by redsetter2 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
redsetter2
I am sure we were all shocked at the Governing Body Update #2 with the unusual and impulsive changes set forth.
your religion (or former religion) will be a completely different religion in the next 10 years.
redsetter2
Hard to believe smoking or drugs will ever be conscience issues
Also, with such an exhaustive list, there is no mention of higher education?
Hard to believe smoking or drugs will ever be conscience issues
What about cannabis for medical use? It’s a slippery slope, if someone says they need a joint when they are stressed who is to say it’s not medical use.
many self medicating with alcohol and getting away with it
private consensual intimacy and sex between adults of the opposite sex will be a conscience matter, as long as vaginal sex and pregnancy is not involved
So they will allow this with non-married people....
Blood transfusions will not be considered a conscience matter, in fact it will be back to how it used to be, instead they will reverse their opinions on using transfusion alternatives with blood fractions.
I doubt this very much.
The Faithful Slave will soon refer to all Christians "taking the lead" in the Organization, not referring to solely anointed Christians. The Evil Slave may refer to the Governing Body of today in the event legal issues cause them to completely disband. Otherwise, the evil slave will simply refer to wicked men who manage to take the lead in Jehovah's Organization today.
The GB take away their own power?
Dude...what you been smoking? This is all utter BS.
One thing is for sure, the JW world has become a lot more interesting even exciting place for everyone. Those physically out are wishing they were back in to be a part of it all😭
there is a lot of speculation about future things being permitted but really these latest changes kind of permit everything with only a worst case scenario a 90 ban (rest) and you are begged to come back.but most times it won’t even come to that if you say you are sorry
Smoking, drugs rock and roll. Yes sex, partying watching unsuitable entertainment it’s all gone into light touch category.
Light touch means maybe warning and maybe a visit if young person then parents just have to say they have it in hand. (Exact words in the new direction)
Imagine Elder 1 “so they slept together at the party?”
Parents “well they were drunk and high and apparently it was only a blow job but they can’t really remember, maybe a hand job”
Elder 1 “oh that reminds me I have to ask you have you got it in hand” if so nothing will happen
🤣
all seems a light touch approach. Every effort will be made for someone to not be DF’ed. if they say sorry that is enough.
In the unusual case where worst case scenario someone is DFed it’s only for 90days and if they go to meetings everyone will still greet them anyway.
I suspect they wouldn’t need to go to meetings much if at all and have a rest from it during that 90days anyway.
The direction just basically says beg them to agree to be reinstated after the 90 days nothing about going to meetings during that 90days
the DF’ed person doesn’t even need to submit a written request - the elders chase after him/her after only 3 months and, it sounds like, in only the rarest of occasions would extend the DF period for longer.
Jeffro said "Why do you imagine that some random person who doesn’t accept all JW teachings (or even a substantial amount of Christian teaching) anyway should be the benchmark for caring about things related to JWs?"
Who is this random person?
Paul is not a JW teaching. Paul is another of the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" excuses.
My point was that you all focus too much on the GB.
Banning blood transfusions is not following God's law. God's law only was for not eating or drinking blood. Neither the apostles nor the modern day governing body has the authority to expand that law to other means. Expanding laws is what the pharisees did and we know that Jesus did not approve of that.
The problem is that they painted themselves into a corner to where they can't change that without backlash.
jehovaxx - “…Those physically out are wishing they were back in to be a part of it all…”
No, we’re not.
Rattigan350 - “…The problem is that they painted themselves into a corner to where they can't change that without backlash.”
Agreed.
You're making sense, now.
The high wear off?
😏
notsurewheretogo - “…So they will allow this with non-married people...”
“Allow”?
Not likely.
Mind their own business and stay the fuck out of people’s bedrooms?
Maybe a little more.
It does seem as if the primary attitude with these changes is "we're going to stop sticking our noses in your personal lives." To which the reply should be "thanks! Better late than never, assholes!"
It's a good start, since they're still trying to have some control. Maybe now elders won't have to deal with private and personal matters that they are not prepared to deal with. Less stressful that way. Well, except for the power-tripping ones who will be upset that they can't ask intimate questions and lord it over people anymore.
Remember, cracking down on sexuality was always far more about appearing morally purer than everyone else, to reinforce the Jehovah’s Witness religion’s alleged superiority and exclusivity, as opposed to simply wanting folks to be genuinely better people (not to mention that WT theology also simply reflected conventionally conservative American culture, just dialed up to eleven).
It’s pretty obvious by now, however, that…
a) …sexual repression fosters sexual deviancy (duh), which has become a real problem amongst both the leadership and rank-and-file, and cannot be kept on the down-low anymore…
…and…
b) …just going by the sheer volume of “local needs” talks about “fornication”, JWs fuck like bunnies anyway, and everyone knows it by now, which puts the lie to the allegation that they’re more sexually moral than “The World”.
Cracking down even harder on poontang (in any form) is just too obviously and embarrassingly hypocritical, so a concession like what’s described would really just be reality dictating policy a bit more realistically.
Not to mention that having these changes to the rules would probably only be specifically detailed in confidential correspondence to BOEs… they’d be advised to put it into practice, but not necessarily spell it out explicitly to the rank-and-file, per se…
…“need-to-know”, as it were.
