It certainly would go towards establishing that they have a clear pattern of secrecy in an effort to keep up appearances. Giving instructions like that is absolutely unethical. It's a clear attempt to prevent any inconvenient truth from making it into the records and is effectively preemptive evidence tampering.
OneEyedJoe
JoinedPosts by OneEyedJoe
-
16
Would this be any use to the Royal Commission?
by freddo ini believe this shows how the org.
doesn't want to be held accountable to secular legal authorities.. in the 1991 green elders handbook (used between 1991 and 2010) there is a blank page (page 143) and at one elders school we were instructed to write six expressions that "should not be used on s77 + s79 forms (df and da forms)".. 1) anything alluding to or naming one of the society's legal advisers.. 2) any mention of the legal desk.. 3) any comments referring to direction from the society.. 4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached.. 5) any comment that might suggest someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but instead somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party.. 6) any comments indicating the elders mishandled the case or committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.. i have in my possession two elders handbooks with these exact words written in each in different handwriting.
.
-
-
-
13
How does the WTS view 'ancient humans' (i.e. fossils assigned to the genus Homo)?
by LoveUniHateExams inhaving read i love ttatt's thread about evidence for humans living more than 6,000 years ago, i responded by using neanderthals and homo ergaster as evidence.
.
this got me thinking about the wt's current view on 'cavemen' (), etc.. so, how does the wts view 'ancient humans'?
-
-
OneEyedJoe
The JWs don't have a view on ancient humans because they close their eyes.
There are none so blind as those who refuses to see.
-
232
Geoffrey Jackson Royal Commission update
by umbertoecho inhello people.
the rc will still go ahead with it's live stream on friday 14th august.
however, it seem that it will be a video link.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
The main reason I want him to show his face (and I suspect the main reason he doesn't want to) is because the first reaction of most JWs upon finding the ARC in the years to come will see that it's just audio of GJ and they'll assume that it's been faked or otherwise pieced together by apostates.
I know that's what I would've assumed if I'd stumbled upon something like that 2 years ago. Hopefully they'll put the video link on the streaming feed.
-
15
Did anyone catch the change on jw.org point number 4 who is babylon the great
by poopie injw.org changed point number 4 excluding the idea of child molesting.
coments please.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
I think this is a reference to:
http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/babylon-the-great/
Do you have a screen capture from before the change?
-
15
Its really weird
by SpunkedTeen ini tried testing my family by mentioning that a member of the gb was summoned to appear in front of the royal commission and i found it really weird how they reacted.they dismissed it saying its just satan attacking the 'truth' and i could not believe how ignorant they are.they all think that the organization did nothing wrong or even that jw's abuse their children.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Don't hold it against them. They are being controlled and conditioned.
Furthermore, if you were in a group setting you'll never really know what they think. It's quite conceivable that they could all be doubting the cult, but are just afraid to speak up around other JWs for fear of the consequences. That's the sort of thing that can happen when freedom of speech is abolished, like it has been in the JW community.
-
30
Hello!
by BeautifulMind ini've been enjoying all of the discussions here for a good while now.
i found this site as i was researching things about this religion i've been in (finally after nagging curiosity and questions) but i wanted to figure things out more before coming on here and posting.
i'm glad to see that im not alone or crazy!
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Welcome! It's always nice to hear of a couple that's getting out together. Another marriage beats the cult! -
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Note the minimum, 5 pounds, stops us from donating a penny and letting them get stiffed for the credit card minimum, bummer.
They're definitely not interested in "two small coins of little value"
-
-
-
OneEyedJoe
How long before jws start giving certificates that say "A donation in the amount of $xx has been made in your name to jw.org" for all their gift giving needs? If that happens, I predict birthdays will get the nu lite treatment! -
53
What is their official explanation for not allowing beards?
by keyser soze ini ask because my gf, who knows all about my jw upbringing, convinced me to grow a goatee, just to see how it looks.
we both decided it looked good so i decided to keep it.
i tried to explain to her that as a jw, i wasn't allowed to grow one, but then drew a blank when she asked me why.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
I'm sure it's been said or alluded to - but it's basically an unwritten rule based on a few letters about not having beards and a few references in the magazines that associate beards to negative things.
The reality of it is that it falls right in line with one of their favorite quotes - "those faithful in what is least will be faithful in what is most." They usually use this as an exhortation to be faithful in small things because you'll be strengthened, but there's actually a clear psychological effect that causes people who are willing to submit to a small display of obedience becoming more likely to obey more significant orders afterwards. It's a similar effect as the source of people "throwing good money after bad" at a poker table, or in business. They've made a small investment and rather than come to terms with the fact that this was a wasted investment, they'd rather make ever increasing investments.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day and I got to talking about all the unscriptural rules that the GB puts upon JWs, likening them to the pharisees that jesus said had invalidated the word of god through their traditions of men. He maintained that they were there for the protection of the stupid/weak ones - i.e. no beards because it might stumble someone. When I told him that their order not to have beards stumbled me, he just stared at me and changed the subject.
-
42
Western Decline is a Reality - 2015 Memorial Attendance
by berrygerry inas has been observed in western congos, the decline is real.. usa is 12.475 % less -2015 vs 2014.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Yes, strictly speaking you are correct. But the increase in 2014 followed two years of far bigger drops in memorial attendance compared to 2011. That drop has now reversed but still represents much slower growth in memorial attendance numbers. As I said a few posts back, the best way to describe the US and territory patterns in recent years is "fluctuating" attendance patterns.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. I was just striving to trace all things with accuracy and admit when my recollection had been wrong :)
I believe 2011's memorial was on Sunday April 17. A sunday memorial would have definitely explained the uptick in attendance.