Active JW Apologists: Did you take the OATH at the Convention?

by kid-A 27 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  kid-A

  Inquiring minds want to know: HOW DID RESPOND to OATH # 7 which all JWs were required to take at the latest DC?:

  "We will resist with all our strength the spirit of the world manifested in such things as materialism, unwholesome entertainment, overindulgence in food and alcoholic beverages, the plague of pornographic material and the curiosity or temptation that lures one into association with outsiders through internet chat rooms. Our resolve is to be no part of world as we ‘carry on worship that is clean from the standpoint of our God."

  1) If you are here, participating on an ex-JW site and chatting with apostates, surely you did not take the OATH too seriously, now did you?

  2) If you are defending the Jehovahs Witness faith, your direct violation of this oath demonstrates unequivocally that you do NOT believe the Governing Body is Gods representative on earth. If you did, you would be faced with the disturbing fact that you are now in violation of a direct command from Jehovah, as communicated through his "faithful and discreet slave". More disturbingly, by directly violating the command of gods "visible channel" on earth, you are really committing a "sin against the holy spirit" since according to your own theology, the GB is directed by this holy spirit.

  3) Hmmmm. Most of the "worldly" people I know KEEP THEIR WORD if they actually take an oath. What example are you setting for your brothers and sisters in the congregation???

  SO, which is it? Do you have the courage to at the very least ADMIT, the GB must be wrong, if you feel no compunction in violating their directives?
• 

  V

  Can you hear 'em?

  
• 

  kid-A

  Can you hear 'em?

  LOL......deafening silence.....
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  Good question Kid-A, but I'll bet none of the jw apologists on here will give you a straight answer.

  They'll either try to come up with some circular reasoning to justify their prescence here, or simply ignore it.
• 

  ozziepost

  By definition of the WTS, any JWs posting here are not JWs.

  Therefore, there are no JWs posting on JWD.
• 

  tan

  I can't believe that they've resorted to this! It's ridiculous.
• 

  james_woods

  Tan, could you please go back to your previous avatar?

  Of course, I may be in the minority here...
• 

  Gander

  I agree that the resolution read at the convention was over controlling in so many ways.
  However, I think it needs to be pointed out that no one was required to take an "oath". I was there. I didn't say anything at the end of the resolution. No one cared. It is just a method of speaking. I am not saying I agree with what was being said. But we need to avoid falling into the same trap often used in WT literature of overstating, stretching, or bending the facts to make things fit our point of view.
• 

  Sunspot

  Even before this ridiculous attempt to further control the JWs went into effect, the "counsel and admonition" to not converse with known dreaded "apostates" and various other former JWs had been put into motion.

  If you are a loyal JW, why are you fraternizing with NONJWs online? This has been asked many times, and the slick replies to this question are mindboggling at best. It has been "reasoned" by some that it is no different than being in the field ministry, facing different questions and answering these the best they can. WE can see the obvious flaws in this, but JWs will stick to their guns on it!

  Despite the fact that we come here to "chat" and exchange ideas with one another, other JWs will use the excuse that forums such as this are not a "chat room" as such.....therefore the admonition need not apply. Pure semantics.

  I have seen where JWs will say they "didn't know" they were talking with exJWs/apostates, which doesn't say too much about their thinking ability.....but it soothes their WTS conscience somehow. Frankly, I saw it as an opportunity to defend my faith for about a year (1998-1999) and my "defense" began to look and sound pretty futile when I had to take an honest look at all the documentation and the paper trail that the WTS had left behind! I stopped being ABLE to defend these beliefs and I sure couldn't go on teaching them at the doors or to enforce them to my children and grandchildren.

  I remember all to well----going to a board like this VERY late at night and quickly logging off when I heard someone coming into the room. I didn't want to be asked any questions as to why I was on there! Pitiful---a grown married woman (in my late 50's at the time) being afraid of getting caught in a debate-type forum----no porn, no gambling, no nuttin of the sort! People who don't know the nature of the WTS control-system would not believe it!

  Personally speaking, I really don't see these tactics of the WTS to suppress information about their less-than-credible past, (as desperate as they may BE to keep the JWs from seeing these things) , that human nature being what it IS---JWs will be flocking to their computers to see "whassup" and to see what it IS that they don't want them to see!

  Every JW is gung-ho to be loyal, obedient and submissive right after the convention, but things have a way of going back to normal when some time has gone by. Look at New Years' resolutions----they are forgotten in a short time. The same holds true with ANY contrived resolutions that the WTS writing dept has dreamed up to keep the sheep in line. The WTS cage is getting smaller and smaller, isn't it folks?

  Annie
• 

  Arthur

  I think it needs to be pointed out that no one was required to take an "oath". I was there. I didn't say anything at the end of the resolution. No one cared. It is just a method of speaking. I am not saying I agree with what was being said. But we need to avoid falling into the same trap often used in WT literature of overstating, stretching, or bending the facts to make things fit our point of view.

  Kid-A didn't stretch or bend any facts.

  It has been stated at these conventions that when these resolutions are passed, by verbally saying "yes" JWs are making a verbal commitment or oath to God on these matters. It is the same thing when baptismal candidates answer "yes" to the baptism questions in front of everyone. Yes, not everyone in the audience is requred to say anythting. But, the fact reamains that in the minds of the devoted JWs, saying "yes" is indeed an oath or verbal commitment. (Go back and read the Procalaimer's Book regarding resolutions that were announced in past conventions).

  If the WTS didn't view these resolutions as oaths; then why would they even bother writing them, and including them in the convention programs? These resolutions are specifically designed to reafirm the JWs total allegiance to the org. I seriously doubt that the WTS merely views these as minor or insignificant rhetorical exercises.