I use IE11 so that is probably why...
Chrome Browser downloiad
every time i've asked this in an existing thread, i've never gotten an answer, so forgive me for starting a new thread in order to ask again.
i simply cannot figure out how to quote someone with the standard yellow box.
i can copy/paste the quote, sure, but nothing i do makes it appear in a yellow box like everyone else.
I use IE11 so that is probably why...
Chrome Browser downloiad
so it's not enough that i'm dealing with post traumatic stress/anxiety and panic attacks all related to my life as a jw (50 years baptized -- i stopped going a couple of months ago) at 3 a.m. i get an email from the other side of the world.
'you have to go to the convention.
bro sanderson says we must watch the news, things are happening.
As far as your panic attacks, as you have been a JW for 50 years, you've had over 50 years of indoctrination and conditioning. You are not going to undue or turn that around immediately or even quickly. For me, even after more than a decade out, the JW conditioning continues to kick-in every so often.
Slow down and Breath and consider the reasons you left and what you have learned since leaving.
Any opposition now being experienced by WT and JWs as a whole, is mainly due to actions they have brought on themselves, not because it's the end of the world. Consider as one example, WT's continued refusal to appropriatly address child abuse within the organisation and the resulting implications with the Australian Royal Commission.
every time i've asked this in an existing thread, i've never gotten an answer, so forgive me for starting a new thread in order to ask again.
i simply cannot figure out how to quote someone with the standard yellow box.
i can copy/paste the quote, sure, but nothing i do makes it appear in a yellow box like everyone else.
I add 3 blank lines (hit Enter 3 times) into the 'Have your say' box, before inserting a quote.
After highlighting and copying the text you want to quote, place the cursor on the first blank line, then click the Quote button to insert a yellow box so as to paste the copied text into the yellow box.
When you want to add your own comments below the yellow quote box, place the cursor onto one of the other blank lines you had already first added. If you added the quote box to the first blank line, the other 2 blank lines will remain below the yellow quote box.
A good view of another GB member's watch was obtained some time ago. I recall posters here who had studied the images to compare to the real thing, confirmed then it was a real top-of-the-line Apple watch. GJ's images don't really show much other than color and thickness.
Mad I is correct that it isn't having expensive items that is necessarily wrong, but more the obsession and showy display. The conflict is, WT council is always to simplify, be modest and not put-on a showy display of ones means of life. That implies, even if a person can afford whatever they want, they are to be modest and discreet in their choices.
As Jesus did not have a place to lay his head, the GB members as 'Christ's Brothers' and the 'Faithful and Discreet Slave', should be setting an example in modesty. Even if it is a knock-off, it portrays the illusion of being expensive and is therefore, not simple, modest or discreet.
says it all really.
total hypocrisy once again..
In their view, everyone else is below them in status to even dare suggest they are not acting properly or to question their being chosen by God.
As they consider themselves "Guardians of Doctrine", then the expectation is that everyone else is to look on them in awe and faithfully follow every utterance from their mouths.
i received a phone call, "is that (name)?".
i was working my way around a car park and answered.
"yeah hang on" at which the caller hung up.. this is a scam where they are wanting you to confirm who you are so they can move on identity theft.. the voice was male clear like a professional announcer.. i have reported this to the relevant authorities.. i have also frozen my bank account..
The warnings I have seen by local police, indicate the caller is only attempting to have you say "Yes". They record you making that statement which they edit, copy and insert into a variety of 'agreements'.
You then begin to receive phone bills containing numerous additional fees that you didn't subscribe to.
When you complain to your phone service provider, they will have been provided with an audio recording as proof of you (your voice) agreeing "Yes" to additional services from various 3rd parties. These could be for things such as the $4.95/min. dating or sex sites that advertise on late night TV.
So many people now have certain bills automatically paid directly from their bank account, they may not even look at their bill statement until months after it was paid.
The best approach if you answer a call and are asked if that is you, is to as scratchme1010 suggested, ask in return, "who's calling" so as not to say 'Yes', thereby foiling the attempt to have you appear to agree to something.
i'm going through an extremely hard and dark time right now and really yearned for the support of people i know in the flesh, and i really thought revealing my serious doubts and frustrations to a few close friends who became inactive several years ago would help.
they attend the memorial and no more than 2 sunday meetings each year, and haven't preached for several years, so are still technically baptised-but-inactive.. it broke my heart or at least left me feeling very alone when they all (they don't know each other and live in separate areas) told me that they can sympathise but reckon i should stay with "the truth" (their words, still) as it's the best thing there is.
it's like i'd discovered a new group of people, not pimo (physically in, mentally out, like me) but pomi (physically out, mentally in).
people I knew who were not very moral or spiritual but still considered themselves JW's of some form or other. - Giordano
Do you ever consider how those people would act if they did not consider themselves to be JWs whatsoever?
as the title says, i spoke to two sisters at a witnessing cart today.
i didnt approach them, as circumstances would have it i was out in liverpool city center with my 3yo and she was carrying a teddy and a balloon.
she caught the balloon on something sharp and it popped and so she started crying.
Perhaps the local congregation located where you met them, was abolished and the members reassigned to various surrounding congregations.
Maybe the Golbourne congregation territory now includes that area of Liverpool as well as Preston.
can he be sued for violating clergy pertinent privilege by the person that confesses to him?.
To my understanding, a religious confession could be heard by several people and still be considered confidential (privileged) if they all are present and known by the confessor to be present before the confession is made. If any of those people then revealed any matter of the confession without the confessor's consent to anyone not present, that person would then be breaching confidentiality.
I expect clergy penitent privilege is not intended to benefit clergy or the church but intended to benefit and protect the confidentiality, reputation and public standing of the confessor in matters of religious sin. Lines are blurred due to clergy confidentiality with regards a confession to religious sin vs a confession to having committed a crime.
I expect the courts will eventually be required to rule on and clarify these matters. Perhaps this will become one of the recommendations of the ARC whose recommendations hopefully will be noted and respected by other nations beyond Australia.
can he be sued for violating clergy pertinent privilege by the person that confesses to him?.
The only 'authority' religious clergy have is in regards to sin, not crime.
For it to be a 'confession', it would appear that it would need to be the person who had done the wrong (abuser), confessing his/her sins to the elder.
As the abused party has committed no sin in being abused, would it then be considered a religious confession if the abused party reported to an elder of having been abused?
To uphold and respect 'clergy penitent privilege' and 'confidentiality of confession', matters of confession would need to remain confidential between the confessor and the hearer of the confession. The hearer (elder) could not discuss the confession with another elder unless another elder was present to hear the confession and known by the confessor to be present before giving the confession.
To my understanding, WT's claim to clergy penitent privilege has been ruled inadmissible during some proceedings, due to an elder hearing a claimed 'confession', then sharing the matter with other elders not present when the confession was given.