User talk:STravelli

Shunning/JW page
I see you've rvtd my deletion of your material. That's fine, but now you need to go to the talk pages of the respective articles and discuss your changes. As they stand they are not POV, and I would suspect would be rvtd again by other editors. Vyselink (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not reinstate information or content a user has expressed a problem with into articles, as you did to shunning. Reinstating your preferred version without discussing runs afoul of the "community" aspect of this project, and as a result your edits have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, it is recommended that you open up a discussion to seek consensus on this matter before reinstating your preferred version on the article's Talk page. Thank you. BlackCab ( TALK ) 22:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, STravelli. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jehovah's Witnesses, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. ''I could be wrong here but if I was a betting man you are a witness. Nothing wrong with you contributing but please be mindful of the verifiability and npov policies. '' Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
I started a thread for you and left you another message on my talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Congregational discipline
Your recent editing history at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlackCab ( TALK ) 22:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're being reverted by several other editors, as is the case at Shunning, that's a sign that there's a problem with your edit. You need to discuss the matter on the talk page rather than continue to keep adding the same material. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It just seems logical that if someone posts something saying that 1+1 = 5 and posts references it should be appropriate to post 1+1= 2 and post a reference accordingly. So if multiple people keep removing my post, which completely follows the rules, I need to go to the talk page of each "remover" and try to convince them that what I've posted is fair and appropriate? I really do want to know. Is that the process? (Message left by User:STravelli at User talk:C.Fred)


 * No. If two people are posting contradictory sourced information, that's a sign that discussion needs to take place on the talk page to determine which sources are better. If you're adding, say, 1+1=10, and it keeps getting removed, that's a sign that you need to discuss at the article's talk page why your edits are valid (in this case, you're using binary math) and get consensus among all the editors. And that discussion takes place on the article's talk page, such as Talk:Shunning. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink
You and I will probably disagree quite a bit when it comes to the numerous JW pages, but as we have so far I think we will be able to be cordial about it, even if we just end up agreeing to disagree. But please feel free to ask me any questions you may have about anything. I will do my best to answer them. Vyselink (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

Thank you Vyselink. I have some dear close friends and family members with whom I/we agree to disagree frequently. The one thing I think you would have to admit is that often people are quoted who are truly biased, or too close to the topic 180 degrees from me or other Jehovah's witnesses. For example someone who has been disfellowshipped or left Jehovah's Witnesses with less than amiable feelings frequently tell others untruths. The "others" then are ready to believe them instead of one of Jehovah's witnesses. Case in point is that we are forbidden to associate with people who are not of our faith. As I expressed at beginning of this paragraph, just not true. STravelli (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You may not be expressly forbidden to not associate with members of other faiths, but the WT makes it clear that, unless you are trying to convert them, you really shouldn't be, since JW's have "The Truth", and other religions are "Babylon" or false religion. And while "We follow the Bible’s advice to “respect everyone”—regardless of their religious beliefs" (jw.org) I shudder to wonder what would happen if it was found out that a brother was constantly talking with someone of a different faith w/out trying to convert them. And you can't really blame disfellowshipped people for being a bit bitter. Look at how you are told to treat them. Vyselink (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, you do not need to duplicate this thread on my page. I will watch your page and will see when you respond. Only start a new section on my page if you are saying something different from here, or starting a new topic. Vyselink (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that last point I wasn't sure how that worked. You're right I can't blame disfellowshipped people for the way they feel. I do understand why they feel that way my point is just that when considering someone as a reliable source for what Jehovah's Witnesses believe in or do at their meetings it's always been odd to me that someone would listen to a person that is no longer a member and is angry with that faith instead of someone who is a current member of said religion. We again need to agree to disagree on what you think our publications are telling us to do or not to do. STravelli (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as disfellowshipped people go the WT publications make it pretty clear, and in my opinion it's incredibly inhuman. You don't disagree that other religions are made out to be "Babylon", false religions, and inspired/controlled by Satan. So I guess I'm wondering how a "good" JW would be viewed if he was constantly around someone of a different religion?


