Mr.nincsnevem you made a false claim against us and not only have you not retracted your false claim but you are making additional false claims. Either you supply quotes to back up your false claim or you retract the falsehoods nothing less that that is going to reactivate this conversation
Where is the quote stating that organ transplants were a serious enough violation to warrant expulsion if no repentance was forthcoming? And as for your new lie where did russel say that only those accepting a particular chronology would be saved or who rejected any chronology should be expelled from the congregation?
Your copying and pasting of apostate lies does not meet my standard you keep repeating the lie that the brother's equated transplants with canabalism the mention of canabalism in that one article was from a direct quote from a nonwitness publication,the fact that you can't produce one single other quote from any witness publication where the brothers themselves make that claim is telling. The book the truth that leads to eternal life is what provided guidance as to qualifications for baptism and also what wrongdoing can lead to disfellowshiping during the sixties and seventies,it NEVER mentioned organ transplants. The book you can live forever in paradise on earth followed it too never mentions organ transplants clearly organ transplants were never put on the same level as transfusions or the flag salute issue. So I going to have to reject your lies until you produce a quote specifically stating that JEHOVAH Hates transplants and that true christians never get transplants that is the language that lets JWs know that a particular pattern of conduct can lead to disfellowshiping.
I note your pathetic excuse making with russel as well,the brother never claimed that anyone who rejected any chronology will not be saved that is a lie plain and simple. You either retract these lies or produce actual quotes not self-serving praphrases chapter and verse.
January 1908": : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them""
There are essential truths but these pertain to the identity of JEHOVAH and his high priest and his standard of moral and spiritual purity not a complete understanding of recorded prophesy as JEHOVAH'S People have NEVER Had a complete understanding of recorded prophesy even the apostles and prophets who uttered the prophesies did not fully understand them understand them 1Corinthians ch.13:9
And haven't you made loyalty your church a requirement for salvation so why the hypocrisy?
Why can't you at least point to one other article
We reject the anthropology of those who have repeatedly shown a willingness to trample our rights. The truth book mentions the blood issue it is unconceivable that it eould not also mention the organ transplant issue if it were equally serious. Note to the blood issue is repeatedly mentioned you and your kind have to rely on this one admittedly vague article for your entire case it is never the case that an actionable offense is based on a single vague article.
There are things that violate cultural our norms that do not rise to the level of disfellowshiping there are far more articles about marrying unbelievers for example or watching horror movies than there are about organ transplants but you can't be expel from the congregation for either. You likely will not be considered for any privileges of service but you won't be expelled.
And you keep muddling issues I said nothing about your church expelling anyone I said you made loyalty to your church a requirement for salvation,eternal torture seems a far more serious consequence than loosing fellowship with a tiny hated minority
You need to find some better approach to argumentation your argument by unrecognized authority of your church or your self proclaimed ability to peer into our souls and know what we are thinking is not cutting it. Leave the peering into men's souls to God
You are again confusing the issue the issue is not whether a cultural norm is violated but whether the violation rises to the level of disfellowshiping no disfellowshipible offense has been based on a single article this has never happened your propaganda is rejected but we note that as usual you provide no quotes. Your quote free claims are rejected.
All disfellowshipible offenses are made known prior to baptism in our baptism preparation material during the sixties and seventies that would be the the truth that leads to eternal life the book also mentions offenses that fall below the disfellowshiping level yet it does not even mention organ transplants in that context.
So the issue is not.Our authority is the bible we recognize the administrative authority of the brothers because the BIBLE Commands us to hebrews 13:17 we confirm our essential doctrine by our personal study of the bible enabled by holy spirit we do not believe in modern day prophets. A plenary understanding of prophecy is not required or we would have to reject Christ apostles as God's channel 1Corinthians 13:9. Your church is not recognized as an authority. I recognize the administrative authority of the brothers because the signs JEHOVAH Provides in his word the BIBLE to guide sincere truthseekers to his true church are confirmed in them. Holiness and Peace elements notably lacking in Christendom's churches.
As for real world harm no representative of the bloodstained churches of christendom has any standing to lecture us about real world harm,the reason why many secular voices spoke against transplants back at the beginning of the procedure was because it was not an unmitigated good,many were killed by immune reactions and even in a best case scenario you were prolonging one person's life by months by shortening another petson's life by years. So to speak as if the matter were open and shut is typical of the kind of disengenuity we have come to expect from your kind.
