Posts by TimDrake1914

31

Stephen Lett will be present at our next assembly.

by StarTrekAngel in

a letter was read to the congregation last sunday.

i wasn't paying much attention until i heard stephen lett will be delivering a talk.

at first i thought it would be as a recorded video, as it was in the last assembly.

TimDrake1914

Here in San Diego, we had Tight Pants Tony come and give a talk at our Circuit Assembly (Spanish circuit, using a translator for his talks) about 2 or 3 years ago. Since this was before JW Broadcasting, GB members didn't yet have the type of "celebrity status" they enjoy these days, so most things were pretty low key. From what I remember, he sat towards the front of the Assembly Hall, but still in the general seating area, close to where the backstage area could be accessed. He was available for people to go and say hi to him and his wife and take pictures with them. But he got the same type of reception that most other Branch reps usually got. But since he doesn't appear very "personable", I think most people didn't feel too inclined to go out of their way to go up to him and greet him. From my experience, at least in our circuit, if the speaker was really good and looked very personable, people would make an effort to go up to them after the assembly and say hi. With Tony's case, before the assembly was over, they made it a point to say that Tony would not be available after the assembly to go up to and greet him, since they had to fly out right away and head back to NY. To me, that sounded like BS since I had heard from someone else that he wasn't due to fly out until the next day. So I assumed he just didn't want to stick around too long after it was over.

The only other time we had a GB member come and visit was for the Assembly Hall re-dedication (after a thorough re-model). I think this might have been before JW Broadcasting as well, but the crowd was a mixture of both English and Spanish speaking congregations. Stephen Lett came down for that, and he got quite a different reception. After the program was over, he was swarmed by a huge group of people, as if he was a rock star. People were pretty much just trying to get close to take a picture with him. It was a mob scene really. I'm sure he probably didn't feel comfortable with it, and I'm pretty sure he got this type of reception because most people find him "personable" and just eat up the way he gives talks.

26

need input: why does my wife do this. when at the meeting she is always nodding her head in agreement

by goingthruthemotions in

so this is just so nauseating to me when she noddes her head in agreement and in a low voice or sound does a "mmm uh" in agrrement.

but here is the deal, she never aswers at the meetings.

she doesn't go out in service often.

TimDrake1914

More than likely, this is probably just a physical manifestation of hearing something that you are agreeable to, or of hearing something that sounded "good", whether or not it actually made any sense. I'm sure we have all been in that type of situation. But there could also be other unconscious psychological factors that are involved in this, and that probably have nothing to do with trying to consciously influence others, I believe. A lot of it has to do with the unconscious psychological need to fit in and conform when in a group setting. In other words, our mind is wired to conform to unconscious group pressure, and our behaviour will change to make it easier to conform to the group think. One great psychological experiment that demonstrates this is the Asch Conformity Experiment. Search Youtube and you'll find some great videos about this. Another related experiment dealing with pressure from an authority figure is the Milgram Experiment. As an Ex-JW, reading about and watching these experiments really helped me understand the mentality behind being a JW, and why we were so willing to continue to roll with the changes that JW life entailed.

20

Mass Mailer to Congregations & Branches - Those who can't disassociate

by thedepressedsoul in

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/491270004/mass-disassociation-pact?size=10&page=15.

the topic above got me thinking.

everyone here can't send a disassociation letter due to family or other reasons.

TimDrake1914

This could also have a bad, unintended effect, that could still potentially become something positive in the long run. What if, after receiving thousands of these letters, they double down and come out with a new policy that states that if you become inactive, they will automatically dissasociate you? Sure, that sounds pretty bad, but such a move probably wouldn't be well received by many and would help to wake up even more people.

18

JWsurvey Scoop of Annual Meeting...No more TMS?? Further Magazine Reduction

by LostGeneration in

wow a lot here, hell of a scoop by cedars if true.... http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/theocratic-ministry-school-gone-as-2015-annual-meeting-announcements-leaked-in-advance.

TimDrake1914

Has there ever been anything leaked of this magnitude that ended up being false?

18

WATCHTOWER'S basic premise is false (i.e. copy the earliest form of Christianity and you get it 'right')

by Terry in

watchtower's so-called 'scholars' (excuse me while i throw up) have a basic premise they have always worked under.

namely, the earliest form of christianity was the purest and least corrupt.

by trying to pattern jw's after this earliest form of "purity of christian doctrine" the so-called truth is supposed to emerge.. well--apparently this is a false premise, according to bart ehrman.. _____.

TimDrake1914

I also enjoyed that entry from his blog, which I am also a part of. Made me want to read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture as I've really enjoyed reading some of his other books. By the way, Terry, have you read the latest December 2015 WT (Study Edition)? The first two articles of that magazine do a very rough overview on textual criticism, and discuss why we can be confident that the Bible is the word of God. As someone interested in scholarly biblical research, I think you will enjoy laughing at some of the statements made in those two articles. Since you enjoy reading Bart Ehrman's perspectives on our Biblical manuscripts, I'm assuming you share many of his views, as I do, and will have many of the same reactions as I did to the content of those two articles.

