Posts by Etude

70

Who all here was personally helped by JWD

by Ticker in

i was and i am ever thankful to this board and all the wonderful members on it that have contributed to my freedom.

thankyou all so much and i think i might be becoming a jwd addict.

i love this board it is so helpful.

Etude

It had been more than 20 years since I had started drifting from the WTS (I think I was DFd in 1982 or 83) and I only joined the forum in 2003. So, I had to face the long road back all by myself, even to the point of deciding whether or not I still believed in God. The loneliness was crushing, the guilt too much to bear and the separation from family and friends devastating. I came to terms with all that before finding this forum. Take Solis, Ticker, about being confused. Listen to your inner voice and trust your feelings. Be open-minded and scrutinize everything. Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination. You'll find an answer. Even if the answer is: "I don't know" or "I'm not sure", you can have some comfort in that you've explored the avenues available to you.

So, my ideas and opinions were already formed when I came to this forum. But, YES, I was helped here. First of all, it felt good to be reassured that I was not alone. Even if I've dealt with my issues regarding the WTS, I couldn't speak to anyone I know about what it was like, not even to my wife. It just didn't feel satisfactory trying to explain what I went through to someone who has no clue of the inner workings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Here, I have found a sense of acceptance by virtue of our common experience. I've also learned a lot. I have found topics that I didn't care to examine before, which are now important to me because they have cemented in fact the deviousness of the cult that is the Jehovah's Witnesses, in doctrine, but in particular in emotional ruthlessness.

I've been touched by your stories and by your kind comments of support. I haven't made any friends yet, but look forward to it. I stopped posting for about a year (this is a very time-consuming endeavor for me), but hope I will always be in some sort of contact with this forum as long as it's available. I don't know who maintains it, but I do know that it must be laborious task. My hat is off to you people. This forum could be a giant, evolving time-capsule. Thirty or even fifty years from now, even if the WTBTS is no longer around (who knows), I hope this forum is still available to everyone and anyone to look back on and get a sense of how people felt and to read the plethora of individual stories, vignettes of totally different lives with one common thread. Come to think of it, it could make one hell of a book!

I've laughed my ass off; I've been angy at reading the injustices committed toward individuals; I've been saddened by the pain some of you have suffered. I don't know too many other places where such a thing can occur all at the same time. Thank you all and thank you Ticker for bringing it up.

Etude.

13

English oral presentation: what are jw's basic beliefs?

by Evanescence in

jw
friends

my english teacher said that we are going to be doing oral presentations on anything we want.

my english teacher religious as well and she knows that i am into religion and that i should do an oral presentation on a religion.. well i know a lot about jehovah's witnesses so i thought i might to an oral presentation on them!

so to make things easier can you help me a bit and tell me their basic doctrines like the 144,000 and the jesus on the stake (and why they believe this would help as well).

Etude

Evanescence:

I realize that you want information from a positive JW point of view. However, I just got off a thread that proved quite interesting in at least describing their concept of the 144,000. Take a look (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/95142/1.ashx).

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

Agreed. Thinking about the FDS or the 144,000 does not answer the question for me about, not what they do, but who they are. I know they are not anywhere in the vicinity of Brooklyn Heights or any other place I know. As with many other Biblical issues, it's not a huge concern in my life because some things just resist answers.

As to the Organization, I still can't get over the mindset. How is it that people can gloss over an issue like this, not ask the questions I asked and continue as if nothing's happened? I guess I was interested in the psychology of it all. I still have family embedded in the JW. And, as smart and wrong as they are, I'd like to hit them with it some day.

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

Greendawn:

What I meant when I said SOME were assigned duties (anointed or not), I was indicating that it is the GB that's calling the shots, not the 144,000 or the FDS. If one of the "anointed" I knew in my congregation (except for Ray Franz) decided to write an article for the Watchtower or even a book, I doubt that the GB or whoever is in charge of clearing the material would accept it for publication simply because it came from an "anointed", who is after all a priest of Christ. It would have to be cleared by the GB and the individual would have to be at least talented enough to write well and toe their line.

"How do we distinguish the annointed anyway with what criteria, how do the GB know fopr sure that they are such?"

