may i recommend this podcast discussing the russian revolution.
its made by a the conversation, an academic web-site, and features interviews with a number of historians.
i recommend it because an in-depth knowledge of history will protect your thinking from the shallow historical interpretation evident in the jws concept of a progression of world powers and the view of ww1 being a world war.
Fulltimestudent: even all those years of atheistic teaching by the Russian Communist Party does not seem to have weakened those attitudes. In contemporary Russia, the Orthodox church seems as strong as ever.
An interesting article to give some context to the Orthodox church in Russia:
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Ruby: Until orphancrow can show me evidence from the WTS' literature that business relationships with disfellowshipped individuals are allowed
You will note that I had been talking about the "rules" that existed prior to the early 70s and I was curious as to when the rules changed.
I did not make any claim that those rules are the same now and I have no intention ( and I never did) to show you that those rules are the same now. Never did. I never said what you say that I did. You have added your own twist to my words.
However, for the sake of historical accuracy (and it has nothing to do with the present situation concerning disfellowshipping) this quote comes from 1952 and would be the one that dictated the behavior of my father and his generation of JWs and it is the one that explains why the JWs in my congregation from the 60s would still do business with a disfellowshipped person:
***w 52 12/1 p. 735 Questions From Readers***Is it proper for a Christian witness of Jehovah to have business relationships with one who has been disfellowshiped?—F.G.,California.The circumstances of each case might influence the answer. Generally speaking, it would be desirable for us to have no contact with disfellowshiped persons, either in business or in social and spiritual ways. If it is possible to make new business connections relative to employer, employee, the acquiring of raw materials or the performance of needed services, and so forth, it would be advisable to do so. However, if circumstances do not allow for this as you continue to make necessary provision for yourself or family in a material way, then you may decide to continue the business contact with a disfellowshiped person. But if you deem this necessary, you must be very careful to see to it that you do not associate with the ousted one and do not discuss spiritual matters with him. Always bear in mind that our spiritual interests are of far greater concern to us than material interests, and follow closely the recommendations of the congregation regarding one who has been disfellowshiped. We safeguard not only our own personal spiritual interests by so doing, but also those of our brothers, and especially those of weaker ones or new ones who might be easily stumbled by our contact with disfellowshiped persons.
Of course the WT encourages JWs not to do business with a disfellowshipped person but the provision was still there to continue to if necessary.
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
brokenkite: All diapers aside, I think the treatment of women in the religion is a very worthy problem to harp on and make more public
Absolutely it is. It is a fundamental doctrine that is responsible for much damaging behavior. The lack of women in positions of power was one of the primary criticisms leveled by the ARC towards the Org.
Changes will not happen within the org until and unless there is a shift in power and where that power shift has to occur is within the women members. Women have to stop being silent - they are the majority and they have no voice. They are nothing in the WT power structure. And they will remain nothing until they have the full support of exJW males.
About the diapers - if the public knew that JW women were required to wear diapers on their heads, it would likely raise a lot of eyebrows. Heh - maybe we should just have a diaper hat contest to see who can come up with the best diaper hat. Or maybe we can have a diaper mailing drive - you know, "Mail a Diaper to a GB" campaign. Send diapers to Warwick. Or to branch offices wherever you are. Flood the org with diapers.
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
Minus 2, huh?
Lol! Who doesn't like the idea of wearing diapers on their heads?
Seriously? I will know that the activists are serious when and if they chose to publicly show that they support the women trapped inside that cult by standing in solidarity with them - showing that they empathize with the plight of the women who are oppressed, who are raped and disfellowshipped for it, who have no say in handing out justice to those who rape their children.
Serious about activism? are you an exJW elder? Wear a diaper on your head, somebody please, and I will know that you are serious about changing the WT's oppressive tactics and doctrines. Until then, you are just blowing your own horn. I will have serious and long abiding respect for any exJW elder (or any man, for that matter) who protests the WT by wearing a diaper or a hanky on their head. Please do.
