Posts by moggy lover

5

File Requested--2011 School For Congregation Elders Manual!

by Atlantis in

file request!.

2011 school for congregation elders manual.. if you see an apple ad pop up just click the x.. and then click the green download button.. .. .

http://wwwb.fileflyer.com/view/o1imgaf.

moggy lover

Thanks Atlantis. I finally got it!. I am not sure why, but neither of the links provided in the previous thread worked for me.

Cheers

Moggy

14

Where is Charles Sinutko now?

by moggy lover in

does anyone have any news about charles sinutko, who give the infamous "stay alive till '75" talk?

forty years have passed since then, so is he still alive and still with the watchtower?

anyone heard anything?.

moggy lover

Does anyone have any news about Charles Sinutko, who give the infamous "Stay alive till '75" talk? Forty years have passed since then, so is he still alive and still with the Watchtower?

Anyone heard anything?

14

2015 Yearbook Stats analyzed

by Westenddave in

jw
friends

increase /.

total increase /.

republic of (m-6).

Statistics are always an important indication of the way the Watchtower organization portrays itself, especially given that the Leadership places so much emphasis on them. This year's stats reflect, more or less, the parameters established last year, with minor variations, given localized circumstances, appearing here and there.

The bottom line is that there is a growth, albeit modest, which might present a mild form of relief to the GB seeing that last year was a historic one, being one hundred years after the 1914 invisible installation of the Watchtower Jesus as a "king" of something or other.

There are several ways one can make sense of these numbers, and I propose the following four:

1. Growth, as was demonstrated last year, is inordinately top heavy, with just ten countries accounting for a whopping 67% of the recruits garnered though the Watchtower evangelistic impulse. This is s slight increase over last year, where the top ten accounted for 62% of this growth. But there are changes.

TOP TEN 2013 - [Figures in brackets represent the nearest thousand in increase]

1. Mexico [27.8]

2. USA [11.5]

3. Republic of Congo [11.3]

4. Brazil [10.9]

5. Nigeria [8.3]

6. Angola [7.3]

7. Philippines [6.9]

8. Columbia [5.1

9. Venezuela [4.6]

10. Ghana [4.3]

TOP TEN 2014

1. Mexico [25.4]

2. USA [18.8]

3. Brazil [18.5]

4.Nigeria [9.1]

5. Angola [8.5]

6. Zambia [8.4]

7. Ghana [5.8]

8. Republic of Congo [5.6]

9. Venezuela [5.6]

10. Philippines [5.5]

The Congo Republic has slipped from number 3 to number 8 because of its reduced result, and Columbia has dropped out while Zambia has replaced it. Last year the top ten accounted for 98, 418 recruits, while this year the number is 111, 714.

2. Another way of looking at this top heavy listing is to observe that just one country, Mexico, has made more recruits than 19 other countries, many of them quite substantial in the Watchtower stable. Mexico has made more converts than the following nations combined:

Mozambique, France, Madagascar, Britain, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Italy, Guatemala Rwanda, Nicaragua, Russia, Cameroon, Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, Australia, Dominica, Kenya, and Chile. [Countries listed as 17 through 35]

3. With the loss of the Congo Republic from the Top Ten, the number of countries returning a 5 figure increase has been reduced from 4 to 3. Countries returning a 4 figure increase have been reduced from 27 last year to 24 this year.

4. Whereas the top 10 account for 67% growth, the bottom 106 nations [listed as numbers 133 to 239, including the 30 "other" lands] provide for less than a 1% percent increase, leaving one to question the efficacy of the Watchtower evangelistic output in these countries. They seem to exist purely for a bureaucratic compulsion to suggest some sort of widely dispersed penetration of the world.

Cheers.

10

suggestions from Crisis of conscience

by monis1 in

my husband is inactive, but still very much believes in the borg as having the truth.

i now have coc in spanish.

i am currently reading it, but i would love to know if anyone can point me to any specifics.

moggy lover

The book "Crisis of Conscience" can be read on three levels, and although these levels are never far apart, the prose dictates that we keep these narrative arcs separate in order to get the best from this volume.

First we have a largely autobiographical thread that runs throughout the book. Ray Franz's early beginnings in the WTS, his service as a missionary in the Caribbean, his call to work at Bethel HQ, and his subsequent participation in the higher echelons of WT management. Then follows, for reasons embedded in the other levels, the reason for his leaving the WTS and his ultimate sacrifice, that of expulsion from the movement.

