Well, I told my mom today that I haven't been to a meeting in 5 months plus I need some advise for next Saturday

by doublelife 31 Replies latest jw friends

  • doublelife
    doublelife

    Me and my mom made plans to see each other today so this morning she called me and said she was already in my area and wanted to know where to meet up. I told her that I wasn't ready yet so to come to my apartment first. I said that me and my husband are still in our pjs and she gasped and ask, "You didn't go to the meeting today?" (Our meetings are on Sat.) I said no and she asked if we've been making a habit of that. I told her that we haven't been going a lot because I've just been tired and don't want to go. Then, she went on about how it's so close to the end and now is not the time to drift away from the congregation. So I changed the subject by giving her directions to my place(she'd been here before but gets lost all the time). So she gets here and I walked out to her and we talk before going in my apartment. She wants to know exactly how many meetings I've missed. I'm so sick of hiding from her so I decide to be truthful and tell her I haven't been since my dad died which was in October. So she asked if being tired was the only reason I'm not going or is it doctrinal. I said that I'm having some doubts. At first, she remains fairly calm even though I can tell her cult personality is out now. She asked what my doubts were. I could tell that she thinks she'll know how to answer me. I started with telling her about the time I was an unbaptized publisher and I heard rumors that the jws were teaching that armageddon would come in 1914. And I reminded her that I asked both her and a pioneer in our hall and the answer I got was that they taught 1914 would be the beginning of the end. She nodded her head yes. Then, I told her that that is something that is hard to find out for ourselves because the cd-rom only goes back to the 1950s and that I've found scans of articles on the internet showing that they really did teach armageddon would come in 1914. Of coarse, she tried to warn me about apostate websites but I told her that what I looked at was just scans of old publications and that was it. She seemed okay with that and calmed down again. Then, I told her that at first I was concerned that these scans may have been forged so I compared one scan taken from The Harp of God and compared it with the book at my hall and found out for myself that it wasn't forged. Anyways, I told her about 1799, 1874, and 1914. I quoted her Duet. 18:20-22 about false prophets. Of coarse, her response is "unless new light comes." It was like she was trying to finish the quote but I told her that that is not what the scripture says. So she says, "I know but new light has come out since then." I didn't want to argue with her so I just said, "That's not what the scripture says but there's something else I'm having a problem with." So she stops talking and is now listening. I said, "Well, we know that they got the date 1914 from adding the seven times prophecy to 607 b.c.e. because that's when Jerusalem was destroyed right?" So I'm looking at her and immediately her shoulders become smaller and her faces changes from "I can answer anything" to "Uh-oh, she's getting into something deep and I don't know what to say." So she just nodded her head yes. Then I say, "Well, I've been doing some history research and found out that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 but in 587." Her response, "Well, I'm not very smart with things like that but your uncle is. Why don't I have him do some research about that and have him talk to you about it. Would you do that?" So I said sure.

    Then she gets upset and huffy and puffy and asked if my husband was the one telling me all this. She's getting so angry before I even get the chance to say no. So quickly I tell her no and that this is all me and he doesn't even agree with me. She asked why he was missing the meetings and I told her that he was just lazy. So she says she wants to talk to his mom. I asked why and she said she wants to tell his mom that her son isn't making the meetings. So I say, "Wait, you're basically being a tattletell?" She thinks it's funny and laughs and says yes. I don't her that the bible says we are suppose to mind our own business and not be busybodies. But, of coarse, she says that only applies to personal matters and this was spiritual and his mom needs to make him go back to the meetings. I told her that my husband is an adult and his mom can't make him to anything and the same applies to me. She said, "I know."

    As we were walking to my apartment I asked my mom, "Hypothetically, when my uncle speaks to me and if he can't prove me wrong and I decide I no longer believe, will...." I couldn't get the words out. She finished it for me, "Will I disown you?" "Yes." I said. "No, of coarse not. You're my daughter." I asked, "What if I disassociated myself?" She said that that would be different. I asked, "So as long as I don't disassociate myself, but I no longer believe, you won't disown me?" She said that's right. Even though I'm disassociating myself with my actions, as long as it's not an official disassociation, she won't disown me. Even though that's very hypocritical I'll take it so I didn't say anything else to her. But, at least now I don't feel any pressure to pretend my uncle talked some sense into me. I can disagree and I'll still have my mom.

    As I was typing this my mom called and said that my aunt and uncle want to come visit me next Sat. afternoon. I told her that I only wanted to talk to him because I don't want to feel like I'm being ganged up on. They were in the background and my mom told them I only wanted one of them to come. I could hear my aunt in the background say that only my uncle would come and I heard him agree to it. So, I need to get everything prepared for my uncle next Sat. He's an elder so he know how to explain this subject. But I do too. Does anyone have any suggestions? What none apostate sources can I copy or print out to show my uncle that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587? Any suggestions on how to handle this I would appreciate.