 * Oh, also, don't put a space when you start a new paragraph, it throws off the formatting. If you want to indent your writings, put a : at the beginning and it will do so. The more : you put the farther in it will go. It help differentiate the posts between editors for easier reading/viewing/responding. If you click HERE it will show you what your post appeared as before I removed the space. Vyselink (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Still learning more from you. Thanks for that. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well I do not constantly hang around with people of other religions and I admittedly spend more time with members of my faith than other people but that does not mean that I don't have friends and acquaintances that I spend time with who are not Jehovah's Witnesses. And it's not just me. Let me ask you what you think would happen if as you say the elders our congregation where to find out what I'm doing as I've explained it to you. First of all you should know they know that well about me and have for many many years. Do you think that I would be disfellowshipped or censored somehow? I've a feeling that that may be what you think happens or what other people think happens.STravelli (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would think that disfellowshipment would be an option, depending on if an elder thought it was improper. At the very least loss of congregational privileges, maybe a shunning short of disfellowshipping. Now maybe your congregation is not as "conservative" in following the WT's decisions, but according to the Watchtower August 2015 (Study Edition. See here)


 * "The Scriptures counsel those who want to do God’s will not to love this world and its practices. (Read 1 John 2:15, 16.) The religious, political, and commercial elements of this world—including their information channels—are under the influence of “the god of this system of things,” Satan the Devil. (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 5:19) As Christians, therefore, we need to watch our associations. God’s inspired Word declares this fundamental truth: “Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.”—1 Cor. 15:33.


 * To avoid spoiling our useful habits, we must not have as close associates those who practice bad things. This applies not only to associating with unbelieving wrongdoers but also to associating with those who claim to worship Jehovah but who deliberately violate his laws. If such professing Christians engage in serious wrongdoing and do not repent, we do not continue to associate with them.—Rom. 16:17, 18.


 * If we were to associate with those who do not obey God’s laws, we might have the tendency to do what they do in order to be accepted by them.


 * We must keep separate from the wicked system of things around us and seek upbuilding associates among the millions of our faithful brothers and sisters. Sticking with those who are guided by God-given wisdom will help us to “stand firm in the faith” during these very difficult times."


 * So while you, yourself, being I think you said somewhere a JW for something like 50 years, may not have that issue, others might. But a younger/newer JW? Being told that the guy he grew up with who happens to be Jewish or Muslim or Catholic or w/e is under the influence of Satan? And then still continued to socialize with him? That young person may be in trouble. And we know how a wayward or disfellowshipped Witness is treated. Vyselink (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

But you see everything you're quoting there from our magazines does not apply to someone who has friends and acquaintances who are not Jehovah's Witnesses there must be something much more serious that takes place for disfellowshipping to occur. I know, without a doubt, that most people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand when and for what reason(s) disfellowshipping occurs. Disfellowshipping does not occur just because someone has friends or acquaintances who are not Jehovah's Witnesses. I've been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 50 years, I am an elder and a pioneer and have always had friends and acquaintances who are not Jehovah's Witnesse. Now if anyone of them asked me to go to a bar and drink all night long and get drunk would I do that? No, but I can still associate with them and they can be my friends. You can be sure that I will be cautious about whom I choose as associates and friends, who are not Jehovah's Witnesses. And I choose carefully the times I may associate with and places I might go with them. For example the thought about over drinking. But none of that negates my having friends and acquaintances who are not Jehovah's Witnesses and there are no repercussions of discipline. STravelli (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vyselink. I'm not trying to engage in false flattery but I can tell from the few brief exchanges we've had that you are a man of integrity and fairness. I'm sure you realize that trying to have a discussion, with anyone, regarding religion and politics is like a ticking time bomb in some cases. I've always found it odd that people think it's wrong to discuss such topics. They both can be discussed rationally and with fairness to each other. Both of them are vital to our future. Anyway thank you for all your help and listening to my side even if we agree to disagree at times. I'm sure we'll "talk" more. I'm confused by the vitriol of BlackCab but I will try hard to understand. STravelli (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is a ticking time bomb. However I must disagree again with your opinion on the WT quoted above. Especially "we must not have as close associates those who practice bad things". The definition of "bad things" in the eyes of JW's is anyone/thing who is not a JW. Not that the people themselves are personally bad/evil, but that because they have not accepted "the Truth", they are obviously being influenced by Satan. Later on in that same WT it's stated "Although we want to be kind even to those who do not follow God’s laws, we should not become their intimate associates or close friends". While you yourself appear to be a far more thoughtful Witness than most whom I have met, this conversation started off with you saying how disfellowshipped people tell "untruths". I submit that it is not untruth that they are saying, but what they believed they were told during their stint as a JW. Or, indeed, what they may have been specifically told by an older Witness or elder, as I was as a young man. I personally was told by the brother who conducted my Bible Study with me when I was 14 (who later became an elder) that playing sports, having friends, etc outside the organization was a bad idea, and could lead me down the path of 'unrighteousness'. While I was not "ordered" to not associate with such people, it was pretty clear to me that I wasn't supposed to. And from the words themselves of not only this past WT but of NUMEROUS others that we do not have the space here to get into, it seems to me they can't be considered wrong when reading the words above, or if they experienced the same situation that I did.


