by teejay 18 Replies latest jw friends
Skully,
Once again you posted a truly illuminating informational piece. Ihad no idea of those loan and property changes. But, I have been out of the loop for a while.
Your comments on the baptismal questions makes total sense.
Thank you very much..... Perry
Hello Teejay,
it doesn't matter if you ask the
same question again. This topic is very important.
Scully: Excellent reminder from the 86 QfR, a real
eye-opener (at least for many ) and also the rest
of your comments: the WTBS wrote all that to be
to cover themselves and the BoE!!!
A great reminder. Thanks and many greetings,
J.C. MacHislopp
Hello again,
just to thank Scully for the reminder
about Kingdom Halls property loans!!!
Anybody ever said "..fleecing the flock ..."??
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
The whole question thing was news to me. Thanks Teejay for posting the topic. I was baptized with the new questions, so I had no idea that they had changed.
A new question: Has the 80 questions in that green Orginization book changed in any noticable way?
"Hand me that whiskey, I need to consult the spirit."-J.F. Rutherford
Jeremy's Hate Mail Hall Of Fame.
http://hometown.aol.com/onjehovahside/ and [email protected]
refiners fire,
The oath to the Org is the same thing, you cant (later) rationalize betraying the org (The org hopes)because you swore an oath of alleigance.You must remain loyal no matter what.
Your theory makes sense except for one fact... I would imagine that very few people listen to the words to which they are saying "yes." My sister, as much of a Watchtower apologist as *she* is, was shocked to read the words, and this was more than twenty years AFTER she'd already said yes.
Even if they are carefully attentive to that Sunday morning's baptismal talk, they are so caught up in the euphoria of the moment -- plus everybody's watching -- that there is only one answer they can possibly give. Even if they are paying attention but can't bring themselves to say yes but remain silent, once they voluntarily present themselves for immersion it will be assumed that they said "yes" anyway.
Perry
Whatever the case, its just another example of the distrust the leadership has in its members and how they constantly equate themselves with God and Christ..... even if this one does take the cake so to speak.
"Take the cake" is an huge understatement.
By changing the second question into what it currently is, they have required that new recruits annul and ignore any importance found in the personage of God's Son; made the power of the holy spirit totally meaningless and unimportant; and made the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, an organization of human design and fairly recent history, the thing that saves.
When you look at it in that context -- and as far as I'm concerned, it's not possible to look at it any other way -- it's really kinda scary.
Scully,
The change in the baptismal question...
a) simplified the ability of elders to disfellowship someone for apostasy (all you had to do with disagree with the WTS);
b) simplified the work of their legal department to keep the WTS from being sued for disfellowshipping people simply for having their own opinion or interpretation scriptures;
c) simplified the rite of baptism to include a non-commissioned sales position with a snake-oil publishing house and real estate conglomorate that masquerades as a religion.
Well articulated points... hard to refute. You and I are thinking alike on this. Thinking like teejay, huh Scully? I'd watch myself if I were you.
Deciphering 1973's Question 2 says this:
1. read the bible;
2. rely on the holy spirit to help you understand what you read;
3. follow its (the holy spirit's) lead.
Folks like me who answered "yes" to THAT question have no need of an organization (or "governing body") that wields control over your every thought, act, and biblical understanding.
And *no* need for it's rules, its books... its procedures, and no requirement to give in to its control. Folks like me who answered 'yes' to Q2 prior to 1985 are FREE, bound only by their heartfelt and spirit-directed understanding of what THE BIBLE (not a WTS book or magazine) says. Of course 'legal' at Brooklyn Bethel figured all this out back when Ray exercised his God-ordained Christian conscience. They realized that if they stuck strictly to biblical principles there would be waaay too many loopholes in that question.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's maneuver in changing that one question, sprung on the unsuspecting 'newbies' at just the right time, is uglier and more pernicious than anything the 1st Century Pharisees ever hoped (or tried) to accomplish.
You gotta give 'em -- these 20th century Super Pharisees -- credit. I know *I* do.
Howdy Scully,
Secondly, once the Hall was built, the congregation had to repay the loan to the WTS. Fair enough. However, it was "recommended" that the WTS be named the owner of the property (land and structure), with certain persons named as being "trustees" on behalf of the WTS. In other words, the WTS was recommending a $100,000-value donation of real estate to itself (using the example in the above paragraph).This whole issue has been brought forth in threads here before, one initiated by Simon, and Kent was involved also.Third, even though a congregation may have paid off the loan to the WTS in its entirety, the WTS, being the owner of the property, would now be entitled to collect "rent" from the congregations who used the Kingdom Hall. - scully
Your information was not brought forth, as you weren't on this forum at that time. Would you please present your evidence that this is indeed the standard practice of the WTBTS for new KH structures?
An interesting subject - but would like background?
waiting
I think the original baptism questions were in accordance with the verse below.
*** Rbi8 Matthew 28:19 ***
19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
This was dropped in favour of the new vows! Funny sense of priorities!
ISP
