2021 Governing Body Update #6

[Qapla]

1 minute ago, jwhess said:

So ALL points in the video are fair game for discussion

 

Yes, what was said in the Update can be "discussed" ... but:

 

Discussion of what was said is one thing - debating our point of view to the point we begin to sound adversarial, argumentative or "I'm right and you are not" is quite another.

 

Do we really need "debate" over our personal view of whatever decision we make on the matter of vaccinations?

 

The Update also said that many older ones have been able to cope with using the new technology - but that has not sparked debate over just what age constitutes old or why we Zoom instead me some other video conferencing software.

 

I would just like our discussion of the Update to concentrate on the positive aspects of what was said - not degenerate into yet another thread of bickering over the merits of vaccines.

 

[Dhanyel]

More than 19,000 dead across the planet, and the numbers keep rising, that's very sad! 

[Hope]

3 hours ago, AH173 said:

I appreciate that the GB is emphasizing shepherding /encouraging calls with latest update. 

 

It's nice to be asked to accompany an elder on some for the friends in my congregation. 

I liked that, too... although I didn't realize that was a thing. I wonder if it's left to the individuals to request a shepherding call?  I haven't received one in nearly three years.. 🤔 

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, jwhess said:

In the update it mentioned the possibility that the government might Require vaccination against Covid-19.  For those who do not wish to vaccinate (at least at the present time) how will you react in this situation?….  Under government mandate, it no longer is a personal health decision.

 

I think it probably still is. The reason that our stand regarding blood holds up in court is because of the principle of bodily integrity. People legally, morally, and ethically have the right to say what will or will not go into their body. Does that principle go out the window just because the forced added substance is vaccine and not blood?

 

On 7/17/2021 at 11:15 PM, rocket said:

I will trust the medical researchers at the Branch far better

I doubt they have medical researchers at the Branch. The only thing they research there is the Bible and how to provide spiritual food to the congregations. Other than that, they’re people just like all the rest of us, holding interests on many subjects but convening no think tanks on any.

 

Those who serve at Bethel are gathered for a special purpose. Anything that hinders their full-time service is probably something they want to put behind them as quickly as possible. They are there benefiting from the donations of the friends worldwide, and they probably don’t want to abuse that support. They may not feel they have the same options as those outside who can choose to socially distance forever, withdraw from close personal contact, and perform a ministry via phone call or letter. 

 

Plainly, people are not dropping like flies upon getting vaccinated, adverse reactions are not the norm, and they are more or less able to resume their normal assignment. If people do not get sick in this way, then they will get sick in that way—such is life in this system of things. These considerations may be enough for those who wish to continue to exert themselves vigorously in their special assignment to accept a vaccination. 

On 7/17/2021 at 8:39 PM, Michelle81 said:

Does it show a lack of faith if we haven't chosen to get the vaccine?  I am beginning to feel guilty of not going along with the flock.

 

No, though you must live with your decision. We have all heard it said that Bethel is a large family convened for a specific purpose, and thus will require more rules and procedures than would be necessary for a typical family. Sometimes we say that if they do it at Bethel, we should do it too, but Bethel itself does not say this.

Edited July 19, 2021 by TrueTomHarley

[jwhess]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it probably still is. The reason that our stand regarding blood holds up in court is because of the principle of bodily integrity. People legally, morally, and ethically have the right to say what will or will not go into their body. Does that principle go out the window just because the forced added substance is vaccine and not blood?

 

Br. Tom, the difference is, the stand on blood is a Bible based decision for us.  It violates God's Law.  The GB have published many articles on the decision that true Christians need to make.  We take a stand based on the Bible.  The laws of the land allow us to seek legal protection for forced transfusions but WE as individuals make up our minds based on Bible truths.  In our current situation (Covid vaccinations) our GB said we are not against them, meaning they do not violate God's Law.

 

In the case of vaccine (definitely without blood or components) our decision is simply a personal health choice.  We can choose to take high blood pressure medicine or not.  We can choose to have an infection treated by surgery or not.  We can choose to color our hair or not.  But these personal decisions are not based on Bible Law.

 

To violate a Bible principle of submission to Superior Authorities placed in their relative position by God REQUIRES a higher Law of God that opposes the government.  There is no such Law or violation for this subject.  When I was a kid, the government required every child going to school to be vaccinated against Small pox, measles, mumps, whooping-cough (pertussis) and so on.  We lined up for blocks to get Polio vaccinations.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses did not take the US government to the Supreme Court to get them to allow our children in school without them.  Why? Because it was not against God's Law.  So if someone today lives in a land requiring Covid vaccinations, the decisions made by that individual are truly personal but not Biblical.