 * My personal experiences with the JW's were not negative to any real extent. The people I met I liked, and the only thing I truly disliked was how they treated someone who had been disfellowshipped. I remember as a young man (my mother had been off/on studying while I was a child, and I didn't live with her on a regular basis until I was 14, so I was introduced late to the JW's) that this person had done something, I don't remember what, and I was appalled that they not only completely shunned him but acted as if he was less than scum. What words were spoken ABOUT him, never to him, were unkind, not dealing with his sincere attempts to reform himself but constantly harping on the "sins" he had committed instead. I just re-read the 2010 "Shepherd the Flock of God", which is the latest I have, and fully 60+ pages, of its 138 not including index, is about the processes of, reasons for, etc of disfellowshipping, and a whopping 4 on how to reinstate.


 * I must admit that I find it both interesting and surprising that you have read Penton, Franz etc, as if you are an elder then surely you must know the Society's thoughts on reading "apostate" literature. Even the WT I quoted above's next section is on that matter.


 * As for, I do not know his personal situation. He was clearly a part of the Witnesses for far longer than I was, obviously a baptized member (which I was not), and by the way he speaks possibly someone with extensive experience, perhaps an elder or higher, although I do not know for sure. In my, not frequent but not rare, dealings with him on WP, I have found him personally to be helpful, along with , especially when I was a young(er) man, as they led me to many then unknown (to me) books/authors such as Penton, Franz etc.


 * Thank you for the compliment. It appears that you as well are a person of integrity and honor, and while we will quite clearly disagree on most if not all matters concerning JW's, I do believe that we can have a civil discussion on such matters. Vyselink (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A question of inspiration
Your question at the JW talk page was: Would you agree that no member of the governing body thinks that they are inspired in the way that the authors or pen men of the Bible are inspired?

I’m sure you asked it with good intent, but it’s a loaded question. JWs have their own special meaning for the word “inspired” that differs from the common understanding. I might paint a picture or write a song and say I was inspired by Picasso or Bob Dylan, but there is no suggestion of divine empowerment or illumination. WTS publications use the word “inspire” in the sense that God’s spirit was said to have “breathed” on men causing them to write the texts that became the Bible. Those books say prophets became “subject to inspiration” and “had their minds borne along” by such a process. Those books say God’s spirit “implanted “ in the minds of prophets messages emanating from a divine source.

Having read a good deal of the writings of both Russell and Rutherford, who formulated the vast majority of modern JW teachings, I would venture to say that both men considered they were indeed being used by God in such a manner, that his spirit was implanting in their minds the concepts and interpretations that they then used to formulate the highly complex set of WTS doctrines. Russell was convinced he was the “faithful and discreet slave” and wrote that he was being used as God’s “mouthpiece” at what he saw as a turning point in human history. Rutherford, on one of the rare occasions in which a WTS writer has attempted to explain the process through which “new light” is revealed, added a supernatural touch by referring to “invisible deputies” and “invisible angels” transmitting messages. Both men also wrote emphatically of their teachings being “indisputable”.

