there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.
there are no consequences for going against the direction.
we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.
all they have to do is say they want to appeal and that they are sorry and that’s it
This sounds like PR spin rather than an actual change. Possibly having more meetings before an initial decision that can be appealed does not actually sound like a change to the appeal process itself.
And that’s if the elders haven’t decided the person has ‘disassociated by their actions’, in which case there is no right of appeal anyway. There has been no stated change to the policy around disassociation.
there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.
there are no consequences for going against the direction.
we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.
There used to be just one meeting and if they were not repentant that’s it DF’ed.
Well, if they were not deemed repentant by the elders. Not the same thing.
there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.
there are no consequences for going against the direction.
we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.
If they say yes then the elders will go round and ask if they want to come back
Will they be reinstated right away? Or do they need to go through the grovelling contrition of having to attend meetings for a time while being shunned (now with brief totally not awkward greetings)?
there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.
there are no consequences for going against the direction.
we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.
jehovaxx:
If elders ever think someone should be DF’ed there is now an appeals process
Has the appeal process changed? There has been an appeal process since at least 1980.
Even while DF’ed JWs can still talk to you.
Well, JWs can give a brief greeting if the person attends a meeting, or to invite the person to a meeting. So, only if the person shows some interests in returning. Which is still emotional manipulation if the person wants contact with their JW ‘friends’ or relatives.
And what good is it if a circuit overseer tells elders there are some other provisions if regular members aren’t told about them?
there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.
there are no consequences for going against the direction.
we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.
It’s not clear how a regular JW is supposed to know if they are allowed 🙄 to greet a ‘disfellowshipped’ person attending a meeting. Congregation members aren’t told why the person was disfellowshipped, or if the person disassociated, or if the elders decided the person disassociated. The person could be an evil apostate (not allowed to greet) or they could have just committed the lesser sin of molesting children (allowed to greet).
there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.
there are no consequences for going against the direction.
we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.
All of the changes were about disfellowshipping. (And the option of an appeal committee isn’t new either.)
But elders can still decide the person has disassociated. This is often considered to refer just to someone ‘writing a letter of disassociation’, but also includes if the elders decide the person has ‘disassociated themself by their actions’ (e.g., accepting blood, attending a rival church service, promoting political opinions). No right of appeal is available if the elders decide a person has disassociated.
As was skilfully pointed out by the lawyer during the Australian Royal Commission, a JW who simply ‘fades’ is still considered (by JWs) to be subject to JW rules, which can eventually result in shunning (though ‘soft shunning’ is often already in place at that point anyway) if elders learn of the person doing something egregious like unrepentantly celebrating Christmas or sharing opinions about JWs being wrong.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
This is not an apology, it's sarcastic nonsense:
And if it makes you feel better, Jeffro: I am completely wrong. I know nothing. I never have. You are 100% right about everything. Apologies. I am sorry to have ever doubted you.
And you know that. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that was a misunderstood sincere apology due to a 'language barrier'. It seems, let's say, 'quite unlikely' that you really meant it that you 'know nothing and never have' because I was right about one tiny detail.
A more sincere person intending to actually apologise (or just wanting to defuse a tense situation) could have said something like, "Sorry, I wasn't aware that some sources did suggest different years for that period." or even "Thanks for providing the link to that article, but I wasn't referring to those scholars because xyz..." You did neither.
You said apologize and get out of here, and I did what you asked.
I did not tell you 'get of here' or anything similar.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
Good grief, now he's calling me 'she' as well.
It also doesnt help that Jeffro insists on cutting and pasting things out of context.
I posted your entire comment from 2 March 2024. In what context was it a nice thing to say? Here's the link to check for full context: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/users/5070517946548224/KalebOutWest/posts?nav=next&sort=posted&posted=20240317174348#4725751702618112
Earlier that day, you said:
The dates do not fluctuate. New information has changed since that older article on MyJewishLearning you searched for to back up your insufferable need to correct everyone on this forum and belie your lack of education.
Here's the link for that statement for full context: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4915204052221952/old-greek-daniels-son-man?page=4#6244213298036736
The dates (for the period between the banning of Jewish worship by Antiochus IV and the rededication of the temple) do in fact fluctuate among various scholars, and I posted a link to an article demonstrating that to be so. I did angrily include the words 'smarmy so-and-so' in the subsequent response - which was not classy - but it was only after your condescension. Here's the link: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4915204052221952/old-greek-daniels-son-man?page=4#5148759005069312
Shall we continue?
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
You also several times called me a know-it-all.
Once, after you made extremely condescending comments. Though I never used that exact term. And it was only in response to this gutter trash remark, in which you first suggested I’m a know it all:
I would rather become one of Jehovah's Witnesses once again.
Talk to Jeffro. He apparently claims to be far more versed on any subject than me. This is what you will be left with.
And if it makes you feel better, Jeffro: I am completely wrong. I know nothing. I never have. You are 100% right about everything. Apologies. I am sorry to have ever doubted you.
In each instance of what you describe as ‘bullying’, I reacted to your initial (mis)behaviour.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
You treat me like garbage, saying I have tantrums, claiming I act like a know it all almost every time you get a chance. If you want I can cut and paste each time you did that to me. So you want to talk about frustrating?!
There have been a total of two episodes where I’ve indicated you’ve thrown tantrums. In the first case, you incorrectly said I was wrong about sources varying about the period from 168-165 BCE or 167-164 BCE. In the second case, you (prima facie if not intentionally) described my efforts at refuting a JW doctrine as a waste of time. So don’t overstate matters, and don’t pretend I’m the bad guy for not just taking crap.