 

Edited July 19, 2021 by jwhess

[Old]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

... Sometimes we say that if they do it at Bethel, we should do it too, but Bethel itself does not say this.

Who said that?

[jwhess]

I forgot to post the references in my Post #116 to True Tom.

 

*** od chap. 15 p. 161 par. 11 Benefiting From Theocratic Subjection ***

 

        ¹¹ Our being in subjection to God also affects how we view “the superior authorities,” which “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” (Rom. 13:1-7)…Being submissive and obedient to the duly constituted authorities in everything that is not in conflict with Jehovah’s righteous law, we are able to direct our efforts and energies to the preaching work.—Mark 13:10; Acts 5:29.

 

*** kl chap. 14 pp. 133-134 par. 10 Whose Authority Should You Recognize? ***

 

“THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES”

Opposing them would be unscriptural and senseless. …human governmental authorities were not part of God’s original purpose. Until his Kingdom is ruling the earth completely, however, human governments hold society together, performing a function that fits in with God’s will for the present time. We should thus remain in subjection to the superior authorities, while we give priority to God’s law and authority.

 

[Old]

2 hours ago, jwhess said:

Br.  Jerry, there is a lot about the GB Update #6 that we can discuss, but there was a significant part that included Covid statistics, deaths, percentage vaccinated, meeting together if vaccinated and so on.  So the folks who are interested in this part of the video are not plucking pieces out of midair.  It was featured this time and probably will be again since, the pandemic is NOT over as Br. Herd said.

 

So ALL points in the video are fair game for discussion....💗

I agree, but what is your point?

[jwhess]

6 minutes ago, Old said:

I agree, but what is your point?

Sorry, I should have hit the quote button (but the quote was LARGE).  It wasn't you I was referring to.

 

It was John's Post #106.  He made a bold plea to quit talking about the vaccine. Sorry for the mistake, please accept my apologies.

 

Please

 

This thread is supposed to be about Update #6

 

We do not need another Vaccine Debate Thread

Edited July 19, 2021 by jwhess

[Paulo]

21 hours ago, jwhess said:

If you would acquiesce to a vaccination if the government ordered you, then what was the reason you refused the day before the law went into effect?  Under government mandate, it no longer is a personal health decision.

 

I do not knows the US laws, but I read that for that to happen the vaccine would have to be approved first, and CDC will probably not approve it in a couple of years.

Trump supporters say that the emergency use approval was to keep the vaccine from being mandatory by the federal government. Biden supporters say that the emergency use approval was to give credits to Trump before the election.

Neutrality asks us to not defend either side.

 

The only case so far that went int to the court, was for a private company (Hospital) that can mandate its employees to be vacinnated. In this, so far only case, the judge sided with the company because it was not a mandate as the employees could just find another job.

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, jwhess said:

We can choose to take high blood pressure medicine or not.  …To violate a Bible principle of submission to Superior Authorities placed in their relative position by God REQUIRES a higher Law of God that opposes the government. 

There are people who think various medications are dangerous, even certain blood pressure medications. Suppose, for some reason, the government required all citizens to take them. Would we feel all obliged to do so?

 

Suppose the government had required that all women take thalidomide, which was later withdrawn for triggering horrible birth defects? Suppose they had required everyone to take Viioxx, which was later withdrawn for causing many deaths? 

 

To get really crazy, suppose they required all citizens to take arsenic. Would we be expected to say that since the superior government authorities mandated it, we have no choice but to submit? Of course not.

 

So it is with ones concerned about vaccine safety. They are not declining them simply because they are stubborn, or simply because they are “exercising their rights” but because they genuinely are concerned about health risks therein.

 

Surely we wouldn’t want to suggest it is WRONG to put individual conscience over government mandate or even safety concerns. That is not to say one must not pay a price if one goes contrary, were there ever to be such a requirement. Even now such ones pay a price, such as in social distancing and masking for however long it takes while others resume life. 

 

To be not opposed to something does not mean you are for it. As a practical matter, people may just accept a vaccine so as to move on in life, but it still remains a personal decision that doesn’t trigger God’s disapproval.