The WTS no longer uses those terms. It says Watchtower writers are neither inspired nor infallible, thus explaining to the faithful why they continually change doctrines – even those as fundamental as dates that were once key parts of the “end times” chronology (1799, 1874 and 1925) and the very identity of the “faithful slave” class with whom God is supposedly using as his channel to reveal “new light”.

Instead the WTS uses other terms to describe how it is moved by God to act as his sole representative “organisation” on earth.

I have made a short, random, list of phrases from recent Watchtowers that carefully avoid using the word “inspired” but which are clearly calculated to evoke precisely the same meaning, ie, suggest to members that God is actively involved in their writings.


 * God is said to “reveal” deep things during the time of the end, and holy spirit is said to “help” members of the slave to discern deep truths that were not previously understood. (WT July 15 2010 p23) Presumably this would involve some input into the minds of those GB members, which equates with the WTS definition of inspiration.


 * Jehovah is said to “use his spirit to lead his organization in the direction that he wants it to go”. Holy spirit is said to be “at work in bringing Bible truths to light” via the Watchtower. (WT April 15 2010, pg 9,19) The use of holy spirit to bring to light certain “truths” and to “lead” in a direction again requires direct input by God into the minds of certain men. This too equates with the WTS definition of inspiration.


 * “At that time, the lifesaving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.” (WT Nov 15 2013, p 20) This ominous and rather worrying warning strongly suggests that because it is not practical from a human standpoint, the instructions passed on via the Governing Body will be from a non-human source. Clearly, direct input would be required from angels, God or Jesus. If so, this would again fit the WTS definition of divine inspiration.


 * “How do you react when Jehovah, the Source of spiritual enlightenment, sheds light on ‘the deep things of God’ found in the Bible?” (WT Sep 15 2011 pg 14) If God is shedding light on things, that means he is again implanting thoughts into human minds. That’s inspiration by the WTS definition.


 * In the April 15 2011 Watchtower, the Governing Body was equated with Moses, a prophet who in the Bible account was appointed by God, performed miracles and spoke directly with God. Witnesses are told they should be as deferential to the Governing Body as they would to Moses, implying the GB has the same imprimatur and channel of communication that Moses had. Was he inspired? Yep. Is the GB? Readers are left to make their own conclusion.


 * “Jesus Christ is the assigned Leader of the congregation. He has delegated some authority to a faithful slave class, made up of faithful spirit-anointed Christians.” (WT April 15 2011, p3,4) If Jesus has delegated authority, he must be communicating with those men, implanting in their minds his instructions from a divine source. This is the JW definition of inspiration.


 * Additionally, WTS publications have asserted many times that God uses JWs as a “prophet” organisation. (See WT 4/1/72, WT 5/1/97). In 1980, the Watchtower said God gives the Witnesses "special knowledge that others do not have ... advance knowledge about this system's end". (10/15) How and to whom is this advance knowledge imparted? In the “Nations” book the JWs are equated with the prophet Ezekiel, faithfully delivering a message. Who provided this message and how, if not through inspiration?

With each of those quotes, the Watchtower suggests to rank and file JWs that the Governing Body has a direct link to both God and Jesus, who instruct it in what it should then teach through publications and meetings. Yet the WTS provides no hint of the mechanism by which those men are directed or enlightened.

