{"id":752,"date":"2012-09-27T11:29:46","date_gmt":"2012-09-27T16:29:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/smmcroberts.net\/blog\/?p=752"},"modified":"2020-10-02T21:02:28","modified_gmt":"2020-10-02T21:02:28","slug":"whos-a-faithful-discreet-slave-then","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.smmcroberts.net\/blog\/whos-a-faithful-discreet-slave-then\/","title":{"rendered":"Who’s a faithful, discreet slave, then?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Is it the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (as claimed in this hierarchy chart from the Watchtower, 12\/15\/71)?
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

[Notice that there was no room in the hierarchy for you lowly “publishers” much less the rest of the world!]<\/p>\n

In a previous blog we explained why this group cannot rightly be called a “slave”<\/a>.
\nToday we’re going to see why they can’t rightly be called “faithful” or “discreet”.<\/p>\n

Faithful? Maybe, sort of… but not where it counts<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
\nIn at least one sense they are<\/em> faithful: full of a simple-minded faith in their own abilities to pontificate on things they know little or nothing about. They have perhaps also been faithful to what they imagine their god wants them to do.<\/p>\n

One area in which they have not<\/em> been faithful is in regard to the Bible. When they translated the Bible they did not remain faithful to the extant manuscripts. Instead, they admit that they inserted the name “Jehovah” in the “Christian Greek Scriptures” (aka “the New Testament) where it did not exist<\/a>1<\/a><\/sup>. This was “adding to God’s Word” which the Bible clearly forbids<\/a>2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Discreet?<\/strong><\/p>\n

So, what does “discreet” mean, anyway?<\/p>\n

Shakespeare famously quipped that “discretion is the better part of valor.”<\/a>3<\/a><\/sup> Giving humorous prestige to the coward’s “discreet retreat”.<\/p>\n

But, thinking of the way the GB uses it, I tend to picture in my mind a shady business deal or tryst in which one party says to the other: “I rely on your discretion,” meaning “Don’t rat me out because I’ve got the goods on you as well.”<\/p>\n

At its most basic, being “discreet” means not blurting out what you’re not absolutely certain about, especially when giving voice to your thought could result in harm to another. Take the age-old example of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, which is likely to cause injuries in the resultant panic. “Discretion” in this example means making damn well sure that what you saw was an out-of-control fire before you shout out your warning.
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

Now, in the case of the GB, what is it that they are supposed to be discreet about? They claim to be God’s spokesmen on Earth: placed in charge of his world-wide organization and its dissemination of God’s messages. In short, they are to “care for the flock” of Jehovah’s people, ensuring that they are fed the “proper spiritual food” at the proper time.<\/p>\n

Have they done this? Have they proven to be discreet in carrying out this weighty responsibility? Or have they in effect cried “Fire!” when none was burning?<\/p>\n

\"\"In 1967 the GB announced that organ transplants were “cannibalism” and hence against God’s law<\/a>4<\/a><\/sup>. Any Jehovah’s Witness who accepted an organ transplant would be disfellowshiped: removed from the “ark of salvation” which is the Society:cut off from their “brothers and sisters”; losing their sole chance at eternal life.<\/p>\n

In 1980 the GB reversed itself on organ transplants, declaring that they were not<\/em> cannibalism and were “a matter of personal conscience”<\/a>5<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In the interim Jehovah’s Witnesses, obediently following the Watchtower’s lead (as they vowed to do at baptism) refused organ transplants (just as they refuse blood transfusions today). Those who needed an organ transplant died.<\/p>\n

One of these victims was Delores Busselman, who died in 1971 after obediently refusing a bone-marrow transplant. You can read her husband Gary’s account of this at: Losing My Wife To The Watchtower<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Was the 1967 announcement discreet<\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"This raises the question: was the 1967 announcement discreet<\/span>? <\/em>If there had been any<\/em> question in the GB’s minds regarding organ transplants the discreet thing to do would have been to keep their mouths shut.<\/p>\n

