Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 17, 1999 at 17:06:46 {xx2d.1sWpQePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *****AP and AF posted by Julie on November 17, 1999 at 16:18:46:
Julie
It is interesting to me that you note the Society's admissions that "secular chronologist do not agree with the Society" will failing to mention some rather important parts of this realization.From what I figure Carl was DF *after* presenting his evidence to the Society. If this is true, than the "admission" is merely a warning to the readers/subscribers. Is there mention in the article that the chronology disagreement came from a JW who figured it out, and when trying to help the Society see some "new light", got kicked out (and the horrors that go with it) for his trouble. That's an interesting omission for "God's Organization". I'd put it real close to dishonesty but not quite.
The Society almost never acknowledges who is responsible for researching what it publishes. In that case I see no inconsistency in the fact that they did not acknowledge Carl’s hard work.
Also you seem to equate that since Carl was DF *after* presenting his evidence to the Society that that is why he was disfellowshipped when that is not the case. It is not the policy of the Society to disfellowship people just because they now hold some view divergent from it. In that case the admission was not a mere warning to subscribers. To the contrary it amounted to good information on one hand. It enabled individual publishers to express why they held that particulars divergent view based upon admissions of the Society itself. As long as those people were not seeking or causing division of fellow believers from their aspirations they should be in no danger of the feared action of shunning.
And we all know what that means. You let anyone know your view differs and you are out.
My case demonstrates that conclusion wrong. I have expressed my divergent views in strong terms to the Society and here I am still a JW in good standing. When AF was still associated with JWs he very aggressively expressed his divergent views yet he was not disfellowshipped.
Also, elsewhere you seem willing to maybe consider the WT's questionable deeds as "extreme incompetence". Well if this *is* the case then I would consider this some very serious "evidence" that this is nowhere near "God's Organization".
Do you consider that early Christians represented God’s way of dispensing good news? If so then you must also accept that incompetence is part of the package anytime us humans are involved. We must also allow for some error, to some extent. (See Jesus message to congregations as recorded in the Bible book of Revelation)
Friend