To return to your question, I am unable to state whether GB members think they are “inspired” or not. I once met Lloyd Barry, but gained nothing from that conversation that would help answer that question. In Raymond Franz’s excellent book “Crisis of Conscience”, Franz details the procedures, discussions and votes that took place at some of the GB meetings he attended. If those descriptions are accurate (and they have the ring of truth), they strongly argue against any divine direction, instead emphasising the presence of the usual human characteristics of pride, ego, dogmatism and submission. In the end, I believe that Governing Body members either (a) do believe they are, yet decline to state this explicitly, or (b) believe they are not, yet deliberately and deceptively couch their statements in ways that leave JW members with the impression that they receive “directions” or instruction from God and/or Jesus. BlackCab ( TALK ) 11:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts BlackCab. I would think you could still answer a simple yes or no question. It's pretty straight forward. I'm not trying to trap you. You have every right to not answer it of course. Perhaps Vyselink or someone else will answer it. I too, have spent time with members of the governing body, the current governing body. My experiences are the opposite of yours or Raymond Franz and I would think you would have to look at anything he says, knowing he is biased. I personally have read the Bible cover to cover 15 times and 9 of those times were different translations than the New World Translation. I don't say this to boast, it's just that after careful study of the Bible, Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek and 53 years as one of Jehovah's witnesses, I truly believe and can see in my everyday life that Jehovah's witnesses, despite there imperfections, we all have, teach the truths of God's word. But again we disagree and that's okay, that's what makes us human. Also sorry about the run-on sentences. I'm nowhere near as fluid a writer as others, including yourself. :-) STravelli (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I know you will admit that, you and others, believe the GB thinks they are inspired but won't admit they believe that to be the case. This is clear from many prior reasonings using quotes from the Watchtower to support it. However, you claim to not know whether the GB believes they are inspired in the same sense Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc were inspired. It is quite obvious they do not believe they are inspired in the same way as Bible pen men. Again, if they believed they are inspired in that way they would HAVE to include their writings IN THE BIBLE. That point simply cannot be denied. STravelli (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to include my two cents on this matter, the original question, Would you agree that no member of the governing body thinks that they are inspired in the way that the authors or pen men of the Bible are inspired? is unfortunately impossible to answer, as we can not know what others are thinking, or what they truly believe, etc. I think BlackCab's point, which if I am correct I agree with, is that regardless of what they may think, they make it clear in their writings that they are a special class of people, above everyone else, and they change beliefs (through "new light" etc) as they see fit. Example: For over 80 years the 'faithful and discreet slave' class was seen as all of the "anointed" (before that it was Pastor Russell himself). Then in 2013, the GB decided that only THEY were the 'faithful and discreet slave' class (July 15, 2013 WT). So while they may be careful enough to not actually say they are inspired (as they understand that word) they do set themselves far above the "rank and file" JW, and, since 2013, even other "anointed" ones. So the answer to your question can not be a simple yes/no. A) Because as formulated it is impossible to answer your question, as I said above, and B) they are careful enough not to use the language of "inspired", even though they clearly write their pronouncements as such. However, as BlackCab has pointed out, the words they do use are clearly meant to imply their own superiority/inspiration is given from god. Vyselink (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I say again Vyselink, though you claim you cannot know what someone else thinks or believes others have said they KNOW the governing body believes and thinks they are inspired. You said "they do set themselves far above the "rank and file" JW, and, since 2013, even other "anointed" ones." That is absolutely true I believe that as well. But that is not the same as they're claiming to be inspired. I'm still not getting a response to, if they believe they are inspired the same as Bible pen men they would have to include their writings in the Bible. That fact cannot be denied. STravelli (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My response to that idea would be while they may believe they are inspired, people are not usually stupid enough to change the Bible ad nauseam or willy nilly. Even Joseph Smith knew better than to change the Bible, so he wrote a whole new book. JW's, as I'm sure you would agree, have not gone as far as the Mormons, but they have written millions of pages over the years that they clearly see as a supplement to the Bible. Actually, even more than that, they have clearly stated that without their understanding of the Bible people will not get the proper message. Vyselink (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said in this last post. Well, here is the definition of Biblical inspiration from Wikipedia: "Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God." Now I think, not sure yet, that you would agree the GB do not feel or think their inspiration, though denied by them, meets this definition. That they believe their writings are the Word of God but choose not to include their writings in the Bible, then of course I give up. Another point upon which we agree to disagree. STravelli (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the GB does not say that they meet that definition of inspired, but again what they feel/think is unknowable. If you were to rephrase your question to "Does the GB say that they are inspired in the same way as the writers of the Bible?" then we would agree on that. But they do make clear in their writings that they are inspired by god, even if not to the extent of the Biblical prophets. Although the GB have compared themselves to prophets in the past. Vyselink (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This was my original question... "Would you agree that no member of the governing body thinks that they are inspired in the way that the authors or pen men of the Bible are inspired?" I guess it's slightly different from what you asked. I do accept the way your question is phrased and your answer. We still disagree on the latter part of your previous post. At least we found some common ground. Hallelujah. :-). Your statement above "but again what they feel/think is unknowable." I can't believe you really think that is true. Though the GB make statements that they are not inspired, yours and others very arguments using watchtower quotes, make the claim you do know what they think. Since you're basically saying their other statements belie their claim not to be inspired. You're obviously saying they think/feel a different way than their claims or statements. STravelli (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Real quick. If you decide that you want to say more later, it's typically easier to add a new note than to change a previous one. On talk pages or with discussions that last a while, it's easier to see the new material if you add a new note than it is if you change a past one. Also, I responded to your query on my talk page.


