just wondering if any one has heard from ones still asleep, what their feedback has been and what comments have been made by the rank and file??.
.
.
Were ANY scriptures given to back up the parts that are now being made fun of?
Specifically, the tight pants, colored socks and spanx?
If I remember correctly, the only scripture offered regarding dress/grooming was 1 Timothy 2:9, which is wildly generic and obviously doesn't indicate hard-and-fast rules like he was throwing out.
"it's the intent that counts not the result.".
i have been out of the jw organization for some 22 years now and i sometimes get a reminding jolt out the hoops that some will jump through to make their religion make sense to them.
the first line in this post is what a jw on the street here in salinas told me on saturday when trying to justify the society's history of false prophecies.
Well done. Hopefully you've sown some seeds.
On the topic of the thread title, I immediately thought of what happens when you criticise the WTS - the moment you so much as raise a genuine question regarding some teaching or practice your intentions are called into question. You could have a completely valid point, but no - you have a fault-finding attitude or you're trying to draw of followers after yourself. Apparently falsely accusing someone of having bad intentions makes it completely unnecessary to answer their question or counter their criticism.
1. love the org.
your god with all your heart, mind, soul and strength....... 2. listen obey and be blessed..... 3. not wear tight pants...... 4. not not wear colorful socks..... .
others feel free to add to the list.. .
Thou shalt turn in a dear friend to the elders if he sins in any way (even if he has already corrected his mistake and no one was harmed) and especially of they express any doubts in the validity of 7 geezers' claim that they're God's mouthpiece.
just wondering if any one has heard from ones still asleep, what their feedback has been and what comments have been made by the rank and file??.
.
.
So I asked my wife tonight what she thought of the zone meeting Saturday and she just said "brutal."
I pushed a little more (probably too much) and learned that she thinks that the brothers in bethel have a clearer view of what's wrong than we do because they're so isolated from the world. I didn't much know what to say to that since it's exactly opposite to the conclusion that seems obvious to me. I also learned that I'm "trying to find fault with everything."
you know, rarely in the history of the org has a group this large congregated to hear from "mother.
" they incessantly speak of the huge group that met at yankee stadium in 1958...the over 250,000 that congregated to be instructed by jehovah.
but over the weekend, there were over 1,000,000 people excited to hear some type of direction, some type of encouragement, something to help them hang on "just a little longer.".
I have been out for about 12 years and I am afraid I already do not reconise the fomer cult I was in. It makes me really sad that my mom and brother were in that audience listening and taking notes.
I'm still 'in' at the moment, but I can tell you that you could've left 3-4 years ago and you wouldn't recognize what the cult has become.
so, how many times have we heard this expression (or a variation of it):.
"jehovah's spirit seems to be blocked here in the congregation...perhaps he is bringing something to light...etc".
it seems that the org often uses this expression, and links it with the "fact" that god wont bless a cong as much,(or at all) if there is "stuff" or "sins" being carried out.. so, why is it then that the cong i am in is experiencing its best years of activity in all aspects?
This was the overall theme of a recent CO talk, all about how HS "flows" from the top down through the organization and we need to make sure not to block the flow. I think there was an analogy made to the roman aqueducts. Super culty when you consider that he was basically telling us that the GB is the source of holy spirit.
just wondering if any one has heard from ones still asleep, what their feedback has been and what comments have been made by the rank and file??.
.
.
My wife refered to it as "the most bizarre meeting I've ever sat through"
Mostly, though, everyone just made fun of the tight pants rant.
this post is going to suggest that the governing body remains, as ray franz wrote, "captives of a concept".
like every jehovah's witness they were raised with the belief that the the paradise would be here by now.
unlike others, they are in a position to do something about.. why wait to rule over the earth?
Also, the parallel account in Mathew 24:49 renders the bit about getting drunk a little differently:
and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards
This scripture sees it's fulfilment in the GB as well, as they currently hold the power once weilded by Joeseph F. Rutherford - who is indeed a confirmed drunkard. Indeed thay even eat and drink at the same literal tables at bethel, and their income is derived from the same source.
I'm really on a roll. Clearly I have the sole ability to interpret prophecy (only after the fact, though!) Everyone come join my cult!
i have enjoyed reading your comments during the past four years.
deep down inside, i have always been agnostic.
the first few chapters in genesis are contradictory and differing.. no one has ever been able to answer my question: "why was satan ever created?".
Welcome. I suspect you are but the first of many to wind up here in the coming weeks because of that reprehensible fool, AMIII.
i expected the streaming of such a large meeting to focus on 100 years of kingdom rule.
not a single mention.
instead more drivel about insignificant things like yoga pants.
I hadn't thought about this point - I was too bewildered by my disgust at the reprehensible way these men took advantage of the occasion to do nothing but condenm people for minor things. Could it be we've already entered the "don't talk about 1914" phase? Ignore it until they're ready for the run-up to 2034 and eventual disapointment?