It would be nice to say that the answer to your question would best be provided by the WTBTS or someone in the GB. However, from my past experience with them, I can tell you that any kind of answer on this subject has as much chance as Armageddon happening in 1975. If anything, they (someone at the Service Desk) will refer you to some of their publication as an explanation and leave you exactly were you are, in the fog. I don't think the GB cares who is anointed or not up to the degree that it may pose a problem for them if the numbers go up and that group becomes another "Great Crowd". They would care if the individual is "known" and has been around long enough to be a contender for a seat on the GB, which consists only of anointed or members of the 144,000. That is politics as usual and has nothing to do with the Bible. I think it's fitting that, the way things stand, they have a "clause" for deniability if an "anointed" came out speaking against them. They would simply say that the individual was not anointed in the first place and mistakenly partook of the emblems. That's why they emphasize that it's a very personal thing between that individual and Jehovah to claim membership in the anointed class. Essentially, there is no way to determine their "calling" and therefore there are no rites or formal acknowledgments for those individuals in order to confirm their claims, other than their explicit participation of the "emblems" each year during the Memorial.

Regardless of who runs what, my point of contention is that they define a class (144,000, anointed, Faithful and Discrete Slave), which by virtue of it's members, is not what they claim in the first place. I think that's transparent enough, yet somehow it never clearly surfaced in my mind when I was associated with them. I marvel at why and how current Witnesses don't think about that.

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

Greendawn:

I can say that most the ones I knew, were not "anointed". Perhaps what I should clarify is that some who "provided nourishment" or wrote literature for the flock were anointed, like Ray and Fred Franz, but did not technically and exclusively work for the Writing Department. I suppose if a member of the GB wanted to write something, anything, he just did it and passed it on to the writing staff editor. In other cases, anyone, even an "anointed" one could be commissioned to write something.by the GB. If it worked as I put it here, that further erodes the idea that it's the FDS that provides nourishment.

I remember when a brother in our hall "came out" as anointed. We saw him take eat and drink. I remember a conversation with him in which he explained how he "knew" he was one. I think he'd only been associated with he Witnesses about 5 years. Naturally, I had misgivings about this dude. I found out later that he was DFd after the Franz ordeal along with (or around the time) Rene Vazquez was hung out to dry. I knew and realized that the Society simply counted them (since it was diligently reported by the congregation) and that was the end of that. At the same time, I realized that if any of them (the anointed) were asked to do something by the GB or was requested to serve in a special capacity, it was due to their personal ability or connections to those in the "hub" and not due to their "priestly" rank. Hey, that's the way everything worked at Bethel anyway.

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

G Money:

I don't think I'm mistaken, although I could be wrong. My understanding is that those that are of the anointed class, demonstrated by their partaking of the "emblems" are the "Faithful and Discrete Slave":

"Witnesses of Jehovah understand that the "slave" is comprised of all anointed Christians as a group on earth at any given time during the 19 centuries since Pentecost." Watchtower of March 1, 1981

Since only the 144,000 are the "anointed" that would make them all one and the same ("Reasoning from the Scriptures", p. 166). As far as I can remember, the "slave" class was the 144,000. That may have changed in the years that I've been gone from the Organization. And of course, we know that at one time, that's all there was, until they received "new understanding" and found the "Great Crowd". Even if the WTBTS was not equating the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" class with the 144,000, the numerical group is described by them as a "priestly class". There was nothing "priestly" about many of the "anointed" I knew in that they didn't do anything special to mark them as such.

Of course, I can see now (and even then) how someone could delude him or her self into thinking he/she was of the anointed class. It's not unlike what some "Born Again" Christians experience (a kind of rapture) that makes them praise Jesus. I remember one year when their numbers went up when they should have been dying down. They had to come out with an article about it. So, am I confused or is it clear that the 144,000 are the anointed and the "slave" class? If so, what the heck are these other people who don't write literature and are rather marginal in the congregations do to make them part of a "priestly" class? Is the argument good enough to show the holes in the WTBTS teachings?

Etude.

41

Who is the Faithful and Discrete Slave?

by Etude in

recently, i've had memories about that topic, which i had suppressed for a long time.

my original question came up when i encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).. there was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from cuba.

i learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon.

Etude

Recently, I've had memories about that topic, which I had suppressed for a long time. My original question came up when I encountered a few members of the "anointed" in my congregation (we're talking almost 30 years ago).

There was one sister who partook of the "emblems" who had come from Cuba. I learned from her that her health was frail because she had smuggled some expensive jewelry in a condom and stuck it up her colon. I guess that trying to escape the Castro regime didn't mean you had to be totally destitute. Well, the plan apparently had deleterious effects on her caused some permanent damage.

I learned this because she was staying at our house in Queens, N.Y. when she had no other place to go. I don't remember the reason why she had to leave where she was. Eventually, I don't remember if she just moved away or was asked her to leave by my parents -- Yes, there were problems. It wasn't a big to-do (asking an anointed to leave our house) because my dad, although sympathetic, was not a Witness and, as I recall, she was not the most endearing person. Anyway, I thought about her then and the fact that she was of the "anointed" and I couldn't help but think: "What is her function as a member of the "Faithful and Discrete Slave"?