Edited July 19, 2021 by TrueTomHarley

[AH173]

10 hours ago, Hope said:

I liked that, too... although I didn't realize that was a thing. I wonder if it's left to the individuals to request a shepherding call?  I haven't received one in nearly three years.. 🤔 

Sister Uani, 

I would hope that a group overseer would have as a goal to cover his group for shepherding /encouraging calls within 12 to 18 months. If you or any haven't received one within 2 years, kindly request one. 

 

All the time I was appointed a MS (2 times previous) I should at least be invited to some from what's in the organized book for my training (it's probably also in the shepherding book too).

[jwhess]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There are people who think various medications are dangerous, even certain blood pressure medications. Suppose, for some reason, the government required all citizens to take them. Would we feel all obliged to do so?

 

Suppose the government had required that all women take thalidomide, which was later withdrawn for triggering horrible birth defects? Suppose they had required everyone to take Viioxx, which was later withdrawn for causing many deaths? 

 

To get really crazy, suppose they required all citizens to take arsenic. Would we be expected to say that since the superior government authorities mandated it, we have no choice but to submit? Of course not.

 

So it is with ones concerned about vaccine safety. They are not declining them simply because they are stubborn, or simply because they are “exercising their rights” but because they genuinely are concerned about health risks therein.

 

Surely we wouldn’t want to suggest it is WRONG to put individual conscience over government mandate or even safety concerns. That is not to say one must not pay a price if one goes contrary, were there ever to be such a requirement. Even now such ones pay a price, such as in social distancing and masking for however long it takes while others resume life. 

 

To be not opposed to something does not mean you are for it. As a practical matter, people may just accept a vaccine so as to move on in life, but it still remains a personal decision that doesn’t trigger God’s disapproval.

Br. Tom, your opening sentence to the 3rd paragraph says it all. "To get really crazy, suppose..." These suppositions are very far-fetched, not even in the realm of normal behavior. 

 

I was not saying anything about conscience or personal decision.  What I was saying was refusal to obey governmental rules enacted by proper authority (Caesar) is only allowed (supported Biblically) for Christians if the  rule violates a Law of God.  Hypothetical laws requiring suicide, immorality, dishonesty. murder and so on violate Bible law or principle.  Laws ordering tax paying, proper vehicle parking or having car insurance do not.  You might CHOOSE not to follow one of these other laws, it is a personal choice.

 

The point I was trying to make (and the supporting references show) is that you, as a Christian, cannot claim Biblical support or GB backing in doing so.  You are on your own as an individual lawbreaker.  Your choice might be based on tightly held personal views (like taxes fund the military, or I am poor and can't afford car insurance. etc) But it doesn't change the fact that you can go to jail and it may affect your standing with the congregation. The scriptures show that it violates God's Law if you willfully violate Caesar's law without a Biblical reason.

 

I thank you for your fervent defense using what you call "really crazy" suppositions, but I was just pointing out the long-term effects on your standing with God.  Go in peace with Jehovah's blessing...💗

 

[jayrtom]

On 7/16/2021 at 11:09 AM, Tortuga said:

Can you add one more item to the list to make it 7 instead of 6?

just asking....

I liked the point made that Jehovah keeps tabs on our age.

On 7/17/2021 at 1:27 PM, Bob said:

Nothing is 100 percent. Not even seatbelts. But that doesn't stop you from driving or riding in a car does it?

Well said

On 7/17/2021 at 2:02 PM, runner92 said:

No. And I really don't think this is a fair comparison. There aren't any side effects from wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts have been around for decades and have been undoubtedly proven to reduce significant injury with no side effect.

Seatbelts can cause death! In fact this was the major argument against its obligation when the discusion arose. Many argued that one could be killed by not being able to get out of the car by being stuck on the seat belt and in fact there are several cases where this happened and people died. However the advantages of seatbelts to save lifes far exceeded any counter effects and so those arguments vanished in the wind

Quote

You're comparing seatbelts to something injected into the body that has not been fully tested. I feel that it's still valid to be cautious if one chooses. We don't have to rush out to get this shot.

I don't understand why do you say it wasn't fully tested? What are the basis for such a clame?

Check hear to understand the process it takes to develop a vaccine, covid 19 included:

World Health Organization

 

Saying that the vaccines werent't fully tested are some of the myth's propagated by the conspiracy theorists.

 

Check this from John Hopkins Hospital:

Quote

MYTH: Researchers rushed the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, so its effectiveness and safety cannot be trusted.

