Posts by slimboyfat

10

Things Rutherford got wrong that Fred Franz had to clear up

by slimboyfat in

i was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that rutherford was in some way preferable to fred franz, because i’ve not come across this view before.

it made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why i hold the opposite view and prefer fred franz to rutherford.

i haven’t done any additional research, so i’m only drawing on what i can remember off the top of my head, but i thought i’d list a few things where i reckon fred franz’s approach was preferable to rutherford.

slimboyfat

I don’t think it needs to be either/or, Tonus. I reckon everyone doubts to some degree, no matter what their belief or position. Rutherford had a lot of good reasons in his personal experience to suspect that he was being used by God. Consider his backstory of being imprisoned by the US government and being opposed within his own movement. Not only did he overcome all that, but by the end of his life the movement was thriving and expanding like never before. If you really put yourself in the mind the person, who wouldn’t believe you are blessed by God in that situation?

On the other hand, there is good evidence he didn’t treat his wife particularly well, was estranged from his son, fell out with many people, afforded himself luxuries in a time of poverty, not to mention suspicions about his womanising and alcoholism. Don’t these indicate cynicism rather than true belief? Possibly. Yet even biblical stories such as David combine true belief with shocking immoral behaviour. One apparently doesn’t exclude the other, especially for those in positions of power and wealth. We can judge their behaviour but it’s not the same as saying that he himself didn’t believe what he preached.

Strangely, I think a stronger case might be made for Knorr having doubts about the religion he led, because there is testimony from a few people that he didn’t believe the more eccentric doctrines and was far more interested in the technicalities of managing a publishing empire than in the niceties of theology.

19

The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.

https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.

if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.

slimboyfat

Sometimes politicians get caught in recordings at private events which are publicised in the media. I don’t know the legality of that but Austrian politicians, for example, have lost their position because of damning comments made in private that were recorded without their knowledge. Was the person doing the recording also prosecuted in those cases? Or is a politician who makes damning comments in private fair game whereas ordinary people deserve privacy. It’s different countries and different laws too. I don’t know what the law is here. On the one hand it seems reasonable that people have a right not to have their private conversations recorded. On the other hand if it uncovers illegality or serious hypocrisy that others should know about is there a justification for it? I don’t know the answer, I’m just trying to understand the issues involved.

19

The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.

https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.

if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.

slimboyfat

I see, he recorded the meeting. That makes sense as a basis for legal action. He should have known not to do that, or at least not to publicise that he had recorded it.

10

Things Rutherford got wrong that Fred Franz had to clear up

by slimboyfat in

i was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that rutherford was in some way preferable to fred franz, because i’ve not come across this view before.

it made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why i hold the opposite view and prefer fred franz to rutherford.

i haven’t done any additional research, so i’m only drawing on what i can remember off the top of my head, but i thought i’d list a few things where i reckon fred franz’s approach was preferable to rutherford.

slimboyfat

I was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that Rutherford was in some way preferable to Fred Franz, because I’ve not come across this view before. It made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why I hold the opposite view and prefer Fred Franz to Rutherford. I haven’t done any additional research, so I’m only drawing on what I can remember off the top of my head, but I thought I’d list a few things where I reckon Fred Franz’s approach was preferable to Rutherford.

1. Rutherford stopped songs and music at the meetings. Fred Franz loved music and singing and restored them when Rutherford died. It would be pretty strange to have meetings with no music.

2. Rutherford insisted on the rather forced reading of Romans 13 that the “superior authorities” are not governments but Jesus and Jehovah. That was a pretty incredible claim that Franz had to walk back while maintaining neutrality as a principle that is not dependent on this forced reading of this passage.

3. Rutherford introduced a strange teaching that in modern times God uses only the angels rather than the holly spirit to guide his followers. Again, Franz dropped that.

4. Rutherford introduced militaristic language to describe congregations rather as “companies” as if engaged in warfare (a bit like the Salvation Army). Again, Franz ended that.

5. Rutherford got rid of elders as the means of organising congregations. It is not as clear in this instance that Franz was instrumental in restoring bodies of elders, or if he allowed the change to be made by others, but elders did come back, in a new form.

6. Rutherford engaged in personal attacks in bethel and through the pages of the publications against Johnson and Moyle and others. Whatever his other faults, I don’t think Franz engaged in that, certainly not in the printed literature as Rutherford did.

7. Rutherford was anti-intellectual as well as anti-cleric, anti-business, anti-politics (some would say anti-social - ha!) whereas, whether you agreed with Franz or not, he did attempt to read and engage with academic literature on Bible languages and interpretation, which made for more interesting material.

Those are some things where I think where Franz was preferable to Rutherford. I am probably forgetting and/or missing loads of relevant issues. These don’t get into the personal habits of either which is a whole other, though largely unverifiable area where Rutherford has come in for greater criticism than Franz.

66

Who will Survive Armageddon?

by Vanderhoven7 in

breaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.

according to sergio:.

are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.

slimboyfat

We must have the faith that the Bible does revive

We must build such faith if God’s war we would survive

Do we have a faith accompanied by works

This kind of faith preserves our souls alive

19

The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.

https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.

if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.

slimboyfat

Does anyone know what law he is accused of breaking? Are there precedents one way or another about Zoom meetings? If attending Zoom meetings you’re not “supposed” to be at is criminal then there should surely be lots of cases involving it. But in this case it seems like they regret allowing him into the meeting, which sounds weaker still. They should have thought about that when they were admitting people to the meeting.

If somebody held a physical meeting that they considered sensitive and carelessly left a door open, is a journalist breaking the law by listening at the door? This is what it seems like to me but I have only read a bit.

19

The JW's are suing Mark O'Donnell in civil court for millions.So protect the pedos, and suit the whistelblowers? Shame on this cult!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.

https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.

if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.

slimboyfat

You can be sued for attending a Zoom call? Isn’t it the responsibility of the people organising the Zoom call and the participants in the Zoom call to regulate who attends and what they say? To me, and I’m only using common sense not the law, the only problem would arise if Mark concealed who he was or pretended to be someone else in order to get into the meeting. Did he do that? If not, I’d say it’s on them if he was at a meeting they would prefer he wasn’t at in retrospect. They should have noticed at the time and kicked him out, if that was in their power, and they were minded to do so. How can they complain after the event? Even if his attendance was a violation of some rule, is it reasonable to sue for millions of dollars and end his entire reporting over this? Again I wouldn’t have thought so given he is reporting on an important story of concern to the public.

125

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

slimboyfat

Pope Leo, an America. 🇺🇸

44

What is the Craziest Thing You Are Aware Of Someone Being Disfellowshipped For?

by Sea Breeze in

i knew a lady who was disfellowshipped for 20 years for smoking.

she finally went back to the kh and since they couldn't find her paperwork, (all the former elders were dead) she was allowed back in without reinstatement.

no one even remembered her.

slimboyfat

Smoking and practising Feng Shui are the strangest cases I know about.

Also for not refusing alternative service, a few months before it was officially announced that alternative service is a conscience matter, because he heard that the announcement was coming and wasn’t prepared to reject alternative service and possibly be sentenced as a criminal just because of unlucky timing.

125

What does the Catholic church think of JW?

by Halcon in

on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.

he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.

is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?

slimboyfat

Pope Mark the second?