Don't start me on Baptisms. If they waited till their kids were adults there wouldn't be any Baptisms.
They treat Baptisms as a contract, yet minors cannot be party to a contract, so in my opinion these 'Baptisms' are VOID.
MidwichCuckoo
JoinedPosts by MidwichCuckoo
-
18
Child Baptisims Really Pissing Me Off. Linked to DF's
by oompa inas a parent with a df'd 22 year old son who i love to hang with, i just need to vent a little.
my completly ingrained family do not treat him as family.
it kills me.
-
-
-
16
Do you think that JW's will ever get rid of the "1914" doctrine?
by booker-t inwith the year 2014 only 7 years away what are jw's leaders going to say if armaggeddon is not here by then?
how many more changes will have to take place in order for them to keep jw's loyal to the wt society?
my mom just celebrated her 78th birthday on sept 9 and she got baptized in 1967 believing armaggeddon was coming in 1975. i just cry when i think of the elderly jw's that gave their whole lives for the wt believing that armaggeddon was around the corner.
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
Danny - I recently spoke to a JW (of 30+ years) who denied ever preaching that the generation of 1914 would not pass away.
-
16
Do you think that JW's will ever get rid of the "1914" doctrine?
by booker-t inwith the year 2014 only 7 years away what are jw's leaders going to say if armaggeddon is not here by then?
how many more changes will have to take place in order for them to keep jw's loyal to the wt society?
my mom just celebrated her 78th birthday on sept 9 and she got baptized in 1967 believing armaggeddon was coming in 1975. i just cry when i think of the elderly jw's that gave their whole lives for the wt believing that armaggeddon was around the corner.
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
Younglove - I haven't found ONE active JW who can explain it.
How about - Satan invented 1914 and snook it into the WTs teachings to mislead God's people. When God banished Satan in 1995 (gimme a few minutes, and I'll come up with some Biblical maths) His 'doctrine' was exposed for what it is. Anyone mentioning 1914 will be d'fed for following the Devil's teachings.
-
57
Were the Dinosuars on Noahs Ark? Watch. 1973 = Yes!!!
by Witness 007 inwatch.
1973 july 15 p.7 "questions from readers.
when did the dinosuars become extinct?".
-
-
-
16
Do you think that JW's will ever get rid of the "1914" doctrine?
by booker-t inwith the year 2014 only 7 years away what are jw's leaders going to say if armaggeddon is not here by then?
how many more changes will have to take place in order for them to keep jw's loyal to the wt society?
my mom just celebrated her 78th birthday on sept 9 and she got baptized in 1967 believing armaggeddon was coming in 1975. i just cry when i think of the elderly jw's that gave their whole lives for the wt believing that armaggeddon was around the corner.
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
What Jeff said ...maybe they'll gradually edit it from past publications. The WTBTS has been known to change the past to suit. What's more likely though is that they'll change the meaning of 1914 (JWs are already confused - but put it down to their own inability to grasp all this wonderful crap).
I think JWs need to get on with breeding now to ensure their god has a future income. It wouldn't surprise me at all if contraception was banned under 'New Light'
-
16
I, David Carter of Roanoke, Virginia ...
by WTNightmare00 inafter careful consideration and after i have found a lot of backing, i have decided to sue the watchtower bible and tract society of new york, and i, david carter will not agree to a gag order of any sort.
please do not take offense and please do not judge me.
time tells all!.
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
Sorry I missed your story - but best of luck WTNightmare!!
-
35
WTBTS Now hinting at having LARGE families?????
by annalice inok so i don't know if this means anything but, i was just over on the watchtower official web site.
( i like to keep up on the crap they write).
anyhow there is a article titled "large families united in god's service".
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
skeeter1 - Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1938, p. 324
-
35
WTBTS Now hinting at having LARGE families?????
by annalice inok so i don't know if this means anything but, i was just over on the watchtower official web site.
( i like to keep up on the crap they write).
anyhow there is a article titled "large families united in god's service".
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
I started a very similar thread yesterday...
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/141944/1.ashx
My thinking is the WTBTS is considering its income. In 1938, when remaining childless was first(?) recommended by the Org, it was relying on new converts and had the added benefit of couples having no issue to name in Wills.
The Org has survived longer than it should have (maybe it DID only budget short term?) and converts have 'dried up'. The Org needs to breed a new generation to fund it. Cynical? Moi?
-
25
What is a "pony"?
by Mystery inafter a few responses; i will tell you what the circuit overseer told my mom (and the others out in service) the definition of pony is.. i can not find his definition anywhere on the internet or in the dictionary - maybe someone can enlighten me on the definition of "pony".. .
.
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
Pony = £25
-
12
Children - Just a thought
by MidwichCuckoo inwas it 1938 when faithful jws were first instructed recommended not to have children?
...mark the words of jesus, which definitely seem to discourage the bearing of children immediately before or during armageddon....it would therefore appear that there is no reasonable or scriptural injunction to bring children into the world immediately before armageddon, where we now are.
" (watchtower, nov. 1, 1938, p. 324) the wt was relatively in its early days (compared to mainstream religion), and had already gone through a lot of change.
-
-
MidwichCuckoo
Apologies if I sounded harsh Burger. But my thinking is that Armaggedon is now closer than ever (according to the WTBTS), yet the attitude to childbearing isn't important....yet IF they believed their own 'prophecies' surely they'd encourage postponing children and preaching in these end times? Again.