 * I have never claimed to know for sure what they think. I see their statements and actions as highly suggesting they believe they are inspired, and have used that information accordingly. That is what happens in historical research. You take someones actions, and someones words, and you figure out what they meant if you are unable to ask them directly. For instance, with all the writings and information we have, Caesar never said he wanted to be emperor, and Augustus never claimed that title either. However, from their actions, it is quite clear they thought of themselves as such.


 * As for the GB/WTBTS not comparing themselves to prophets, I submit the following quotes:


 * "This was the test - the coming down of fire; and the fulfillment exactly on time has proved that Pastor Russell was one of God's great reformers and prophets." (Watchtower 1919 Oct 1 p.297) Not the GB, but you can see where it began.


 * "… this chronology is not of man, but of God. … the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the realm of chance into that of proven certainty. … the chronology of present truth [is]… not of human origin." (Watch Tower 1922 Jul 1 p.217) This is Rutherford of course, but again it sets a precedent


 * "God uses The Watchtower to communicate to his people: it does not consist of men's opinions." (Watchtower, January 1, 1942 p.5)


 * "Respond to the directions of the organization as you would the voice of God" (Watchtower, June 15, 1957 p. 370) Yeah. No explanation needed.


 * "In 1942 the "faithful and discreet slave" guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up." (Watchtower 1960 Jul 15 p.444) This one is even more direct, as this time instead of the organization, which COULD be interpreted as the JW's overall, here it specifically mentions the 'faithful and discreet slave', which up until that point was seen as the anointed ones, who would in 1971 form the GB, only 11 years after this was published.


 * "Those who do not read can hear, for God has on earth today a prophet like organization, just as he did in the days of the early Christian congregation." (Watchtower 1964 Oct 1 p.601) Direct comparison to the prophets


 * "Today, a remnant of this 'faithful slave' is still alive on earth. They occupy a position similar to that of Paul ... when that apostle said of the wonderful truths ...: "It is to us God has revealed them through his spirit." (Watchtower 1982, June 1) Comparison to Paul, who while not exactly a prophet, is pretty high up in the old food chain.


 * "In the past, Jehovah ruled and revealed truths through individuals, such as prophets, kings and apostles. Jesus said that during his royal presence, he would identify a faithful body of followers, a 'faithful and discreet slave'. In 1919 this slave was identified as the remnant of anointed Christians. Since then, as represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, it has been the center of theocracy on earth." (Watchtower Jan 15 1994, p. 16) Again, direct relation of the GB to "prophets, kings and apostles".