27

New light!, says JW-Archive. The inspired word can have mistranslations, says Dec 2015 WT

by StarTrekAngel in

sorry, i know i posted this earlier but i believe the title did not gather enough attention.

i think is a topic worth discussing.. http://www.jw-archive.org/post/127866869178/new-light-the-inspired-word-of-god-can.

TimDrake1914

You have to love how WT always finds a way to spin things. These articles are pretty much the WT version of "Textual Criticism for Dummies (i.e. JWs)". However, there are many evangelicals who would probably agree with the WT treatment of this subject, since they spout many of the same arguments that WT seems to provide in these articles. But reading through these articles myself, I caught a few things that would make a real bible scholar probably want to pull their hair out over.

I don't know if I'll still be attending meetings when this article is studied. But I know for sure that I would have a hard time sitting through the meeting without wanting to make more than a few comments that would get me funny looks. Coincidentally, it was reading books from Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted, Forged, etc.) related to textual criticism of the New Testament that pretty much changed my view about the bible being the "inspired word of god". But Richard Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible is also another great book on the Hebrew Scriptures that, to me, just reinforced the idea about how the Bible is nothing more than the word of man, not God.

I would love to hear Terry's opinion on these articles, since I'm sure he probably caught more stuff than I did. I would tag him, but don't really know how to do it. Maybe someone who is more knowledgable about these things can summon him for me. :)

34

Mr Jackson declines to appear in RC

by StarTrekAngel in

http://www.jw-archive.org/post/125844213823/geoffrey-jackson-declines-to-appear-before#at_pco=cfd-1.0&at_ab=per-15&at_pos=0&at_tot=14&at_si=55c27690475c6bb3

TimDrake1914

Can someone confirm what source that posting is using? I've not seen anything anywhere else saying that he has already declined to appear. What is the source of the information, given that there is nothing on the RC site about it?

3

Australia Child Abuse Hearing Can we do a Highlight Reel?

by Lets Think in

watching the royal commission hearing.

unreal and so damming to the jw judicial systems!..

what i would love is if someone could put together a 20 minute highlight reel of the most damming parts.

TimDrake1914

I concur. But as a suggestion, I would love a "balanced" highlight reel (if at all possible given how damning the whole thing has been) that would be possible to share with still-in JW's. Maybe something that focuses on how the current process itself is still flawed. However, there is still another week to go, so maybe we should wait until all the testimony has been heard before trying to do this.

26

I want serious answers from WT leaders, possible?

by Powermetal4ever in

jw
friends

what would happen if i would write a physical letter to, for example, the branch office.

and ask questions about scandals like the ngo thing and other stuff?

or ask questions about wtbs economy, or ask for a annual report, which is something i would really like to read.

TimDrake1914

From my experience, if you sound sincere about your question, and it's written in a way where you don't sound as if you are an apostate, they will reply to your letter and send you a personalized letter back with the best answer they can give to your question. It may not be the answer you want, just the answer they can give. They have standardized responses for most inquiries, but they will also try and address any specifics your initial letter may have asked. If they can't answer something specific about your letter, they will just ignore the question or specific issue raised.

However, as others also stated, if you include your personal information, such as your name and congregation, they will also send a copy of their reply to your BOE. This isn't always done to "rat you out" with malicious intent, necessarily. The main motivation is so that they are aware of whatever inquiries you might have, since they are supposed to be the first people you direct questions to, since the branch does get quite a lot inquiries every year from individuals. So basically, they rather you ask the elders your questions first so they don't get swamped with unnecessary inquiries from individuals. Plus, they really do think elders should take care of their own congregation members, and will therefore keep them in the loop anytime an individual sends in a question that they feel should have been directed to the elders first. In addition, if you do ask a question that the elders can't answer, they prefer that the elders send in the inquiry to help cut down on individuals sending in personal inquiries.

As to whether or not the elders would address their response with you, it would probably depend on the nature of the inquiry, and whether or not they feel they should get involved. If the inquiry was about something that was not important, I doubt the elders would even address the response with you.

6

First time they publicly admit this or not?

by TimDrake1914 in

i came across this on the newest wt study edition for 7/15/15 pg.

9 par.

14:"they remember when congregations had a congregation servant rather than a body of elders, when countries had a branch servant rather than a branch committee, and when direction was given by the president of the watch tower society rather than by a clearly established governing body of jehovahs witnesses.

TimDrake1914

I came across this on the newest WT Study Edition for 7/15/15 pg. 9 par. 14:
"They remember when congregations had a congregation servant rather than a body of elders, when countries had a branch servant rather than a Branch Committee, and when direction was given by the president of the Watch Tower Society rather than by a clearly established Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Is this the first time they publicly admit to this? Given how they explained during the "faithful and discreet slave" revision a couple of years ago that the slave has always been closely associated with the governing body, wouldn't this statement contradict that? I mean, they've always been trying to give the appearance that the GB has always been in charge, but to me, this statement would directly contradict that idea. Anyone else know of other sources where this reality is actually admitted to?