If we say Yes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we are to believe that they are truly discreet, then it follows that when they announced their new-found law of God’s–knowing that it could result in death to members of their flock–they must’ve felt certain<\/em> that God had communicated this message to them. But, based on the 1980 reversal they must’ve been wrong.<\/p>\n

This means that if the GB is truly discreet then they must not know when God is communicating with them and when he is not.<\/em><\/p>\n

If they are led by God’s Spirit…<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the other hand, if they insist that they are God’s spokesmen on Earth, communicating God’s message to his people [as insist they do], then they had better know when God has a message for them to convey. They’d better understand what if feels like<\/em> to be “led by Jehovah’s Spirit”. If that’s the case, then they must’ve known<\/em> in 1967 that they were not<\/em> being led by Jehovah’s Spirit in the organ-transplant announcement. (Because if they didn’t<\/em> know, then they don’t know what it feels like to be led by God’s Spirit, which means that they have never<\/em> <\/strong>felt led by God’s Spirit!)<\/p>\n

So, if we want to maintain that they are led by God’s Spirit [at least sometimes], then we must acknowledge that their blurting out the 1967 announcement was the epitome of indiscretion.<\/p>\n

The Dilemma<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here’s the dilemma in a nutshell: Is the GB led by God’s Spirit, or are they discreet? Their actions have proven that they cannot possibly be both<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"But they can certainly be neither<\/em>. Because, if they don’t know when God’s Spirit is leading them the discreet thing to do would be to shut up!<\/em><\/p>\n

Is it all just “Human Imperfection”?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, yes, of course it’s human imperfection. There was no god involved in any of this fiasco. Men had developed a new way to save lives. Other men decided that this new way to save lives was against their god’s law. Later these men retracted that decision when they realized that they were wrong<\/em>. It had nothing to do with their god whom they claim “does not change.”<\/p>\n

The Watchtower likes to use the “human imperfections” excuse to try to retain their self-appointed status as being faithful and discreet. But the excuse just proves that they are merely human beings like everyone else: not<\/em><\/strong><\/span> “God’s spokesmen on Earth”.<\/p>\n

The ban on organ transplants was Watchtower Society policy for 13 years!<\/em><\/span> Meanwhile, people “in the world” and people in nearly all other religions were not forbidden this life-saving medical treatment. It was only those following the orders of the “faithful and discreet slave” who suffered. Real people died<\/em> during those 13 years as a direct result of the GB’s announcement. Tell their loved ones, like Gary Busselman, to shrug it off as “human imperfection” of the GB which “Jehovah corrects in his due time”. You might as well slap them in the face; that’s what the GB has done with their pathetic excuse.<\/p>\n

The organ transplant issue is just one example. We could’ve just as easily have used the example of vaccinations or blood transfusions with the same result. The GB has repeatedly made deadly proclamations which they have later admitted were wrong — though it doesn’t stop them from continuing to make them. How discreet is that?<\/p>\n

Who, then, is the faithful and discreet slave?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"When we point out how the GB of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot possibly be honestly regarded as a “faithful and discreet slave” we always hear the same response from Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Who then is<\/em> the faithful and discreet slave? Who else does yadda yadda yadda…” It’s as if they’ve been plugging their ears, just waiting to yank this canned argument from their sleeve and throw it down on the table as the ultimate trump card.<\/p>\n

Okay, there is<\/em> a parable in the Bible where Jesus supposedly related a story of a steward [“slave” in the Watchtower’s translation] who takes care of things while the master of the house is gone, and watches for his return (Luke <\/em>12:35-48<\/cite>). In Mark’s account Jesus says “What I say to you, I say to everyone<\/em>” (Mark 13:37), so it is not meant to be one lone group of people that the parable applies to.<\/p>\n

\"\"Asking “who is the steward?” makes as much sense as asking “who is the good Samaritan?” It isn’t a person or a class of people.<\/p>\n