FACT: Studies found that the two initial vaccines are both about 95% effective — and reported no serious or life-threatening side effects. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly. Here are just a few:

• The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a method that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic.
• China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly, so scientists could start working on vaccines.
• The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps, but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster.
• Vaccine projects had plenty of resources, as governments invested in research and/or paid for vaccines in advance.
• Some types of COVID-19 vaccines were created using messenger RNA (mRNA), which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made.
• Social media helped companies find and engage study volunteers, and many were willing to help with COVID-19 vaccine research.
• Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the study volunteers who were vaccinated.
• Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred.

Also this from the WHO:Vaccine efficacy, effectiveness and protection

 

To add to the safety already demonstrated during the trials we have now millions of vaccinated people working as an added population for the statistics and we don't see people dying on every corner or getting sick with an increased rate. On the contrary we see that even on places where the infections are still high the deaths alre lower and the seriousness of the cases is also lower. Particularly the elderly people who were the risky ones are safer on a high grade!

 

On 7/18/2021 at 10:59 PM, Qapla said:

I would just like our discussion of the Update to concentrate on the positive aspects of what was said - not degenerate into yet another thread of bickering over the merits of vaccines.

For me it was a very positiv aspect to see the GB members reunited at the same table and also the bethel members congregated on meetings and at the cantine. And all that happened because they were vaccinated... We can't dissociate that positivity with being vaccinated

On 7/18/2021 at 11:26 PM, Hope said:

I liked that, too... although I didn't realize that was a thing. I wonder if it's left to the individuals to request a shepherding call?  I haven't received one in nearly three years.. 🤔 

 

We, as elders, are deeply encouraged to do shepperding calls with every familly in our service group at least once a year. Every CO visit emphasyses this. I have 10 families in my group and it gives mor or less one visit per month. Off course if the group is big and there are few elders it my be very difficult to comply with this yearly bases... Bu like Ashley mentioned you can always bring your need into the elders attention. We don't select the list of shepperding calls randomly but start with those that we notice are in more need

 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Dismal_Bliss
trying to prune anti-vax propaganda

[Qapla]

4 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

For me it was a very positive aspect to see the GB members reunited at the same table and also the bethel members congregated on meetings and at the canteen. And all that happened because they were vaccinated... We can't dissociate that positivity with being vaccinated

 

Yes, I agree - it was a very positive things to see. There is no need something so positive should be used to reignite and/or perpetuate the debate on the benefits and/or evils of vaccines ... that was the point I was getting at.

 

 

[AH173]

12 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

We don't select the list of shepperding calls randomly but start with those that we notice are in more need

Agreed. Last SC with my group overseer, he mentioned specifically that he wanted to address a matter that he noticed some time ago where publisher was feeling a certain way about a brother. 

[Hope]

13 minutes ago, AH173 said:

Agreed. Last SC with my group overseer, he mentioned specifically that he wanted to address a matter that he noticed some time ago where publisher was feeling a certain way about a brother. 

I guess I don't feel a massive need- I'm not struggling or depressed or anything. It would be nice to be asked, since I'm here on my own. But if it's more to address issues, then I guess I'm okay 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, jwhess said:

You are on your own as an individual lawbreaker. Your choice might be based on tightly held personal views (like taxes fund the military, or I am poor and can't afford car insurance. etc) But it doesn't change the fact that you can go to jail and it may affect your standing with the congregation. The scriptures show that it violates God's Law if you willfully violate Caesar's law without a Biblical reason.

I could be wrong but I think there are countries that have mandated masks for all citizens. It would be interesting to see if the Branch chastises any who are non-complaint as lawbreakers and tells them they are on their own. I’d be very surprised if that happened.

 

Of course, it could affect you standing in the congregation if you were serving in capacity of being an example—that of elder, MS, or pioneer. You would also have bear the cost of your decision. You would probably forfeit hobnobbing with the friends as freely as if vaccinated. There would be a price to pay but if you chose to pay it I am pretty sure the organization would not call you a lawbreaker before Jehovah for declining a vaccine. 

[AH173]

10 minutes ago, Hope said:

I guess I don't feel a massive need- I'm not struggling or depressed or anything.

I hear you sis. 

 

But 3 years, and not even a phone call perhaps? Even during a 1-1/2 year + pandemic? All those fires on the west coast? The west coast heat wave? The delta Covid-19 uprising?

 

All in a fsg needs encouragement,  especially a pioneer single sister. 

 

I would still encourage you to at least have an encouraging call to say the least. 