I also observed that you have returned to repeating the vaccination lie for which you can't even cite a vague watchtower article as support. I'm sorry I can't allow you to simply repeat these lies your fellow sociopaths have numerous places on the net where you can repeat your lies unchallenged,you will just have to confine your lying propaganda to those spaces,but it's definitely not going to be happening here.
Again being viewed as immature is not the same as being in line for disfellowshiping you keep conflating the two issues clearly it did not rise to the level of disfellowshiping.
Its so stupid to remark that marrying outside the faith was never called cannibalistic.
As for vaccines The watchtower is the voice of the governing body not the awake and again why can't you cite two or three of these screeds from the golden age, besides the one article written by a nonwitness you liars you usually trot out I mean,I promise to put them unedited on the blog so the public can read them for themselves
As soon as the blood issue was deemed serious enough to warrant expulsion that was explicitly stated publicly likewise some issue of the truth book would have clearly stated the prohibition against transplants if rose to the level of expulsion just as it mentioned smoking,saluting national emblems the blood issue. your position is in effect that we should unquestioningly accept the claims of those with a history of violently trampling our rights without CLEAR evidence. I don't care what your apostate handlers have been telling you but we are not idiots so that will never happen I demand chapter and verse minus your anthropology and mind reading if you can't meet that Standard this dialogue is over.
I repeat the conclusion of the november 15 1967 question from readers bear in mind this is the only article on which this expulsion claim is based here is it's conclusion
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov.
That kind of language is NEVER used in articles about smoking,voting national election,fornication, saluting national flags those aren't personal decisions for a dedicated servant of JEHOVAH you can't be baptised unless you come around to JEHOVAH'S Opinion on these matters.
The Vaccination Fraud By Mrs. Andrew J. Holmes
The article is written by a woman I also observe that she does not cite a single scripture to back up her theories. On the inside copy of each issue of the golden age is a disclaimer making it clear that publishers and editor do not necessarily support every view there in hence my demand for watchtower article the 1931 article was written by a nonwitness.
More lies the watchtower was always the flagship publication there was never a time when that was not the case the absence of a single article making it clear that vaccines strictly prohibited. Clearly shows the mind of the leadership some may have been swayed by popular scepticism re vaccines at the time but in the absence of a scriptural foundation the GB at the time were cautious how come no articles from prominent members of the society were published anywhere how is it that no convention talks mentioned this Ironclad prohibition. I use the word liar because my own firsthand experience has established that as the case.
The 1921 article is written by a W.M Pugh even Grok could find him so I suspect that like the writer of the 1931 article he too was not a brother. Definitely not a brother of note. When it came to knew situations the brothers were ultra cautious it took decades before a firm stance was taken on the blood issue even though solid scriptural evidence was mounting,similarly with vaccines there were conflicting opinions even at the top,the hardliners had their way for a time but there was never any sanction. Rather it was presented as a test of maturity.
The 1923 article list some imminently qualified experts who also were sceptical about the 1920s version of vaccines
Among the names of famous men who are opposed to vaccination is that of Alfred Russell Wallace, who after exhaustive study prepared an essay on the subject “Vaccination a Delusion; Its Enforcement a Crime.” Prof. Wallace says: “While utterly powerless for good, vaccination is a certain cause of disease, and is the probable cause of about 10,000 deaths; and annually of 5.000 inoculahle diseases of themost terrible and moat disgusting character.” - Dr. Walton Ross, a scholarly student, physician and scientist, has this to say on the sub-ject: “I should fail in my duty and prove false to the beat interests of humanity did I not record my convictions based on irrefutable facts that vaccination is an unmitigated curse, and the most destructive medical delusion which baa ever afflicted the human race. I know full well that the vaccinator sows broadcast the seeds of many filth diseases, of the skin, the hair and eye^ which are transmitted from generation to generation, an ever-abiding curse to humanity.”Dr. Charles Crighton, a recognized authority on epidemiology, and a pronounced vaccin- -ist, was selected by the publishers of the "Encyclopedia Britannica” to write an article on vaccination. To his own surprise and that of the editors, the fifteen-column article resulting from his exhaustive investigation was packed full with irrefutable proofs of the fallacy of vaccination.Dr. Carlo Ruata, Professor of Materia Medics, University of Perugia, Italy, was indicted and arraigned in the Prefers Court in Perugia* When making his own defense, he stated, after reciting the disastrous results of the practice in Italy:
“Were it not for this calamitous practice, smallpox would have been stamped out years ago, and would have disappeared. Believe not in vaccination; it is a worldwide delusion, an unscientific practice, a fatal ^uper* stition whose consequences are measured by thousands of dead and wounded, by tears and sorrow without endF. M. Lutze, M. has this to say about vaccination:
“When sowing disease we can only reap a harvest disease and death, and this is the result of vaccination.
