are getting tattoos a disfellowshipping offense?
i know several jw's that have them but i always thought they were totally taboo.
what do you guys know about this?
very easy:
No for tattoo = Yes for beard
One thing is the same in their reasoning: someone, somewhere might look down upon people with tattoos or people with beards, so no JW is allowed to have either.
They don't seem to worry about people who look down upon religions that put forth pharisiacal rules, though, and my guess is that those people outnumber the few that would reject the ultimate religious truth just because it was brought to them by a bearded man.
are getting tattoos a disfellowshipping offense?
i know several jw's that have them but i always thought they were totally taboo.
what do you guys know about this?
You can get DF'd for anything 3 elders agree on. That said, I've never heard of anyone getting the boot for a tattoo, but usually it's one of those things that people do while they're inactive and if they come back the elders don't push the matter.
If someone were to be going to meetings regularly and one day showed up with a very obvious tattoo, I suspect they'd get a good talking to, but it depends on the congregation and their response whether it would become a judicial issue.
The majority, by far, of JWs that I've know to have tattoos were converts and had them before they got ensnared by the cult. In that case, no one cares.
great report by abc on the abuses in jw-dot-org land.... i hope it opens a "floodgate" of future news reports and exposes.
if you ask yourself, "why hasn't the watchtower leadership changed their policy on the 2 witness rule?
if one or more persons on the gb has victims out there that can't come forward because of the 2 witness rule, then that would explain the permanent road block to policy change that is obviously in place.
The two witness rule for child molestation just seems like a "hide-behind-scripture" rule to protect pedophiles. So it invites speculation as to why anybody would protect pedophiles ever...
I'll continue my skepticism - looking at JW doctrine and judicial procedures, I think it's impossible in most cases to work out which ones came from misapplication of scripture and which ones came out of someone's ass and they then proceeded to misapply scripture to support it.
They're making stuff up as they go along, and it's difficult to tell if they get stuff wrong because it suits them, or if they're just getting stuff wrong because they're stupid. Sometimes it's obvious when they're shaping doctrine to suit their selfish goals, but in this case I don't think we have enough information. Furthermore, the policies that endanger children today were instituted before any of the current GB members were in power, so if this all came about because of a molester, they're dead now. It seems most likely to me that the current GB just doesn't want to be seen as capitulating to their critics.
Thanks for your well-wishes.
great report by abc on the abuses in jw-dot-org land.... i hope it opens a "floodgate" of future news reports and exposes.
if you ask yourself, "why hasn't the watchtower leadership changed their policy on the 2 witness rule?
if one or more persons on the gb has victims out there that can't come forward because of the 2 witness rule, then that would explain the permanent road block to policy change that is obviously in place.
Personally, I think it's probably something not worth speculating on unless there's some evidence. This is almost like accusing the pope of child abuse because of the issues with the CC. Not sure if it gets anyone anywhere.
Authoritarian organizations seem to frequently have problems with child abuse scandal, but I think it might be pushing it to say it always comes from the top. Suggesting that the GB has one or more molesters on it is a bit sensationalist for me, and without evidence beyond the cult's myopic strategy to protect itself, I fear that a bunch of speculation does nothing for us, and could potentially turn away people who are looking for answers to their doubts about the cult.
Sorry. I don't mean to rant. I'm having a weird day.
i brought this up in a conversation after today's meeting.
the elder knowingly acknowledged the growing number and pointed out that of course, now we understand why this is so.
i gave my best blank stare and said "we do?
In any case, from now on I'd quote this brother whenever the subject of memorial partakers comes up: "Br. So-and-so said that the growing number of anointed partakers at the memorial is because of the overlapping generations." Then watch and see how others react.
Something tells me the reaction would be "that makes sense!" Doubts are too costly to these people, so they'll latch on to any half-baked explanation for something that would otherwise cause doubt.
i brought this up in a conversation after today's meeting.
the elder knowingly acknowledged the growing number and pointed out that of course, now we understand why this is so.
i gave my best blank stare and said "we do?
This is purely his own personal mental gymnastics to ease his doubts. Think about it - the first part of the overlap would've had to have been anointed prior to 1914, so they've long since died off. Indeed all but maybe a handful would've died off well before they ditched the teaching that the anointed were'sealed' in 1935, which opened the floodgates for newly anointed. Therefore none of the newly anointed could be a part of the second half of the overlapping generation - they're just extra, I guess.
The only explanation is that God must have done a tally a few years ago and come up short of 144k and had to scramble to find some new anointed. I guess that also explains why the newly anointed seem to have been chosen in haste - they all seem a bit...off.
i am not sure if anyone else here heard this phrase.
i did from a circuit overseer when i was a servant many moons ago.
with my newly enlightened mind i finally understand what this means.
I've heard it used by elders all the time.
My translation: brother so-and-so has a valid point that we refuse to acknowledge.
i was thinking that we could spend the memorial evening doing the exact opposite of what we used to do.. smile and laugh.
have fun.
dress comfortably.
I don't understand how protecting children from abusers doesn't, by extension, protect their spirituality as well.
Especially considering that Candice's spirituality seems to have been damaged in their view since she left the cult.
is anything holy?.
i would maintain that holiness can only come from the attitude of people ascribing something as holy.
holiness never comes from the "holy" object, spirit or humans described as being holy..
I see the joke that I came in here to do has already been done to death haha. I guess I'll have to go with a serious response in lieu of that.
I suppose it depends on your perspective. When viewed objectively, it is obvious that nothing is intrinsically holy. When viewed by someone who presupposes that something is holy, it's holiness must be viewed as an intrinsic quality. Such is the nature of religion (and in a broader sense, confirmation bias) - when you set out to prove something that is unprovable (i.e. that something possesses the immaterial quality of "holiness") you'll often find that it's very easy - at least to prove it to yourself.
