They say that their going from 20,000 odd members in 1919 to 6,000,000 today is indisputable proof that the FDS doctrine is true and they have God's blessing. That is what always gets said whenever that question is put to JW apologists.
Whenever they have it pointed out to them that the growth is flat and even in reversal in some places, the reply is usually "apostate lies!". I know, I've seen it often enough.
Forscher
Forscher
JoinedPosts by Forscher
-
7
fds-governing bodies inspired by: ?
by magoo ini know to expect a jw to think on their own is asking way too much............but............... but just...just per chance, say that they actually did & asked for " indisputable proof " of god's direction of the fds, governin' body...... .
........... what would the wacktower or asleep mags say was the proof ?.
magoo
-
-
Forscher
-
14
More/Less Control? (WTS Lost Workers'Comp Case; 1500 Bethelites Sent Home)
by wanda in.
will ted jaracz and his boys now get more control or less control over the lives of grassroots jws?
comments welcome!
-
-
Forscher
Serendipity has a good point there!
Forscher -
12
OCTOBER 29, 1911- Russell's hanky panky headline in Brooklyn paper
by watch the tower inrussell and wife maria, before divorce.
pittsburg, october 27 - the suit for a separation brought by martha (sic)f. russell against charles taz russell, her husband, popularly known as pastor russell, who has just entered a libel suit against the brooklyn eagle, is remembered here as one of the most sensational court proceedings in the history of allegheny county.
pastor russell's advertising methods had already attracted a good deal of attention to himself, and while many referred to him as "the crank preacher of allegheny," his unusual lectures and effective publicity methods drew good-sized crowds to his bible house on arch street.
-
-
Forscher
Did it occure to anyone that under current WTBTS rules that would've been more than enough for Russell to be DF'd?
Forscher -
30
Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, Rutherford, Franz, and Illuminism
by Rig Boy inmacmillan was a longtime watchtower official and family friend who went by the name "mack" around our house.
he could be trusted.
" franz then admitted that he did not receive the scholarship, but "measured up to the requirements," which is far removed from being "offered the privilege of going to oxford or cambridge in england under the rhodes plan," as macmillan had written.
-
-
Forscher
I am not trying to be a JW apologist here, but. How is it a "fact" that Rutherford was in line to recieve a Rhodes Scholarship? As far as I know, nobody has been able to find out which college Rutherford attended, much less whether he was ever a candidate for a Rhodes scholarship. I know of at least one bonafide historian who has tried to get that info, but he couldn't find it.
If you have that information I, for one, would be very interested in seeing it.
Forscher -
6
BONEZZ? Anyone??
by Frannie Banannie inbonezz, you posted a copy of a letter in the "sister sneaky/deceptive" thread that had the following info about a particular wt (see following excerpt).
someone has brought it to my attention that it might be prudent to be proactive in my case and alert the hospital admin of the potential for violation of privacy rights of patients by jdubyas in their employ.
in this case, i'd greatly appreciate it if you, bonezz, or anyone else out there has a copy of the article mentioned in your posted copy of that letter, because i can see the sense of doing this to protect other patients and to forewarn the hospital admin.
-
-
Forscher
I hope this doesn't get Simon in trouble with the WTBTS. If there's any worry it would, just make your own copies of the article and get a moderator to delete it.
*** w87 9/1 pp. 12-15 “A Time to Speak”—When? ***
“A Time to Speak”—When?
MARY works as a medical assistant at a hospital. One requirement she has to abide by in her work is confidentiality. She must keep documents and information pertaining to her work from going to unauthorized persons. Law codes in her state also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.
One day Mary faced a dilemma. In processing medical records, she came upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow Christian, had submitted to an abortion. Did she have a Scriptural responsibility to expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her employer’s having legal problems? Or would Proverbs 11:13 justify keeping the matter concealed? This reads: “The one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter.”—Compare Proverbs 25:9, 10.
Situations like this are faced by Jehovah’s Witnesses from time to time. Like Mary, they become acutely aware of what King Solomon observed: “For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens: . . . a time to keep quiet and a time to speak.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7) Was this the time for Mary to keep quiet, or was it the time to speak about what she had learned?
Circumstances can vary greatly. Hence, it would be impossible to set forth a standard procedure to be followed in every case, as if everyone should handle matters the way Mary did. Indeed, each Christian, if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration Bible principles as well as any legal implications and that will leave him or her with a clear conscience before Jehovah. (1 Timothy 1:5, 19) When sins are minor and due to human imperfection, the principle applies: “Love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8) But when there seems to be serious wrongdoing, should a loyal Christian out of love of God and his fellow Christian reveal what he knows so that the apparent sinner can receive help and the congregation’s purity be preserved?