I have treated a very large number of children for granular eyelids, disease of the heart, lungs, bronchi, and indigestion, undoubtedly due to vaccination, for they had become ill immediately after vaccination. Children who had been intellectually bright became dull and stupid soon after vaccination, and were restored to health with difficu“Sanitation, construction of sewers, collection and destruction of all refuse and waste, properly ventilated dwellings, pure food—these alone can prevent smallpox or any other disease.”
Just to show that concerns of some among the brothers were not conjured out of thin air.
Your no quotations no citations approach earns scepticism the watchtower would have expressed the firm prihibition if there ever was all JWs no that. There was widespread scepticism about vaccines even among prominent people like alfred wallace. Some of the brothers were drawn in nut the fact that there was never a convention talk or watchtower article is conclusive proof that there was no actionable ban. Your lies notwithstanding that is the way prohibitions have always been handled through the watchtower and conventions so until you can produce a convention talk or watchtower article you have lost this one your fellow haters can buy this nonsense if they like but it is obviously unfounded.
Cite an editorial.
The encyclopedia britannica is a fringe publication?google Alfred Russel Wallace And again there NEVER was an actionable ban on vaccines the TOTAL absense of a convention talk or watchtower article establishes that beyond all reasonable doubt.
There was never any actionable ban on organ transplant the fact that it was not even mentioned in baptism preparation material when even non actionable issues like entertainment were mentioned establishes that beyond reasonable doubt.
Again the 1931 article was written by a nonwitness,in the absence of a single watchtower article or convention talk you simply have no case. Every actionable offense is the subject of multiple watchtower articles and convention talks. It has always been that way
You say there were editorials can you produce an example?
When I say actionable I mean there was no penalty some accepted many did not. And contary to your lies only the watchtower is the voice of the GB not any other publication I gather that you are unable to find an article that can even be twisted so as to appear to support your position so you have to assign this fictional status to the golden age. Find a watchtower article that is your only hope
I only asked for an editorial because you claimed such editorials existed. Is this yet another false claim? Are you trying for some kind of record?
Again there is disclaimer making it clear that contributions I would think especially by nonwitnesses are not necessarily endorsed by the magazines publishers. That is why in the absence of clear direction through the church's flagship publication none of these would be regarded as an actionable prohibition
Give it up if you can't produce a watchtower article that is the end anyone who is familiar with our inner workings knows that.
The apostates who are feeding you these falsehoods know that too but they are conscienceless liars.
Every other publication has ALWAYS Been secondary to the watchtower any other claim is a lie period. Your utterly unfounded lies are rejected. And the fact that you need to stoop to such mendacity makes our point because if even one article that could have been quoted out of context so as to appear to support your claim existed that is exactly what you would have done.
What about tracts ,handbills and the like? Any of those? If the brothers are in some kind of rabid antivax campaign there would have to be some of those?
Don't get on any high horse with me. I am the authority on my beliefs not lying propagandists like yourself. The watchtower magazine has always been paramount re: the brother's official opinion everything else is ancilliary. Any actionable prohibition MUST (not may) be explicitly stated by a watchtower article. And worse if you can't even produce a tract or handbill.
You said that the society's officer mr.woodworth authored editorials anonymously against vaccines. And now you a mendaciously revising your previous claims none of those articles were authored by mr.woodworth or mr.rutherford and I have not seen any of the anonymous editorials that you alleged supported the antivax position.
Can you point to an article by Mr.Rutherford against vaccines or a talk against vaccines? Because the absence of such an article or talk would be utterly inexplicable given the imperial of his presidency.
Unless your brain has been turned to mush by apostate lies,it would be obvious that no actionable prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s could take place apart from direct vocal or written input of the then very imperial president of the society and his lieutenants.