Second, Franz tells of a hidden, and silent conflict that took place in the leadership circles of the WT at this crucial time in WT history, and which went unreported to the Rank and File. It starts innocently enough when WT President Nathan Knorr requested Franz, along with three others, Ed Dunlap, Reinhard Lengtat, and John Wischuk, to compile a sort of WT theological encyclopedia that would explain in simple terms what the WT said the Bible said. That is, how the instrumentality of the Bible was interpreted by the WTS. This eventually became the "Aid to Bible Understanding " book. The book went on explain subject by subject, like most other Evangelical Bible Dictionaries, various aspects of biblical theology and how the WT treated them.

While researching the subject of church governance, Franz discovered an anomaly between what the Bible said and how the WT was organized. Hitherto, the WT was organized around single individuals, from a President who centred all authority in his own hands, and who, through patronage, parceled out this authority to other individuals, from Branch Managers down to Congregation leaders. Franz discovered that the NT pattern was for a multiplicity of leaders in these various offices, and that the privilege of patronage was collective and not an individual one.

Both Knorr and Fred Franz, at that time the Vice-President, and Ray's uncle, approved of this feature in the Aid book, and promptly on publication it was announced, that starting in 1971, a new governing arrangement was to be implemented, which was the multiple leaders arrangement, to be called "The Elder procedure". By the end of 1971, the entire body politic of the WT was effected and everywhere from the branch level to the congregation level, multiple leaders were installed.

There was one exception, however.

At Bethel HQ, the Individual Leadership was still in practice, with Knorr firmly at the helm and unwilling to permit or encourage any alteration. Thus began a struggle within the inner circle of the WT, as a group of men called the Board of Directors, and who hitherto had acted merely as decorative impedimenta under Knorr, realized that they should have real power within the Leadership. This grim conflict between Knorr and the Board of Directors was never without acrimony, but they finally won and the so-called Governing Body was established, and Knorr, who was now ailing, was relegated to a side role. Franz reveals his own disappointment with this new arrangement when the WT was now reduced to being controlled not by single despot, but by a group of men who collectively acted as a single despot. His discomfiture was noted and he was eased out of authority and subsequently fired.

On a third level, Franz reveals much of his own horror when he discovered some of the more intemperate statements that the WT writers made about the End of the World as we know it, the unscriptural legalism that governed WT thinking, and the scandal of Malawi that was successfully covered up. Chapters 7-10 are revelatory on these subjects.

One gets the impression that Franz was a sensitive man who, despite supporting much of WT theology on subjects such as the Trinity and the Afterlife, and who had no animosity toward his other GB members, was not afraid to speak out about abuses of power, as he saw it. On the whole the book is an absorbing read, and provides us with a vital understanding of how the most important change in WT history, came to be.

34

Revelation written to the 1st century churches

by maccauk11 in

im suggesting revelation was not for us today but to the seven churches in minor asia.

they 1st centruy faithful ones were waiting for the promised return of messiah, like he promised them.

he did in fact return on the lcouds to take them to heaven.

moggy lover

It obviously WAS written for those early readers since, as you propose, the metrical devices used within that genre of literature was primarily applicable to those who best understood it.

The problem comes when one becomes dogmatically involved in insisting on exclusivity. Whether Revelation was written EXCLUSIVELY for them is moot, and has been debated for centuries by readers much later than the original recipients. The book "Revelation - Four Views" written by spealists in their own interpretive fields, allows for these four views:

1. Preterist: where fulfillment is seen within the milleu of the Roman Empire.

2. Historical :where fulfillment is viewed as having occurred throughout history.

3. Dispensationalist: which interprets the section of Revelation chapter 6 onwards as being in the future.

4. Metaphorical: Where the book is treated as a mass of apocalyptic dreams aand visions having several contradictory and unimaginable applications.

All these forms of interpretation with their contextual applications can be sucessfully defended and the believer such as the biblical perspective allows for, must decide for himself/herself what line of prophetic significance to follow.

The one totally ILLEGTIMATE application is that of Realised Prophecy which sees the fulfilment of Revelation in a given set of present day circumstances. Herbert W Armstrong and the collective Watchtower Leadership are prime examples of this folly. For the Watchtower Leadership their view is that they are the centre of the Theological Universe so ALL fulfillment must revolve around them exclusively.

Using 1914 as their base line time element, they have, throughout their history, been straining a meaning out of the text of Revelation that is patently absurd, and thus they frame themselves in a spotlight that only diehard Watchtower Followers can admire.

It is for this reason, that when a current prophetic time element becomes untenable, other sources of fullfilment have to be plundered in the name of "new light". What Russell, then later Rutherford, and even later Freddy Franz, conceived Revelation to be has largely been swallowed up by the dustbin of history.

