Posted by AF [AF] on November 29, 1999 at 19:18:38 {DGglKT6Uj21EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ****our recent co visit posted by LA on November 29, 1999 at 11:21:04:
::Are you talking about where JW-critics discuss it?
: YUP this one.
Ok.
: :If the latter, the argument against JW claims is very simple: first the JWs have to prove that they are in the seat of Moses.
: I asked for simple but this is avoiding the issue totally (smile).
Not sure if you're being facetious here, but my comment is very much to the point. I'll illustrate below.
: JW believe GB sits in Moses' seat, right?, So the critic,especially if one of their own, must assume the burden of proof.
I, AF, am in the seat of Moses because I receive revelations from God. How? That's my business, and as God's spokesman I need not answer to anyone, including you. I hereby command you, in Jehovah's name, to stop pestering me with your unprofitable questions. If you don't obey, then you will suffer the fate of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.
: If you were an active JW could you prove that speaking against GB is not an act of disloyalty to God and is not apostacy.
Of course. That doesn't hinge on who you are - it hinges on who the GB claims to be. Since they can't prove their claims, and no one else can, and there is plenty of evidence against their claims, the question is answered.
How would you prove that speaking against me is not an act of disloyalty to God? I claim that publicly disagreeing with me creates divisions and is therefore apostasy.
: I suppose my question is;
: IS their a palatable, agreeable way to express this without getting the witness on a defence and /or sounding anti-JW (apostate)?
: What could an insider say without raising undue suspicion and coming across as a dissenter.
The only way to do it is to strictly avoid stating a definite opinion that WTS leaders are not what they claim. One can - with the right JWs - delicately express mild reasons for wondering about their claims. But any such expressions will immediately mark the questioner as "not one of us". Reactions will vary greatly, from agreement to outright expressions of hatred for doubting "God's spokesmen".
I hope I've answered your questions sufficiently.
AF