by Hobo Ken 116 Replies latest jw friends
I honestly can't see what bringing 607 into the discussion helps anything. The main thing that is wrong about Jehovah's Witnesses is not that they are empirically wrong about historical dates, or interpreting various scriptures, the main thing that is wrong with them is that they prefer to follow rigid rules over applying basic human kindness.
No offense, but I sincerely hope you're not criticising Hobo for bringing up 607...at least he had the gonads to confront the elder in the first place.
Square go?
I suppose I am criticising it yes. The basic problem here seems to be that a mother and daughter have been extremely upset by some men called "elders" who say they should not associate with each other. Fundamentally there is busybodying and a lack of compassion going on, and I think it would be healthy if that's where the focus of the discussion was. I don't think it's too revolutionary to suggest that the exact date of the fall of a Middle Eastern city is strictly speaking not relevant to whether a mother should talk with her daughter. I know you can argue it is made relevant by the Witnesses' organizational structure and how it claims its authority on the basis of chronology. But to engage them on that level is already to make too much of a concession to their way of looking at the world. It is agreeing to fight them on their own territory. It is better to stand outside of their crazy framework and invite them to see how petty, vindictive and heartless it looks from the outside. As I say, the elder was clearly at his most uncomfortable when he was cornered into making the bold assertion that the mother should not "associate socially" with her daughter. When they started talking about Jesus and worship and 607 he relaxed again because he was back in his territory. He was let off the hook because he was no longer being asked to explain the basic unkindness of splitting up a family.
I believe that telling a mother not to talk to her daughter is wrong regardless of when Jerusalem fell or exactly how certain verses can be read. Don't you agree?
I agree.
having bought the t-shirt on this topic I can say that:
Kudos to HK and IKA for getting involved, getting the tapes and posting the tapes on the Internet
lol, it's been a long time since I heard one of these conversations! imho it's a waste of time to have pretty much any discussion with an elder but I appreciate that if you think you've found a more truthful form of belief it might feel worthwhile.
You west coast boys certainly like to have your say! Good on you recording it, has RH heard it??
I believe that telling a mother not to talk to her daughter is wrong regardless of when Jerusalem fell or exactly how certain verses can be read. Don't you agree?
Yes I do. However, 607 is the start point for the 1914 doctrine, which feeds into the 1919 selection doctrine which in turn placed this elder in his position of authority. Using his Society ordained authority he had tried to coerce a woman into having no fellowship with her disassociated daughter, Hobo's wife. He had also used his authority to slander Hobo and his wife to the mother.
Trying to point elders in the direction of compassion doesn't work as they believe they've to follow to the letter the decrees of the Watch Tower Society, regardless of how heartless these decrees may be. But the Watch Tower Society only has power over lives if people believe it was selected in 1919.
So, I can understand that at some point in the conversation the very basis for this elder's authority is going to be challenged, and as this elder had steadfastly refused to consider any criticism of the Society through the previous 5 hours of conversation with Hobo and his wife, maybe it's understandably that Hobo tried the 607 route.
To focus in on this one point as a means to criticise Hobo's tackling of the elder is a bit poor, to be honest. He pinned his colours to his mast, stood up for his wife and was counted as a man for doing so. He has balls.
How would you have handled it, just out of interest?
by the way....RH = ronnie hunter....why give him any anonymity?....if he doesn't like it he can set his wife on me....i.e....sue me.........ahem..
counted as a man for doing so
by who? that sounds rather unreconstructed talk to me - women needing protected from elders... is he still the head of the house?? one could wonder why she didn't stroll into the KH and challenge Ronnie herself, that would have made an exceptionally interesting recording....
This Elduh seems unable to remember anything clearly.
Yet he will be expected to send a report to Beth Hell in which he reports what he remembers took place at a JC.
No written records or recordings of proceedings are allowed. The cop out clause for elduhs to hide their deceit and double talking.
HB
This Elduh seems unable to remember anything clearly.
Yet he will be expected to send a report to Beth Hell in which he reports what he remembers took place at a JC.
No written records or recordings of proceedings are allowed. The cop out clause for elduhs to hide their deceit and double talking.
HB
