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)
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:
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)
Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlackCab ( TALK) 22:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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:
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)
Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlackCab ( TALK) 22:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)