25

New "Research Guide" released today

by leaving_quietly in

without a lot of fanfare, the much anticipated "research guide" has been released.. to view it:.

http://wol.jw.org.

click on publications.

moggy lover

Sorry. Can't find it. There is no such item listed as "Research Guide" in the Publications page.

Probably been removed.

24

The Watchtower Denies Substitutionary Atonement

by Perry in

for 30 years i never heard one time that christ died for me personally.

i always heard that he died to pay back what adam lost.

that never made alot of sense to me, but i just went along with it as a kid and young adult.. then, after i left... it hit me just how simple the whole thing was.

moggy lover

Indeed.

I think the Watchtower position has been arrived at by two mistaken views of the Atonement.

1. Ever since the time of CT Russell, founder of the movement, the Watchtower has placed undue stress on the concept of what they term the "Ransom" theory. The term is relatively rare in NT writings, and is restricted to two contextual grids. In two texts, both referring to the same conversation by Christ, we are told that "Christ "GAVE" [not "paid"] His soul as a ransom for many." [Matt 20:28, Mar 10:45]

Protestant theologians during the Reformation, studying this aspect of Christian theology anew, concluded that the atonement was not simply a "price" that was paid since Christ was Himself this "price", neither was it a compact worked out under Divine Fiat, from whence one could, by deligently "exercising faith", work out one's own redemption. Rather, it was concluded, after logically studying the divergent threads on this subject, that Adam was not just a person who sinned and who passed this on to all. But rather since none of us could claim to have done any different were we in Adam's place, all of us deserve to die. None can say that were he/she in the original pair's shoes, they would have done differently. Hence there would have been no need for Christ to die.

Therefore, rather than each and every one of us dying, as we deserve, Jesus Christ died in our place, meaning that we don't have to die. This consequently led to the substitionary understanding of the death of Christ. Augustine, writing in Latin, hinted at this when he used the Latin "vicarious", meaning "a substitute".

2. I further think that The Wt position is compounded by an error of translation. At 1 Tim 2:5, the NWT informs us that the Man Jesus "Gave" [again not "paid"] Himself "a corresponding ransom" for all. Here the Greek "Antilutron" in the NW"T" against the united testimony of decalred scholarship, has used this espression: "Corresponding" ransom.

The "Insight" volume 2, page 736 reveals that this peculiar NWT rendering was precipitated by an understanding of what the Parkhust Greek Lexicon had to say about this word. A careful examination will however reveal that Parkhust [first published as long ago as 1845] actually shows the word to mean "CORRESPONDENT" ransom, rather than as portrayed by the writers of Wt material. Indeed, Parkhust was saying nothing contrary to Christian thinking on this issue.

But, "Corresponding" to what?

Official Watchtower Theology has always presented the view that this "corresponded" to Adam. Hence rather than the "Substitutionary" nature of the Atonement, the Wt forces the "Adam Corresponding" theory on its followers. Rather than die for us, Christ died as an equivalent of Adam, and in doing so only removed something called "Adamic" sin from us. Our individual sins, however, have still to be worked out, and worked at, by strictly applying all the talmudic regulations laid out by the Watchtower leadership.

In fact as one can detect when we study Wt material on the matter, that the Wt presses this concept, not so much as a variant on the Atonement, but rather than as an attack, warranted or otherwise, on the Deity of Christ.

Since Jesus was exactly the equivalent of Adam, then how could He be God, no?

25

When was the significance of the year 1919 first stated?

by jwfacts in

.

when was it first introduced that the watchtower organisation was chosen in 1919?

i expect this was something first published under rutherford, as a way of making his leadership more important than that of russell, but would like some evidence to back that claim up.. .

moggy lover

I have analysed the five sources that we have gathered so far and they seem to fall into two separate categories:

A. These represent quotes that only tell us that the year 1919 was assumed to have some improbable significance.

1. Mar 1 Wt 1925.

This seems to be the earliest mention of the year 1919 in Watchtower theology. Having reference to the release from detention of the then Directors of the Watchtower Corporation, this release is superimposed with prophetic significance. However there is no suggestion that Jehovah had actually reached out and, after testing these jokers along with the rest of "Christendom", "anointed" them as his favourites

2. April 15 Wt 1926.

This is the second reference to 1919 in Wt literature we have been able to locate, yet no application is made to being either tested or chosen for the great evengelizing work that the Wt now assumes took place in that year. Instead we are given yet another prophetic symbolism. This is of the Elijah-Elisha operation mentioned in the OT. CTR had stated that his generation was to be the last generation in human history. Now JFR hastily jumped in and justified a delay in the end by suggesting that there were to be TWO last generations.

CTR led a group who evidently represented the OT prophet Elijah, and he, JFR representing Elisha, was the lead the next generation into the promised land.