Applying Bible Principles
What are some basic Bible principles that apply? First, anyone committing serious wrongdoing should not try to conceal it. “He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed, but he that is confessing and leaving them will be shown mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13) Nothing escapes the notice of Jehovah. Hidden transgressions must eventually be accounted for. (Proverbs 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:24, 25) At times Jehovah brings concealed wrongdoing to the attention of a member of the congregation that this might be given proper attention.—Joshua 7:1-26.
Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.” This “public cursing” was not profanity or blasphemy. Rather, it often occurred when someone who had been wronged demanded that any potential witnesses help him to get justice, while calling down curses—likely from Jehovah—on the one, perhaps not yet identified, who had wronged him. It was a form of putting others under oath. Any witnesses of the wrong would know who had suffered an injustice and would have a responsibility to come forward to establish guilt. Otherwise, they would have to ‘answer for their error’ before Jehovah.
This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian “must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.
While oaths or solemn promises should never be taken lightly, there may be times when promises required by men are in conflict with the requirement that we render exclusive devotion to our God. When someone commits a serious sin, he, in effect, comes under a ‘public curse’ from the One wronged, Jehovah God. (Deuteronomy 27:26; Proverbs 3:33) All who become part of the Christian congregation put themselves under “oath” to keep the congregation clean, both by what they do personally and by the way they help others to remain clean.
Personal Responsibility
These are some of the Bible principles Mary likely considered in making her personal decision. Wisdom dictated that she should not act quickly, without weighing matters very carefully. The Bible counsels: “Do not become a witness against your fellowman without grounds. Then you would have to be foolish with your lips.” (Proverbs 24:28) To establish a matter conclusively, the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses is needed. (Deuteronomy 19:15) If Mary had seen only a brief mention of abortion, she might have decided conscientiously that the evidence of any guilt was so inconclusive that she should not proceed further. There could have been a mistake in billing, or in some other way the records may not have properly reflected the situation.
In this instance, however, Mary had some other significant information. For example, she knew that the sister had paid the bill, apparently acknowledging that she had received the service specified. Also, she knew personally that the sister was single, thus raising the possibility of fornication. Mary felt a desire lovingly to help one who may have erred and to protect the cleanness of Jehovah’s organization, remembering Proverbs 14:25: “A true witness is delivering souls, but a deceitful one launches forth mere lies.”
Mary was somewhat apprehensive about the legal aspects but felt that in this situation Bible principles should carry more weight than the requirement that she protect the privacy of the medical records. Surely the sister would not want to become resentful and try to retaliate by making trouble for her, she reasoned. So when Mary analyzed all the facts available to her, she decided conscientiously that this was a time to “speak,” not to “keep quiet.”
Now Mary faced an additional question: To whom should she speak, and how could she do so discreetly? She could go directly to the elders, but she decided to go first privately to the sister. This was a loving approach. Mary reasoned that this one under some suspicion might welcome the opportunity to clarify matters or, if guilty, confirm the suspicion. If the sister had already spoken to the elders about the matter, likely she would say so, and Mary would not need to pursue matters further. Mary reasoned that if the sister had submitted to an abortion and had not confessed to this serious transgression of God’s law, she would encourage her to do this. Then the elders could help her in accord with James 5:13-20. Happily, this is how matters worked out. Mary found that the sister had submitted to an abortion under much pressure and because of being spiritually weak. Shame and fear had moved her to conceal her sin, but she was glad to get help from the elders toward spiritual recovery.
If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If they decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of “leaven” existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness.
Thinking Ahead
Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ‘exhibit good fidelity to the full,’ including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar’s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah’s law is supreme.
Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.
There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God’s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another’s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, “love covers a multitude of sins,” and we should forgive “up to seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the “time to keep quiet.” But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the “time to speak.”
[Footnotes]
Mary is a hypothetical person facing a situation that some Christians have faced. The way she handles the situation represents how some have applied Bible principles in similar circumstances.
In their Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch state that a person would be guilty of error or sin if he “knew of another’s crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses.”
[Picture on page 15]
It is the right and loving course to encourage an erring Witness to speak with the elders, confident that they will handle the problem in a kind and understanding way
****************************************************************************************
I try not to post whole articles without good reason. But if Simon or one of the moderators doesn't want me to do it again at all, just PM me and I'll refrain.