 * Now, it is true that they have couched their language, just like with the word inspire, so that that it never directly says that they are prophets. But again the implication is there. Vyselink (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Point(s) taken. I should have put the quotes from others who clearly said they know what someone meant or believed. I get that all the time as I think I've mentioned before. Someone letting me know they're convinced they know what I believe better than I do. Anywho I thank you for your interchange with me. STravelli (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Above, you quoted 'Wikipedia's definition' of Biblical inspiration, but that too is not compatible with the distinction JWs assert between 'inspired' versus 'spirit-directed'. Are you saying that you do not believe the Governing body is "led or influenced by God", or are you saying you disagree with 'Wikipedia's definition' of 'inspired'?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You also asserted that "if [the GB] believed they are inspired in that way they would HAVE to include their writings IN THE BIBLE". However, that is incorrect. The reason they make a distinction (ill-defined as it is) between 'inspired' and 'directed' is to disclaim responsibility when predictions fail. This was learned as a result of more definite claims made by Russell and Rutherford that did not eventuate.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You said you've read the Bible a lot of times and believe that JW (interpretations) are fully consistent with it. Many Christians of other denominations also read the Bible (despite what is claimed in JW literature about them), and they also find their interpretations are completely compatible too. Also, reading the Bible is quite different to studying it. For example, you might simply gloss over Revelation 11:2 where it says that the period of the nations trampling Jerusalem is 42 months (3.5 years), and then completely ignore the fact it is the same period as that described at Luke 21:24. To ignore that, you might employ confirmation bias and circular reasoning about the Watch Tower Society's self-appointment as an authority, but it doesn't change the fact that people of other denominations (as well as historians) see a plain connection between the 3.5 years and the Roman assault on Jerusalem. So not only are the JW interpretations not as iron clad as you might think, but it is also unremarkable that any person of any denomination (including you) considers their group's interpretations to be 'the truth'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * STravelli, you continue to ask whether GB members believe they are inspired in the same way Bible writers were. I think they would regard Paul, Matthew, Moses etc as being on a higher level of inspiration than them, but their writings indicate they do believe they are special, elevated people who will have an even more special, elevated role in the new system, particularly with the writing of "new scrolls". I reckon they'd expect that their names would one day be as venerated as those of the apostles. Franz, in Crisis of Conscience, applied to them the phrase "captives of a concept" (p.345-6, 391-2) and his comments at those pages are very insightful. You have already described Franz as "biased". I would say he wrote from a position (someone who chose to leave the JWs), just as you write from a position (someone who chooses to stick with the JWs). His role as a GB member gave him very rare insights into the workings of the organization. His book is far from the lies, bitterness and vitriol many JWs would expect it to be; it's a reasoned discussion, supported by a wealth of documentation. And unlike WTS publications, he doesn't tell his readers what they should think. I recommend it.