 

 

[carlos]

28 minutes ago, Hope said:

I guess I don't feel a massive need- I'm not struggling or depressed or anything. It would be nice to be asked, since I'm here on my own. But if it's more to address issues, then I guess I'm okay 

Uani, a shepherding visit is not (necessarily) to address issues. The purpose of those visits is to get to know the friends better, to find how they are feeling and to share some encouragement.

 

As others have said, every family (a single publisher counts as a family too) in the congregation should receive at least one visit a year. Some times the elders are too busy and forget they have visits to make. So it's a great idea to call your group overseer, or any elder you feel comfortable with, and ask for a shepherding visit. Tell him you haven't had one in several years, and they should quickly fix that.

 

One more thing: After you have your visit, don't forget to share with us the encouragement you received!

[Paulo]

1 hour ago, jayrtom said:

Seatbelts can cause death!

 

Yes, they do.

That is why we need to make sure that everyone has its seatbelts correctly applied and, extremely important, have the proper height regulation, specially in smaller persons and children.

[jayrtom]

On 7/19/2021 at 1:25 PM, runner92 said:

No. And I really don't think this is a fair comparison. There aren't any side effects from wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts have been around for decades and have been undoubtedly proven to reduce significant injury with no side effect.

 

You're comparing seatbelts to something injected into the body that has not been fully tested. I feel that it's still valid to be cautious if one chooses. We don't have to rush out to get this shot.

I encourage you to notice which factors Br Herd mentioned one should consider when deciding if he should take it not take the vaccine. None of those factors are related to the vaccines being safe or not, that they are a thing to be injected on the body or not...

 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Dismal_Bliss
pruned some quoted anti-vaxx propaganda from this topic

[jwhess]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I could be wrong but I think there are countries that have mandated masks for all citizens. It would be interesting to see if the Branch chastises any who are non-complaint as lawbreakers and tells them they are on their own. I’d be very surprised if that happened.

 

Of course, it could affect you standing in the congregation if you were serving in capacity of being an example—that of elder, MS, or pioneer. You would also have bear the cost of your decision. You would probably forfeit hobnobbing with the friends as freely as if vaccinated. There would be a price to pay but if you chose to pay it I am pretty sure the organization would not call you a lawbreaker before Jehovah for declining a vaccine. 

Tom are we still talking about countries that have laws or mandate s requiring vaccinations? Or have we drifted back to other countries where you can freely choose.

 

In countries where we were ordered to show up at voting booths, we went (didn't cast a usable ballot). In war years, witness prisoners would not make munitions or war materials but we would repair roads or bridges in nearby villages that the military and civilians used.  If as a prisoner, if you refused to shovel snow in a nearby town because some military guards lived there, you could be shot and it was not a Bible principle you were dying for.  It was a "personal" decision but not based on a Bible Law violation.

 

This is waht our current OD book says..."…Being submissive and obedient to the duly constituted authorities in everything that is not in conflict with Jehovah’s righteous law..."

[BLEmom]

On 7/18/2021 at 11:26 PM, Hope said:

I liked that, too... although I didn't realize that was a thing. I wonder if it's left to the individuals to request a shepherding call?  I haven't received one in nearly three years.. 🤔 

The elders are generally  directed to shepherd twice per year or more if needed. That would be the responsibility of your group overseer. 

The more shepherding that is done, the fewer judicial meetings a congregation will have. 

 

On 7/19/2021 at 1:36 PM, Hope said:

I guess I don't feel a massive need- I'm not struggling or depressed or anything. It would be nice to be asked, since I'm here on my own. But if it's more to address issues, then I guess I'm okay 

Shepherding is not just about addressing issues. It’s preventative maintenance. Ask for a visit! But I agree sometimes it’s nice to be given that gift without asking 

[Hope]

4 minutes ago, BLEmom said:

The elders are generally  directed to shepherd twice per year or more if needed. That would be the responsibility of your group overseer. 
The more shepherding that is done, the fewer judicial meetings a congregation will have. 

Agree 1000%.  But I'm not going to press it. I just thought it was interesting that those in special full-time service- IN a Bethel- had shepherding like that... sorta *because* of the lockdown situation. 

 

As far as I can see, our congregation is rolling as usual, in terms of personal attention. Our local needs are about pioneering- even though we have 22 regular and 7 reg auxiliary. We had 72 in the Memorial campaign months.  We must be encouraged enough, I'd say! 😊