According to the WT literature, that class "provides nourishment at the proper time" for Jehovah's people. I didn't see her doing that. I knew at least three "anointed" in my congregations. And, except for Ray Franz (he attended at least 2 congregations that I also attended) I didn't know that the others I was acquainted with did anything of significance for the flock. Later, when I ended up living in Bethel, I noticed that there were a lot of individuals in the writing department who wrote and/or managed the "food" publication for "Jehovah's people". What I gathered was that the "anointed" and the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" class did not "map" one-to-one.

It's such an obvious thing to me that I know I must have received some sort of explanation to help me suppress that blatant disparity. I don't remember what it was. I suppose that most dedicated JWs deal with that in their own way. How did any of you here reconcile that discrepancy if you faced it? I suppose that by way of an excuse, I must say that their spell on me was complete.

Etude

33

How I got out of JWs, they showed me the way!

by out of the box in

i have been writing 'my story' in bits and pieces here.

it was pouring out, one of the kids sick, jw husband wasn't going.

i got in the car (this little hatch-back car was a loaner from the garage because our larger car was being repaired) i was stopped at a stop sign and i was on time for the meeting.. i heard something and turned in time to see something coming at me fast.

Etude

out of the box:

That's an amazing story. Do you ever wonder, had you not suffered such adversities, whether you would have proven you metle? Do you think you would have accomplished as much, in particular your significant triumph of persistence to just get better? I think that the average person would have given up or would have become dependent on others for help.

Etude.

31

Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y in

hello, it's lynne again... how's everyone doing?

um..i have a quick question.. haha.. .

one of the most distinguishable doctrine(?

Etude

the_classicist :

Well, if you take the Bible as it is accepted today, I'm sure that you would find somewhere within it's pages that it is a "two-edged sword", capable of discerning. . . etc, etc. There are also many claims in it about how true the "Word of God" is, whatever that may be. I understand that other people (in particular, the Catholic Church) made the decision for us as to what the "Bible" would consist of. Therefore, by no means am I suggesting that it's an infallible book. I'm not denying it either.

What I was suggesting in the words that you cited from my previous message is that we could assume (assume being the key word) the Bible to be infallible, simply as a place to start. That by no means suggest a conclusion. It's simply a point of reference. Contrary to the popular gist, it does not make and ASS our of U and ME. Assuming (a premise) is what scientist sometimes do in order to prove a point or arrive at an end. You could just as easily assume the opposite and proceed with the same process by putting it under scrutiny with whatever internal or external evidence there is. In other words, you could assume that all of the Bible is false and go from there to see how well it holds under evidence.

I realize that for some individuals, the very thought of proceeding as I last suggested is almost blasphemous. I'm aware of such sensitivities. That's why I suggested the opposite first. I'm just trying to take a neutral (more objective, less subjective) stance and not come up with an answer to the question but a process that will make someone genuinely think. Sorry if I confused the issue.

Etude.

31

Trinity?!?!

by Lynne Y in

hello, it's lynne again... how's everyone doing?

um..i have a quick question.. haha.. .

one of the most distinguishable doctrine(?

Etude

Big Dog:

The problem I have with the last 1/3 is what is ascribed to it. What I have read in the Bible tells me that there's a marked difference, one that belies the claim that a Godhead is composed of three omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent beings, what the Trinity is by the accepted definition. Don't think for a minute that I'm towing the Dub's line. My conclusion, doesn't negate that Christ should be revered and even worshiped as a God, if you should choose and it doesn't support it either. However, whether you choose that or not, it doesn't make him part of Trinity, as the concept goes. It only makes him another God if you choose to worship him as such. Besides, like I said before, the idea of a trinity is old hat. Why would so-called "Pagan" religions originate that concept? Could it be that the Godhead itself imparted it to them and they are right all along? In that case, we should start looking elsewhere, to the pagan religions, for truth.

I really don't care one way or another. I can come to terms quite easily with what God is or is not. The gist of my sentences, and in spite of the things I have proposed should in no way make anyone conclude that whatever I have said supports or rejects the idea of a Trinity. I'm simply making arguments that may make someone else think and ask the right questions of him or herself. There's too much missing or contradictory information to come to a quick conclusion. Each individual would have embark on his own journey and eventual conclusion. This place is not a bad place to start. So far, it's been quite an active and stimulating exchange.

Etude.