 * To spare you the need to speculate about my past involvement with the JWs, I'll provide this link to a section that was on my user page for some time before I removed it following a complaint from another editor. It explains my background and motivations, but in the end I decided it was unnecessary on my user page, especially if JW editors could find it offensive. In total I spent about 22 years in the JWs before leaving. In the year after I left I learned far more about the religion than I'd ever known while I was in it. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 23:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe as do all Jehovah's witnesses that the governing body is directed by God's spirit. But that does not follow the definition of the Wikipedia quote. It has been stated many times in Jehovah's witnesses literature that their predictions have failed. I also firmly believe that predictions made have failed. That to me only proves that when they say they don't believe they are inspired that they truly do believe that. This statement of yours "The reason they make a distinction (ill-defined as it is) between 'inspired' and 'directed' is to disclaim responsibility when predictions fail." Proves my point that someone can and often does claim they know what someone believes or feels. At the least it is a reprehensible imputing of motive. Some sort of mind-reading. STravelli (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC). STravelli (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget about the "definition of the Wikipedia quote". Just look at the Watch Tower Society's own defintion of inspiration: "The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source." (Insight, volume 1, page 1202) In what way is their use of "spirit-directed" different from their definition of "inspiration"? Does "spirit-directed" mean something other than "under the direction of a spirit"?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My beliefs, according to you are unremarkable, Jeffro. That is fine that you believe that, just as it is fine I believe them to be accurate and very important to me. BlackCab, I have no desire to speculate anything about you. STravelli (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is true that I don't consider your beliefs especially remarkable, that isn't what I actually said. I said it is unremarkable that you (or any person of any denomination) agrees with the interpretations of the group of which they are a member.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And there is nothing remarkable or mysterious about understanding that the reason JW publications do not claim to be 'inspired' is associated with plausible deniability of failed predictions. It doesn't take a 'mind reader' to assess quite predictable courses of action.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I shall rephrase. Though it's unremarkable, to you, that I agree with the interpretations of the group of which I am a member, such is still my belief and quite important to me. I also must apologize for giving the I mpression that I just read the Bible. I, of course, study the Bible carefully and have done so for many years. STravelli (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I never questioned that 'your beliefs are important to you', which is self-evident from the discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree Jeffro you can predict courses of action, as you say. It is also true you, personally, can be wrong about such predictions just as JW have been wrong about predictions. So it tends not to support an argument. Of which I know you will disagree. Unfortunately we reach yes sir, no sir, yes sir, and so on.:-) Therefore I will not be adding anymore to this topic. But thank you for your thoughts. STravelli (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I anticipated that you might conflate the predictability of a motivation for mundane actions in the past with making outlandish predictions about supernatural future events. They're obviously totally different concepts though. Apparently I'm better at prediction than I thought. Maybe I'm inspired spirit-directed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1943, about 18 months after Rutherford died, the Watchtower published an article in which it repeatedly, explicitly stated that God had directed it, and that these instructions, printed in quote marks to render them as actual, direct speech, were as binding on members as a direction from God to Jesus. The 'slave class' was explicitly described as God's mouthpiece — that is, God was addressing humans directly through that 'slave class' just as he did through his Old Testament prophets. The article, about "Righteous requirements" for JWs, includes these quotes:
 * "The Son has returned as King; he has come to his temple. He has appointed his 'faithful and wise servant', who is his visible mouthpiece."
 * "The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further and makes them more practicable by further instructing us through his 'faithful and wise servant'. He says, 'Let us assign the field, the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and regular companies of Jehovah's witnesses in an orderly way ... He says the requirement for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month ... and for company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.' These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us ... this expression of the Lord's will should be the end of all controversy."
 * "The Lord through his 'faithful and wise servant' now states to us, 'Let us cover our territory four times in six months'. That becomes our organization instructions and has the same binding force on us that his statement to the Logos had when he said, 'Let us make man in our image'. It is our duty to accept this additional instruction and obey it."
 * The Watchtower was 1 July 1943, pages 204-206. I wonder if STravelli believes (a) these were inspired writings or (b) the author of that article did. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 04:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Some people wish something so hard that they actually put words into their mouths! "I know they never say they are inspired but they mean it!" LOL The evidence is clear to all that want to examine it without bias- but hey Jehovah allows "an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie." (2 Thessalonians 2:11) Therefore you will not correct all the errors on this site.  Look at the difficulty you are having with something so clear.  I know they call the flower Blue and the car Red and there is no record of them ever saying that the the flower is Red.  I also know they have clearly stated that the flower is never Red but that is not what they mean, they actually mean that flower is Red. Perhaps they are color blind?? Even the dog gets tired of chasing its tail in circles. Sometimes it is best to sit and let the others play.Johanneum (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your analogy would only be valid if they had not published a definition of 'red' that is indistinguishable from the plain definition of 'blue'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Other problems with your analogy are the fact that 'red' and 'blue' have specific meanings that can be verified rather than invented unverifiable unfalsifiable claims, and there is a vested interest (plausible deniablity for failure of predictions) in claiming that the 'flower' is not 'red'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Context Context Context. Like what Dan Wallace said about hiding money in the bank.  What bank?  Chase? Citi? Discover?  No in the sand at the bend of the river.Johanneum (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just as well the Watch Tower Society has defined "inspiration". Oh... but... what's this... they said it means "produced under the direction of a spirit"... But... that's what "spirit-directed"... oh dear.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)