You haven't produced a single article by mr.Woodworth himself none of the articles you cited were written by mr.woodworth,The Watchtower was always the lead publication your unfounded and selfserving assertions to the contrary only underline your desperation. The fact that neither rutherford nor his lieutenants had any direct input cannot be brushed aside at the behest of lying propagandists like yourself. A more realistic take woild be that likely some felt that the scepticism re:vaccines of people like the great alfred russel wallace, by no means a fringe thinker, had some merit on purely scientific grounds and the right of those who chose to conscientiously object to vaccines was being defended,but the upper leadership could not find a biblical basis for an ironclad ban. So this was the compromise allow the findings of qualified sceptics to be published,but there was no ironclad ban. Incidentally there was no disfellowshiping until the 1960s.
The bulk of the literature published by the society at that tine was authored by the president and his lieutenants including the watchtower's articles and there were definitely convention talks. So your claim that the president and his lieutenants need not weigh in on actionable prohibitions is at least as nonsensical as it sounds.
Your inability to produce a single article from the president or a lieutenant in support of your unfounded claim exposes you as the shameless liar that you are.
If you were preparing for baptism in the 1920s and 1930s you would study the harp of God surely there would be something about christians missing out on paradise if they allowed their bodies to be polluted by vaccines in its pages if that was what Mr. Rutherford and his lieutenant thought.
From the book "Faith on the March" by AH McMillan page 188,189
One of the more serious problems I had to deal with, as I
remember, was vaccinations. An order was received from the
health department in Washington for all the inmates and
guards to be vaccinated. Some of our boys in one prison in
particular considered this the same as blood transfusions, and
refused to submit. This caused considerable trouble. Then the
order came from Washington to put all the men who refused
to be vaccinated in solitary confinement. This did not change
our men. The prison authorities hesitated to be overly strict
about it; still they had their orders from headquarters. Well,
during the excitement I arrived on my regular visit. Now the
matter was put up to me to advise our men.
I asked the Warden to permit me to talk to all the men who
refused to be vaccinated.
He said, “IYe can’t do that because all the men are in soli-
tary on orders from tvashington and they’ll have to stay there
until they submit.”
“Well,” I answered, “they’ll be there all their lives, then,
for they’re not the kind to go contrary to their consciences.
Now if you’ll permit me to talk to all the men we can do some-
thing, but with some in solitary I’m helpless.”
Then the Warden phoned iVashington and told them what
I said. He was told to permit all the men to attend the meet-
ing and to allow them to spend as much time in the meeting as
Macmillan thought best.
We had an interesting time. For about half an hour the
men talked about the evils of vaccination, and so on. After
all had had their say, I told them, “We’re wasting time talk-
ing about the evils of vaccination because much could be said
both ways. The point for us to consider is what are we going
to do about being vaccinated. They have you all where they
could vaccinate an elephant, and they will vaccinate you all.”
Up spoke the leader of the resistance and said: “What
would you do if you were in prison and were called up for
vaccination? ”I was in prison,” I reminded them, “and T bared my arm
and received the shot. Furthermore, all of us who visit our
foreign branches are vaccinated or we stay at home. Now
vaccination is not anything like blood transfusion. No blood
is used in the vaccine. It is a serum. So you would not be
violating those Scriptures which forbid taking blood into your
system.
Grok confirms that many nations required certificates of vaccination especially for smallpox during the preworld war 2 period as precondition for entry.
Actually the faith on the march story shows that it was a conscience issue some took that position others did not McMillan who was a high ranking member of the organisation did not take that position and by implication neither did mr.Rutherford and his lieutenants. your evidence free claim of some kind of esoteric knowledge of the inner workings of the organisation is rejected. Logic and commonsense alone would tell any balanced person that there is no way that given the imperial nature of the presidency of the Rutherford era his silence would carry the force of a permit. The fact that you can't locate a single article or talk from then president rutherford or any of his lieutenants is conclusive evidence that this was always viewed as a conscience issue.
The 1931 article was written by a nonwitness the fact that the president not only did not confirm it but according to the testimony of mr.McMillan accepted vaccines when they were in prison and also as a precondition when visiting foreign branches confirms they view it as a conscience issue.
The book the harp of God by mr.Rutherford was the baptismal preparation material of the time the absence of any mention of vaccines therein proves conclusively that this was considered a conscience issue.
