Cedars, have you ever considered the possibility that Stephen Lett might have a disease? Like tourette syndrome?
Video of the Annual Meeting / new FDS understanding on JW.org
by cedars 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
therevealer
Or he might have had a labotomy. The scar on his forehead could pull on his eyes like that Methinks.
They are dumbasses - don't confuse making rightful fun of them with disrespecting a legitimate medical issue.
-
Resistance is Futile
Lett has the crazy eyes, it really bothers me watching him speak. He reminds me of this guy...
-
DATA-DOG
Wolfman, nice.. " Would not surprise me in the near future new light arose that the 144,000 are a literal number, but of members of the governing body. That way they prepare the ground for the WT to continue dominating the JW's for centuries. " Only the GB are the 144,000/FDS. We have a long way to go before we reach 144,000! That would be one they would sit on for a while. After all they did admit that if they cannot agree on new light the " shelf " the idea. They may blow the dust of of that one in another century.
Londo, So what did your dad say? Also, I like this point " Oh, and if everyone is either Governing Body or a Domestic, it elevates the Governing Body from those "anointed" who might try to usurp them. " So the FDS appeared after 1919..hmmm...so did the Evil Slave!!! Who is the Evil Slave? Anyone the GB says it is!
-
00DAD
a watcher: Cedars, have you ever considered the possibility that Stephen Lett might have a disease? Like tourette syndrome?
More likely mental retardation.
-
cedars
a watcher
Cedars, have you ever considered the possibility that Stephen Lett might have a disease? Like tourette syndrome?
Similar to what 00DAD said, I doubt that Lett suffers from anything other than eccentricity and delusional behavior.I also believe he has a very low IQ based on his comments about "express will" in the following YouTube video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MUaWmYHocc
On a separate issue...
I was thinking some more about that comment from David Splane, which was (to repeat)...
"And brothers, we LOVE this teaching. We LOVE this idea, because it really truly does dignify the members of the Great Crowd."
It ocurred to me that "dignifying the members of the Great Crowd" shouldn't be any reason to LOVE a new teaching. Surely the primary purpose of bible teachings of any kind is to dignify Jehovah, not men - so why is the dignifying of the Great Crowd so important all of a sudden? Bear in mind that no other reasons for "loving" this teaching were given in this brief remark - only that it dignifies the Great Crowd. This also leads to the question... so was the Great Crowd UNdignified prior to this new teaching? Were they suffering unwarranted humiliation all those years when we believed the faithful and discreet slave to be the anointed? Do we owe ourselves an apology?
In my view, the comment was clearly designed to "sell" the new teaching to the audience, which would have been predominantly composed of non-anointed brothers. This alone speaks volumes. As I've already said, the truth should be the truth whether we "love" it or not, so personal feelings are irrelevant. The very fact that Splane felt compelled to make the teaching sound appealing to the majority of his audience with a "what's in it for you" type explanation hints strongly at the fact that the Governing Body really is just making this up as they go along.
Cedars
-
cedars
The video has made it onto YouTube. I guess it was only a matter of time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpthHBOUoU
Cedars
-
trujw
Brilliant wolfman never thought of the 144,000 now only being the FDS in Crookland. I think you are on to something
-
JustHuman14
Just a question that I came up with: Will the WT go back to the teachings of Russell?
-
cedars
JustHuman14
Just a question that I came up with: Will the WT go back to the teachings of Russell?
I doubt it. If anything, it seems they're trying to distance themselves from Russell or maybe even write him out of their history altogether. It's been suggested that some biographical accounts of Russell are due to be published soon that paint him in a very unflattering light. If this is true, then it would explain why the Society is bypassing Russell with this latest doctrinal change. They may be taking pre-emptive measures before things start to get ugly.
Cedars