  • FreudianSlip
    FreudianSlip

    Most secular sources will say that Jerusalem fell in 586-7, so just Google it. Of course the JWs will say that the 70 years is based on prophecy, not actual historical events. I was always confused by this. I once had to give a talk on it and I had no idea what I was saying. Read this: http://www.2001translation.com/607.htm

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    Watch some of Tuesday's (Tim Gilgore's) video's on Youtube. I have started asking his questions to a someone I work with they are non-confrontational and can be couched in terms of "someone I called on in the service asked an interesting question..........?"

  • FreudianSlip
    FreudianSlip

    BTW, I recently had a conversation with my mother where she was willing, for the first time, to listen to my doctrinal issues. I finally stumped her on the claim that the Witnesses have been around since Jesus (aka apostolic succession). Assuming we can go back to Charles Taze Russell, ask your uncle who were Jehovah's people the day before Russell "became" one. Since we know he was raised Presbyterian and was later an Adventist.. does that mean Adventists were the one's who passed the torch to him, and if so, are they in the line of apostolic succession? If not, then where is the line of succession before Russell?

    Sorry if that doesn't make sense .

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    As a former elder, my first suggestion would be... don't be too prepared. Leave the burden of proof on them. "Why do only JWs believe in 607 when NO other historians, archaelogist, Jews, or 'nominal Christians' believe that?"

    If you have an encyclopedia, check the entry for "Jerusalem". Include any history books that you have or can easily get from the library. You don't need anything "apostate" to validate the question. And it's simple enough to get this from wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Temple_periods

    And from the online Jewish Encyclopedia:

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=242&letter=J&search=Jerusalem#910

    Is your uncle the type to tell you to "just have faith"? ...so you should just ignore any facts?

  • Ultimate Reality
    Ultimate Reality

    They will focus on 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2. Remember, Daniel said 'devastations' -- plural. 2 Chron talks about sabbaths DURING the time the land was desolated and how Jeremiah's 70 years were fulfilled by the Persian overthrow of Babylon addressed in that same chapter.

    These are one sentence references to Jeremiah 25. To know what Jeremiah said, make them read the whole chapter. Remember when you get to the section on calamity starting with Jerusalem late in the chapter, the Society applies this to events taking place in Jehoiakim's reign -- not the Temple destruction.

    This also brings us to when Daniel was actually taken from Jerusalem. He was taken before the major deportation that occurred under Jehoiachin. In Daniel chapter 1, Daniel himself claims he was taken under Jehoiakim along with some of the Temple utensils. But, the Society claims he was taken under Jehoiachin. Ask them why, since 2 Chron 36 describes two separate Temple raids -- the Society glosses over this.

    Focus on one point only at first: Where in Jeremiah's 25th chapter do we find the reason to apply the '70 years' to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem rather than 70 years of servitude for all the nations mentioned in the chapter? No where will you find anything about Sabbath's for the land of Judah nor anything about the destruction of the Temple.

    It is critical to understand how and why the Society has interpreted these verses. It takes some time to understand all this. Do not focus on the 'secular' evidence. Focus on the Bible and the Society's flawed interpretation.

    Another Jeremiah point; focus on how Jeremiah 29 was written to exiles taken about 10 years before the destruction of the Temple (were they to be there 80 rather than 70 years?).

    Finally, Zechariah chapter 7: These verses are NOT about the 70 Years of Jeremiah's prophecy but about what had been happening the past 70 years -- specifically, since the destruction of the Temple. According to the Insight Volumes he wrote this in December of 518 BCE (within the 70th year of the 587 BCE destruction date). If he did not really mean that, why did he write it? Should we not stick to the obvious and plain meaning of scriptures?

  • doublelife
    doublelife

    Great suggestions everyone!

    Billy, I don't know if he's the type to say "just have faith." I guess we'll find out.

  • jamiebowers
    jamiebowers

    Be careful...he may be your uncle, but he's also an elder. You've already told your mom enough to be df'd. He could be the second witness.

  • Think About It
    Think About It

    Someone on here posted a great response to this issue, but I can't remember who or where it is. If I remember right, just using only the Bible it showed the succession of kings and how long each ruled. The biblical record coincided with the historical evidence pointing to 587 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem, not 607 BCE as WTS doctrine states.

    Think About It

  • FreudianSlip
    FreudianSlip
    You've already told your mom enough to be df'd. He could be the second witness.

    This is a VERY, VERY, VERY, good point. Be prepared for a JC.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit