Posts by Cameron

9

What did he really find in 1919?

by Fatfreek in

it's been awhile since i've been out but i seem to recall that jesus returned to his temple in 1919 (or 1918?

) and at that time, the most reliable servant he could entrust with his belongings were those embodied by those under rutherford's watchful eye.

at that time he found them immersed in pyramidology, they believed in the cross, and a list of other teachings they would rather leave buried ("damn that internet!").

Cameron

The main point I try to make in "Captives of a Concept" is that according to the "Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" book, (1) there is no possible way the Society could have passed a 'food-at-the-proper-time' examination by Jesus Christ in 1919 which they say was based upon what they had been teaching down till 1919. (2) And therefore, there is no possible way they could have received that appointment mentioned in verse 47 - and therefore, based on their own interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47, there is no possible way the Society could be God's organization today.

Ray Franz expressed it this way: "It would be an insult to Christ Jesus to say that he selected the Watchtower Society on the basis of what it had been teaching as of 1919."

Don

37

Are there not enough anti-Witness books out there?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

every once in awhile i will read comments about someone thinking a new anti-witness book needs to be written, to expose something.

well, recently i took the time to look over the search engines of the internet and found something interesting.

when you type in "jehovah's witness" or "watchtower", you found almost 3 to 1, negative sites and information on the witnesses.

Cameron

Terry,

Here are some comments on your post. You said, "Here is my short list of what pulls a curious JW away from most (not all) Ex-Witness books on the market."

"1.The book immediately demonstrates a bias. Any anti-JW bias will be read as an unfair attack. The solution to this is a NEUTRAL presentation, which is balanced, fair and more of a fact-finding expedition.

"Captives of a Concept" has been translated into German by the same person who translated "In Search of Christian Freedom" into German (Herbert Raab). Here is what he said about the book…

"’Captives of a Concept’ is in my opinion a very fine book, since it speaks in a matter-of-fact tone about the Watchtower teachings. I don't really like those writings of ex-Witnesses that a full of spite and hate. Surely most Witnesses seek to serve Jehovah sincerely but are mislead by some (or should I say: many) erroneous teachings. So they are often victims themselves. As to the Watchtower leaders, it is as Ray Franz wrote in his Search book: ‘We are not to judge them; for only Jehovah and Christ Jesus know how much guilt they have heaped on themselves.’

"2.The ex-JW author usually lapses into sob story of how they were duped and mistreated.

"Captives of a Concept" does not do this.

"The solution to this is steering clear of the personal recriminations.

"Captives of a Concept" does this.

"3.The worst offenders (from the JW point-of-view) are the newly born-again ex-Jdubs who extol the ‘I've found Jesus scenarios’!

"Captives of a Concept" does not do this.

"The solution to this is to put selling your newfound "Hallelujah" moment on the backburner and concentrate on helping a trapped JW find something to agree with in what you are offering.

"Captives of a Concept" does not have a "Hallelujah moment." But it does offer an unorthodox suggestion about how to go about "helping a trapped JW find something to agree with."

"4. The average rank and file JW hardly knows (or cares!) about the history of the organization. They've been led by the nose into the "progressive revelation" over time nonsense. "That was THEN and this is NOW" would be the natural response.

Perfect. "Captives of a Concept" explains why this Witness' thinking is what has led them to "The One Mistake All Jehovah’s Witnesses Have Made" – Chapter 5

"The solution to this is to concentrate on two important non-refutable points: 1914 as the result of the elusive 607 B.C.E. date and false prophecy. (i.e. How can a false prophet be Jehovah's mouthpiece?)"

"Captives of a Concept" takes a different approach that doesn’t involve having to delve into (1) ancient history as it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem or (2) the Society’s complicated interpretations that end up in 1914 as the date of Christ’s "invisible presence." The book’s approach only requires the reader to know that 1914 is the date the Society assigns to the Second Coming of Christ and then hold them to it.

"The number one problem with reaching a JW who is on the fence about whether they are in the right religion is this: THERE IS NO PLACE THEY CAN GO to replace the Kingdom Hall that won't make them flinch. You can't send them anywhere. They are stuck out there on their own. They sure as hell aren't going to skip down to the local Baptist church! When you take something away from somebody you have to fill the empty space with more than just nothing.

"Captives of a Concept" offers an alternative ‘place they can go to replace the Kingdom Hall.’ - See former Circuit Overseer on Frye’s suggestion on page 136.

Don

22

The Real Reason Jehovah's Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

by Cameron in

jw
friends

the real reason why jehovahs witnesses refuse blood transfusions

jehovahs witnesses say that their refusal to accept blood transfusions is based on what the bible says about blood.

they refer to acts 15:20 where it says, "abstain from blood," and reason that transfusing blood is not abstaining from blood.. but what the bible says about blood is not the real reason why they refuse blood transfusions.

Cameron

And why is "follow the organization" the Witnesses' mantra?

Because they believe that the organization is God's organizaition. That's the concept holding them captive.

Don at www.CaptivesOfaConcept.com

22

The Real Reason Jehovah's Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

by Cameron in

jw
friends

the real reason why jehovahs witnesses refuse blood transfusions

jehovahs witnesses say that their refusal to accept blood transfusions is based on what the bible says about blood.

they refer to acts 15:20 where it says, "abstain from blood," and reason that transfusing blood is not abstaining from blood.. but what the bible says about blood is not the real reason why they refuse blood transfusions.

Cameron

IW,

You asked...

Are you saying that if the Watchtower came out tomorrow with a letter to all the congregations telling them they could now take blood transfusions JWs would turn around and line up for them?

I feel that if "God's organization" ever comes out with "new light" on blood transfusions that leaves this matter up to individual conscience, then in order to "keep up with Jehovah's organization" Witnesses know they would be "required" to now look at it the same way. I can picture Witnesses still avoiding blood transfusions for medical reasons, but they would no longer have to refuse blood for Scriptural reasons.

You also asked...

Would you when you were a Witness?

I think you are asking what I would have done if the Governing Body had come out with such a letter when I was still a Witness - when I still believed that the Society was God's organization.

I would have stopped believing that blood transfusions were a violation of the Law of God. But I would have been one of the ones who would have still searched to find a doctor who would be willing to do what needed to be done without using blood if at all possible for medical reasons.

Don

22

The Real Reason Jehovah's Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

by Cameron in

jw
friends

the real reason why jehovahs witnesses refuse blood transfusions

jehovahs witnesses say that their refusal to accept blood transfusions is based on what the bible says about blood.

they refer to acts 15:20 where it says, "abstain from blood," and reason that transfusing blood is not abstaining from blood.. but what the bible says about blood is not the real reason why they refuse blood transfusions.

Cameron

The Real Reason Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

Jehovah’s Witnesses say that their refusal to accept blood transfusions is based on what the Bible says about blood. They refer to Acts 15:20 where it says, "abstain from blood," and reason that transfusing blood is not abstaining from blood.

But what the Bible says about blood is not the real reason why they refuse blood transfusions. The real reason only shows up when looking at what Jehovah’s Witnesses always do when the Watchtower Society stops teaching something. For example…

For decades they believed that it was "the Creator’s promise" in the Bible that the New World will be here before the generation of 1914 passes away. They said they believed this because of what Jesus said at Matthew 24:34 about "this generation will not pass away until all these things (including the new world) occur." But in November of 1995 the Watchtower Society stopped teaching such a thing. What did Jehovah’s Witnesses then do?

If the real reason they believed that teaching was because it was really based on the Bible, then even though the Society stopped teaching it Witnesses should have continued to believe it anyway. But they didn’t. They all stopped believing it the moment the Society stopped teaching it. What does this show?

It shows that the real reason why they believed that teaching was because that’s what the Watchtower Society was teaching. They started believing it when the Society started teaching it and they stopped believing it when the Society stopped teaching it. Therefore what the Bible says at Matthew 24:34 is not the real reason they believed it.

Again, this is what Jehovah’s Witnesses always do when the Society starts and stops teaching something. While they are teaching it is called "a true teaching of the Bible." When they stop teaching it is called "old light." This is the way it has always worked with this religion.

Is there any reason to believe that it is any different with the Society’s current teaching about blood transfusions? Do Witnesses believe that transfusions are against God’s Law because of what it says at Acts 15:20, or because this is what the Watchtower Society happens to be teaching at the present time? Here too the real reason will only show up if the Society ever changes what it teachers about blood transfusions.

Why are they so willing to change what they believe whenever the Watchtower Society changes what teaches? I feel Ray Franz has the answer to this question on page 296 of his "Crisis of Conscience" where he said…

"I believe that (all Witnesses) are, in effect, the captives of a concept.

The concept or mental image they have of ‘the organization’ seems almost to take on a personality of its own, so that the concept itself controls them, moves them, or restrains them, by molding their thinking, their attitudes, their judgments…The …concept of ‘the organization’… becomes, in fact, the dominant, controlling force."

That’s where the title of the book "Captives of a Concept" came from..

Don at

www.CaptivesOfaConcept.com

1

The Mormon's "8th Article of Faith."

by Cameron in

as the watchtower society has its use of proverbs 4:18 to explain away things that suggest that the society is not what jehovah's witnesses believe it is, the lds church has its use of their "8th article of faith" to explain away things that suggest that it is not what mormons think it is.. that article goes like this: "we believe the bible is the word of god as far as it is translated correctly.".

there is nothing wrong with such a statement.

another example: the church teaches that jesus is the god of abraham.

Cameron

As the Watchtower Society has its use of Proverbs 4:18 to explain away things that suggest that the Society is not what Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is, the LDS Church has its use of their "8th Article of Faith" to explain away things that suggest that it is not what Mormons think it is.

That Article goes like this: "We believe the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

There is nothing wrong with such a statement. The question is, Who decides if it has been translated correctly? Answer: The LDS church. The following example shows how this Article works in actual practice...

The Church teaches that Jesus (the Son of God) is the LORD of the Old Testament. And that "God the Father" is "God" or "Elohim." But there are some Scriptures which don't agree with what the Church teaches. For example:

Psalm 110:1: "The LORD said to my Lord (Jesus), 'Sit at my right hand...'" Obviously "The LORD" cannot be Jesus Christ in this verse. I asked the Church about this. They said that this verse has not been translated correctly and that it should read, "God (Elohim) said to my Lord..."

I asked them if there is any manuscript evidence which shows that the the first Lord is "God" rather than "LORD." They said "No."

Another example: The Church teaches that Jesus is the God of Abraham. But Acts 3:13 states that Jesus is "the Son of the God of Abraham" (KJ). They again inserted their 8th Article of Faith.

I mentioned to them that it would be good to have a list of all the Scriptures that are not translated correctly so we can avoid misunderstanding something because of a mistranslation. I asked them if they had such a list. They said, "No."

It would seem that Mormon's are just as captive of an illusionary concept as Jehovah's Witnesses are. It's just that the concept holding them captive is different from the one that holds Witnesses captive.

Don at www.CaptivesOfaConcept.com

55

Reason for getting disfellowshipped.

by greendawn in

jw
friends

what were you all disfellowshipped for?

.

perhaps a frequent topic overall but i never happened to notice it.

Cameron

A former elder had been complaining to me how he had been unfairly deleteld as an elder a while back. I recommended that he read "Crisis of Conscience" because it might help him understand why elders do what they do. He returned the book to me the following day without reading any of it, and said, "We need someone to lead us by the hand."

He then reported me to the elders who then disfellowshipped me for "apostasy." After all, they did need to "keep Jehovah's organization clean"!

Don

12

New Book? "What Does the Bible REALLY Teach?"

by Cameron in

jw
friends

someone from russia said that the society has a new bible study aid, "what does the bible really teach?

" and that it doesn't mention matthew 24:45-47. .

does anyone know anything about this book?

Cameron

True, but the "Knowledge" book does refer to Matthew 24:45-47 on page 161.

Don

12

New Book? "What Does the Bible REALLY Teach?"

by Cameron in

jw
friends

someone from russia said that the society has a new bible study aid, "what does the bible really teach?

" and that it doesn't mention matthew 24:45-47. .

does anyone know anything about this book?

Cameron

Someone from Russia said that the Society has a new Bible Study Aid, "What Does the Bible REALLY Teach?" and that it doesn't mention Matthew 24:45-47.

Does anyone know anything about this book? Specifically, is it true that it doesn't even mention Matthew 24:45-47 let alone try to explain it?

Don

42

At last finished reading Crisis of Conscience

by diamondblue1974 in

jw
friends

.

and what an eye opener it was...dont get me wrong i faded some 10 years ago and the reasons for such were contained in the book, i.e 1914, failed prophecies and so forth.. the expose is disarming by its objective style and whilst i now read any literature through sceptical eyes i could see a person genuinely grieved by what had taken place and the crisis he was subjected to conscientiously; it said it all to me when he said that his aim was not to divert people from the jws but give them support so they could develop as christians and therefore allow them to come to their own conclusions (or words to that effect).. extremely well written and consise with reams of references (which i happen to love).. anyone that is recently out must read this book...it objective, honest and was totally surprising in parts.. db74

Cameron

Greendown asked…

Does R. Franz offer any explanations as to why the GB is so rigid and incapable of changing so many things that cause a great deal of harm to the membership?

Yes he does.

On pages 296 and 297 of this First Edition he explains why he feels that the men of the Governing Body are themselves captives of their own illusionary concept that the Society is God’s organization

He reasons…

For (the men of the Governing Body) "the organization" remains something undefined, abstract, a concept rather than a concrete entity. Perhaps because of such an illusory view of ‘the organization’ a man can be a Member of such a Body that has virtually unrestricted power and authority, and yet not fell keen sense of personal responsibility for what that Body does, for what ever hurt or whatever misleading information and consequent misdirection results.

It was “the organization that did it, not us” seems to be the thinking. And, believing that ‘the organization’ is God’s chosen instrument, the responsibility is passed on to God. It it was His will – even if later the particular decision or the particular authoritative teaching is found wrong and changed. People may have been disfellowshipped or otherwise hurt by the wrong decision. But the individual Member of the Governing Body feels absolved of personal responsibility. Any mess that has been made, God will do the cleaning up of it for "the organization."

That explains it for me.

Don at www.CaptivesOfaConcept.com