and the coincidence of this was realized once the rape allegation was leveled, the person who made the observation might well have plied the person to ultimately, though reluctantly, admit what they did (either privately or publicly). Then there would be corroboration. But, then, the text seems more concerned with the woman's status (engaged or not engaged!!!) than the violence forced upon her!