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
Kudos to all who were committed enough to show up and make their voice known.
From the reports so far, though, it appears like a bit of foresight could go a long way in any future protests or activism.
BrokenKite, your observations are astute and valuable, if anyone cares to take them into account.
For future protests - think "performance", think "theme", think "subversion"
You have to subvert and confront and challenge. For example: dress all women (like, about a hundred of them or more - exJW women and non-exJW women supporters) in suits, ties and shiny shoes (dress like elders) and have the women march in a form that allows for a large group of children to be inside their 'form' and then, converge on the front gate - not sure the role that the men would take - they would do something*. (*Lol! maybe they can follow the group of women and wear hankies and diapers on their heads)
The subversion happens when the activists do something to challenge the cult's norm - change it up - challenge. In an organized and profound way - in a way that looks good on camera. A performance.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Ruby: watchtower restricts necessary business transactions to between family members only and anything more than this (carrying on business with business associates who are disfellowshipped and are outside of family) are considered wrong.
When did this change?
It must have been post-early 70s because when I was still 'in', business dealings were the only thing that a JW could engage in with a disfellowshipped person. You could do business with a shunned one but, once you walked out of his place of business, you couldn't go and have coffee with him/her. You were restricted from "fellowship" with them but definitely not from business dealings.
During Rutherford years, and even during the Knorr years, it was okay to continue business dealings with a disfellowshipped person regardless of his/her spiritual standing in the congregation. There are several incidences documented where both Rutherford and Knorr continued their business associations with disfellowshipped persons. Business was always protected.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
fisherman: OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?
yeah, sorry...I got it mixed up/backwards and it was too late to edit
Distracted - making candies again
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
cha ching: The WT said (basically) "we are just a religion, we are not a 'court' or taking over the judicial process"...... What do they call this 'spiritual process to help this poor man to see his errors?'
A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Typical Watchtoweresque language twisting.
The Watchtower tries to twist under the language limbo bar whenever they have to address secular authorities. What is important, I think, in this case and in many situations like it, is that the congregant views the process as a judicial one. They do not view the JC as a "pastoral visit" where the elders are meeting to comfort and guide them. They know and understand that a JC is for discipline and not for pastoral care meeting.
This would be similar to how an application to the courts for a restraining order is approached. The decision as to whether to grant such an order will hinge on whether or not the one applying for that order views another person as a threat. It is the applicant's view of the matter and their understanding of what constitutes a threat that has the most bearing.
Likewise in this situation. It isn't the WT's interpretation of JCs that should have the most bearing - it is the appellant's interpretation of the JC hearings that should carry the most weight.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
JD: the consideration that the member gets is the association of other members
I think they get more than just that.
What about the HLC support? That is available to baptized JWs and their children. And only available as a benefit of JW membership. You have to be a JW to receive HLC support.
i have had greatly varied experiences with hlc members over the years.
i was never one myself, but i knew several of them personally.
most struck me as being generally decent human beings.
Fisherman: You will not believe this OC but as I turned to read your post on this thread, I was speaking with a man (not JW) that had a problem with his bowel when he was born but this man showed me a horrific scar from the surgery he received as a baby. I mean horrific. Broke my heart. Besides such a scar- indescribable, he also suffers from incontinence.
After reading your post, I understand....
Aw, Fisherman, I will believe you.
To this day, babies with smooth, clean perfect little bellies appear quite odd to me. I am most familiar with the twisted line of scar tissue that disfigured my perfect baby's belly. Haha! I had surgery myself at 40 years of age or so. When I got out of the hospital, my son and I compared our belly scars. Mine was longer - 11 1/2 inches compared to his of 9 1/2 inches. Only thing is - he got his when he was a baby - sliced wide open and laid out on the operating table like a fish.
My son didn't suffer long term effects (not really, just sort of...) because he was, and still is, a gifted athlete with fearless abilities.
