Posts by notsurewheretogo

Explain how that works? Jehovah DOES direct them but they don't listen? If they make mistakes even if Jehoover directs them then the result is still the same as if Jehoover were not directing them...ie the doctrines are wrong.

The GB cannot say they ARE directed by God yet get things wrong...that impiles God is getting it wrong.

If the GB get things wrong policy wise and doctrine wise just what is being "directed" by God then?

The cleaning rota?

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

The most common thing we hear from our JW family is...."OBEY, OBEY, OBEY." Obedience is one of the major bullet points of being part of a cult.

But most dubs will have never read that the GB can be wrong. Most "think" they are inspired by God (even though the GB said a long time ago they are not) so to see it in writing and discuss it at the WT meeting will be interesting to these ones who are like OBEY OBEY OBEY.

Point it out to them that they may be pissing off God by obeying a wrong doctrine.

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

At the WT study, JWs will marvel at how humble the GB is to admit that they are neither inspired nor infallible.
Then they will resolve to double down on obeying them without question and to wait on Jehovah to make any corrections that may be needed.

Interesting though.

How will Jehovah make corrections given that He is not directing the GB?

How can anyone obey without question when what you are obeying may be wrong?

Imagine a child needing a blood transfusion now to save their lives and the parents have just read that WT study article that the GB may get doctrines wrong. How can they obey them by refusing a blood transfusion when the GB MAY be wrong about their interpretation of the meaning of that scripture about blood?

You may have future JC's where the person involved can say "well the GB may have it wrong, look it says here that they can err in doctrines".

A dub can turn round and say to an elder "Is it wise to obediently follow 100% what the GB says when they themselves admit they can be wrong in matters?"

What is now the difference between say Catholics (a man in charge, no direct inspiration from God and can get doctrines wrong and change them) and the GB (group of men in charge, no direct inspiration from God and can get doctrines wrong and change them)?

This is why I say this WT opens up a can of worms in my opinion. To say, in print, the GB can get it wrong means if anyone follows it blindly and obediently then it is just the same as other religions in that they are following men.

And to follow it blindly just adds to the fact it is indeed a cult.

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

Cracking list of references @punkofnice

@Tenacious...the thing is, they do not "receive" any light at all...according to what they now say in the Feb WT...they just "guess".

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

When I said "the anointed on the earth" I was meaning that to explain the increasing number on earth today they may eventually just say that those in the HQ that are on the GB are the only ones anointed...in line with the recent change that the FDS are only those at the HQ.

I think they may change just who the anointed or...not get rid of the idea. But either way, any change would be major...one they can now justify if they can now err in doctrinal matters!

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

So what was the motive for them to specifically say they err in doctrine?

Larger amounts of dubs being miffed at all the recent changes? Sort that by saying the GB err sometimes.

Big changes coming in core doctrine? Again sort that by saying the GB err sometimes.

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

But there is a difference in saying we are not infallible and "we can err in doctrine" though is there not?

The GB may have said in the past they are infallible but that doesn't reference doctrines...it could mean they are just imperfect men and therefore have the same imperfections as us.

Yet, this time they actually say they CAN err in doctrines. To me, I see that as fundamentally different and pretty significant...but then that is just my feeling on it.

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

@cobweb as I say...I have never seen them say in print "we can err". The 1981 apology written by Ray Franz on the 1975 isn't really an apology and quite frankly doesn't really admit they can err.

As I've said they have said in the past they are not inspired but they have never said "we can make mistakes" as far as I can recall.

To be so direct in saying this, I think, opens up the way for them to change major doctrines.

80

Major Doctrinal Changes Must Be On The Way

by notsurewheretogo in

the statement in the article "who is leading gods people today?

" in the feb 17th study edition of the wt is very interesting.. it states: ""the g.b.

is neither inspired nor infallible" ..we can err .in doctrinal matters....".

notsurewheretogo

Really, I've never seen it in print that they can err in doctrinal matters...they have said in the past they are not inspired but they have said they are spirit-directed...so to say they are NOT inspired AND infallible is pretty big as you cannot be spirit-directed IF you are wrong.

Thus, I see what they say in this magazine as a bit different to past sayings about being "inspired".