But still no concept of a testing and choosing by Jehovah who was supposedly at his temple doing this work.

3. Yearbook 1927. Here we have a third reference to 1919 but it only confirms the Elijah-Elisha illusion conjured up the previous year.

B. This class of quotes actually answers the question presented by JWfacts.

1. July 15 1930 page 214.

Here is the earliest notation that 1919 was not just a year of prophetic antitypes, but was a time of divine selection for the work of evangelism. For the first time we are informed that Jehovah came to his "temple" for the purpose of choosing his personal and collective representative here on earth. Having examined "Christendom" and rejecting them because of their sustaining and perpetuating "pagan" beliefs, he rejected them and instead settled on the WTBTS. This is despite the fact that there was no meaningful difference in "pagan" convictions held by the Wt leadership.

2. Aug 1 and 15 Wt 1930 paragraphs 45, 46. This reiterates what was stated a month earlier.

So, to answer the question posed in this thread:

The date is July 15, 1930, in the Wt magazine.

39

Christadelphians (Christ brothers/Sisters)

by Rip in

in my plan to exit the jw i thought it would be good if i adhere to another faith group, not cultish as the jw but non trinitarian.. this is decided for the sake of my children (two sons)'s spritual safety.

i researched the internet and in the non trinitarian groups i found these christadelphian.

any idea about this group?.

moggy lover

Despite the fact that they are non-Trinitarian, their view of Jesus is extraordinarily different from the Watchtower.

1. They have been around longer. They started in 1848 under the direction of one John Thomas, which means they began a whole generation before the Watchtower. They were already in existence for 4 years when Russell was born.

2. They do not accept the pre-existence of Christ. To them, Jesus began His existence in Bethlehem when he was born to the Virgin Mary. Thus when John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word", The "Word" mentioned here is not Christ, but is in fact an abstraction that defines the internal reasoning of God which is then manifested externally. Thus the "Word" here refers to God's "reason", "logic", or even "thought" capability. The difference is:

Watchtower: Word= Christ, but God = not God necessarily, it can have a nuanced meaning referring to "a mighty one"

Christadelphians: Word = Not Christ, but an Abstraction of God, but God = means what it says and refers always to Deity.

3. Implicit in the Christadelphian view of Christ being merely a human, is that His work of atonement for sins for the world included the need to atone for His own sins as well.

4. Because they are more Christ-centred than the Watchtower, they emphasize His name more than any other. Indeed, baptism in His name alone and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a unique feature they share with Oneness Pentecostals.

5. Thus they are not dogmatic members of the Sacred Name Movement, and whereas they refer to the OT God as Yahweh, they do not import this name into the NT, nor do they continuously and monotonously insist on uttering this name.

6. They seem to have a more pertinent attitude to the Bible and its revelation than the Watchtower. They do not have an overbearing GB who defines their theology and to whom alligience is demanded and owed. Their interpretations, though unorthodox, are more "reasoned" and certainly not so transient as the average Watchtower Follower has to put up with.

7. Their eschatological theology is also radicallt different to the Watchtower. There is only one "class" of Christadelphians who will reign on earth with Christ for the thousand years, while the earth is restored to perfection. Israel as a nation will be unique to the national groups during the Millennium and will maintain its distict ethnicity. The promises made to Abraham will ultimately come to fruition during this time. Like Russell's original theology, the present state of Israel is believed to have prophetic siqnificance and its modern existence is the doctrinal barometer that intimates the state of prophecy as a whole.

8. They eschew the showy display of institutional religiosity so apparent in Watchtower credibility. Thus they do not usually have permanently established and owned property where their meetings are held. The local congregation, called an "ekklesia" either meets in rented halls or in the homes of the adherents who open up their dwellings for service.

9. They do not stress the door-to-door work, rightly viewing it as grossly inefficient for proselylising. Nor do they have universal preaching workers. They do however maintain an aggressive evangelism by organizing street work, or regular displays at halls or meeting places.

7

REVISED NWT IS TRUTHFUL!

by The Searcher in

well, in one verse at least!!

ephesians 1:15 - "that is why i also, since i have heard of the faith you have in in the lord jesus and the love that you demonstrate for the holy ones...".

do i hear you all shouting ' so what'?

moggy lover

It appears to be a textual problem.

The 1984 NWT edition was strictly following the WH text here where the expression "your Love" is missing. The later UBS text based on older and better mss does include this expression.

Hence the NWT Revisers whoever they are, discarded the WH text here and opted for the UBS reading instead.

This raises the interesting point of where else this has been done, and how much reliance has been placed in the UBS over the WH text.