Forscher -
11
Bethellite Exodus: Layoffs (blessing from Jehovah)
by DaCheech ini have already seen in my local congregation the "blessing"
this bethellite couple has been reassigned as special pioneers, and they have accepted this blessing.
(edited)
-
-
Forscher
Okay Misspeaches. I can't link you to the threads invovled. but what happened is that it was aanoucned at Bethel last week that they were sending about 1200 people home as the equipment they just finished installing at Walkill rendered them unnecessary. I don't know if you've already found those threads, but that's the skinny.
Forscher -
22
What Was I Agreeing to at my Baptism, Anyway?
by prophecor ini was so awash with emotion during the day of my being baptised, i think i would've answered yes to having a root canal.
what was it i was swearing my allegiance to on that ominous day?
are there a standard set of questions that they ask all baptismal candidates at these cermonial offerings?
-
-
Forscher
Thanks, Auld Soul.
Forscher -
22
What Was I Agreeing to at my Baptism, Anyway?
by prophecor ini was so awash with emotion during the day of my being baptised, i think i would've answered yes to having a root canal.
what was it i was swearing my allegiance to on that ominous day?
are there a standard set of questions that they ask all baptismal candidates at these cermonial offerings?
-
-
Forscher
There sure are! If you were baptised before 1985, they were all variations of the following:
*** w73 5/1 p. 280 Baptizing Follows Discipling ***
(1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?
If, on the other hand, you were baptized during or after after 1985, they were as follows:
*** w85 6/1 p. 30 Subjecting Ourselves to Jehovah by Dedication ***
The first question is:
On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
The second is:
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?
There you have it.
Forscher -
12
Sunutko.
by Forscher ini know that many have probably sampled the mp3s of sunutko giving that famous "stay alive 'til 75" speech.
at one time, i was in his district and met him.
he was oine great speaker!
-
-
Forscher
I know that many have probably sampled the MP3s of Sunutko giving that famous "stay alive 'til 75" speech. At one time, I was in his district and met him. He was oine great speaker! I've always wondered what happened to him through the years. Anybody know where he has gone to and/or what he is doing? Anybody else have any experiences they would like to relate. I will have to let this be my last post for the night. But I look forward to checking later and see what folks have to say.
Forscher -
34
I have a Question?
by Third Eye Open inhi everyone, i am supposed to meet with an elder tonight.
i met several times with him before going over questions (my mother thinks he will restore my evil thinking).
anyway we have already gone over all of the basics (1874,1914,607 no answer for this one, the un and everything else).
-
-
Forscher
Welcome to the board Third eye.
In answer to your question, yes, there are several groups that fit the profile and they were mentioned here. The Mormons don't believe in a trinity, but be careful, they are a very controlling group like the Witnesses.
The Bible Students, who follow Russell's writings to various degrees, come in a number of varieties. The Dawn Bible Students left the organization about the time that that it took the name Jehovah's Witnesses. They were fed up and tired with Rutherford's obsession with control. They retained some of his changes in doctrines, but are not quite as controlling as the JWs. I've seen some folks jokingly refer to them as Watchtower Lite!
The Laymen's Home Missionary Movement were those who followed P. Johnson when the big split occured in 1917-18. They added a multi-volume work authored by Johnson (The Epiphanies) to the Studies In The Scriptures as authoritative in their view. The Associated Bible Students are the other major group and they basically consider the body of CTR's writings alone as authoritative. Those are the three major groups and you will have no finding sites by them all if you Google "Bible Students". I have some contact with the bible Students and can give you the address of a forum that I like. Just PM me if you like.
The Christadelphians hold many beliefs that are simliar to the Bible Students. I've had discussions with several of them, and they tell me that they prefer to use the Bible alone as a text. They have one interesting quirck, they don't believe that the Devil is a particular fallen angel. I reckon to each his own!
The Unitarians also don't believe in the trinity doctrine. You might be interested to know that one of the board of directors who went to prison with Rutherford later left the organization and became a Unitarian. The publishing house he joined is still around and puts out an exellent interlinear Bible program that's a freebie. It's called the International Scripture Analyzer, and I recommend it highly.
Several other groups used to be nontrinitarian. the Seventh Day Adventists and the World Wide Church of God. Alas, they both adopted it in a bid for mainstream acceptance. I don't know whether the Second Adventists are still antitrinitarian, that was the group that CTR was associated with before he and Barbour split.
There you have it! Have fun!
Forscher