so this is an honest question that i have been thinking about for some time.. do regular jehovahś witnesses in other countries (other than the usa) take the governing body in new york seriously?.
i mean, i cant help but wonder about the publishers in japan, or south africa, or mexico, or new zealand, or even the uk, or spain, or italy...... or russia?.
not you and i (we know what you think of them), but the regular jwś...... do they take these american buffoons seriously?
joe134,
I Went to visit my ultra orthodox relative. In the room I slept in was a poster of the GB hanging on the wall.
Makes you think of 1 Cor 10.14 and 2 Cor 1.24, right?
PE:
"They're imperfect men" is their get out of jail free card.
They love to fall back on that generalization, but if you ever take it just one step further and say, "So what specifically are their imperfections?" you will immediately see their defenses go up as the word "apostate" rings in their mind.
jehovah's witnesses say that they have the truth and the truth is constant.
they believe that what they teach is the truth that comes directly from jehovah god.
can you think of anything that has changed in the last 20 years to show a jehovah's witness that the truth is not necessarily the truth..
Wow, MacHislopp, what a "short" post indeed. I hope I didn't "set you off" somehow! But your hard work here is appreciated. Their strange, in fact, cavalier, treatment of the concept of truth is mind-boggling, isn't it? I left for multiple reasons, but this was among the foremost. I found it nauseating. Fortunately, I've recovered now and see things differently.
jehovah's witnesses say that they have the truth and the truth is constant.
they believe that what they teach is the truth that comes directly from jehovah god.
can you think of anything that has changed in the last 20 years to show a jehovah's witness that the truth is not necessarily the truth..
Thanks, MacHislopp. As I suspected, the really big notion they have not changed:
Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’
So they have NOT changed their position on one storing his/her own blood weeks before surgery. I couldn't imagine them changing that one, at least at this time. Too many have died from not doing it, and changing it now would open the Pandora's box that they are so afraid of.
As others have stated before, they really are like rabbis writing the immensely detailed Talmud. The difference, of course, is that it was OK for ancient and medieval Jews to disagree with the rabbis and they could stay in their congregations. It took a lot more to get expelled.
What changed about the transfiguration vision?
What did they change about early Christians' observance of the Mosaic Law?
Are they now accepting tribal marriages?
jehovah's witnesses say that they have the truth and the truth is constant.
they believe that what they teach is the truth that comes directly from jehovah god.
can you think of anything that has changed in the last 20 years to show a jehovah's witness that the truth is not necessarily the truth..
Thanks, NY44M, but that's not what I asked. I asked "What's changed about one's own blood?"
In darspilver's post there are two things listed, "blood fractions," and "use of one's own blood." I'm asking about the change in the second one, not the first.
I may be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that they've reversed their view that a good Witness will not store his/her own blood to be used later in his/her own surgery. But I'd love to wrong on that one!
jehovah's witnesses say that they have the truth and the truth is constant.
they believe that what they teach is the truth that comes directly from jehovah god.
can you think of anything that has changed in the last 20 years to show a jehovah's witness that the truth is not necessarily the truth..
Thanks for the list darkspilver. Some of these have nothing to do with scripture and seem more like procedural changes (drinking or not before field service; men's appointments; alternative service). Quite a bit of it is their supposed understanding of parables and/or prophecy, which, as they have admitted can't be understood until it's over (truly self-contradictory with their trying to do so anyway), but if you or someone else would briefly explain some of them, I'd appreciate it.
What's changed about one's own blood?
What changed about the transfiguration vision?
What did they change about early Christians' observance of the Mosaic Law?
Are they now accepting tribal marriages?
Thanks in advance.
i regular pioneered for 2 years and never have actually converted anyone through the door to door work, in fact, i only knew a few individuals that joined this way.
most were born-in or at least had some type of family influence.
i had several bible studies but they all got cold feet when things got serious and potential baptism was discussed.
I had about 10 converted from d-to-d work in about 12 years in, sometimes while pioneering. I was in more than one cong. Lower-class neighborhoods were more productive, middle- and higher-class ones were the opposite.
freddo, I appreciate the time observation.
i've been hearing this from what i'd call 'dyed in the wool' type jobos.. 'it's not the same as it was a few years ago.....'.
i believe from what comes back to me via my spies -.
the dyed in the woolers are referring to how the gb are now blatantly pontificating threateningly it seems, about wanting money even from children, all the time.
Do you think they will develop "Bible Study" videos?
i never understood why the society was against beards or goatees but completely okay with mustaches.
what's the difference?
facial hair is facial hair, whether it's above your lip or around your cheeks or under your chin.
shepherdless,
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That's doubtlessly part of the picture too.
i never understood why the society was against beards or goatees but completely okay with mustaches.
what's the difference?
facial hair is facial hair, whether it's above your lip or around your cheeks or under your chin.
Jules,
Part of their "reasoning" is that Russellites have them, imitating C.T. Russell. That's a historical fact that many Witnesses, including heavies at NY, and even GB members themselves, may well not be unaware of.
Another factor is that they are stuck in the 1950s mentality when male members in audiences of American TV game shows and male fans in stadiums at professional baseball games wore suits & ties and women attending wore dresses.
Of course, they cannot see the illogic in their frequent statements about how one would show disrespect to Jehovah by not dressing up like those old audiences did.
It is often impossible to find genuine logic in their thinking—they are quite traditional, you know, the very thing that Jesus condemned Jews of his day for being. I remember one brother saying to me that if Jesus came today instead of the first century, he would be clean-shaven and wear a suit and tie. I was speechless...
i've received the following news from a reliable and trusted source: .
the demise of printing literature in the u.k. is being brought forward by one year - to march 2018. graphic design and printing support will go too.
large numbers of "disposable" bethelites will now have to make their own way in the world, when their "mother" abandons them.
SBF,
