Posts by moggy lover

45

Just how hyped was 1975?

by MuadDib in

jw
friends

aight.

i was raised in the jws, but i'm still young (22) and all my life what i've been told is that the society never really promoted 1975 as the definitive year for the coming of armageddon.

what i was always told is that some overzealous witnesses took certain things out of context and developed a very extreme reaction - ie selling their houses, quitting their jobs, dropping out of school, etc.

moggy lover

The sad and lamentable legacy that the WTS left behind as a result of the 1975 fiasco, is an entire generation of disillusioned believers in the WT system. Far from being individuals who hyped up the teaching quite unnessasrily, these ones [and I include myself in this] were the most loyal and decent of WT followers whose devotion was, at that time, never questioned by the leadership of the WTS.

In his book COC Ray Franz tells of several GB sessions when this issue was brought up and some explanation thought desirable to be given to the R&F. If the leadership were honest enough, they would have conceded some ground and I am sure, would not have suffered such a large exodus. In fact we waited for the society to be honest with us, as their vaunted claims suggested them to be. No matter how facile the explanation, I am sure a large number would have been satisfied, submitting to more disappointment, but carrying on regardless.

The hardliners in the GB, however, determined that the best policy was to ride out the storm. In fact it was'nt till 5 years later, that a trivial and ambiguous "statement" was prepared. A statement that was as meaningless as it was trivial. It was then that several decided to move out. Such outrageously dishonest men had proved themselves to be unworthy of the trust they demanded from others.

It was'nt till a further few years that the idea was encouraged among the remaining R&F that the real problem lay, not with the leaders, but with the led. As if those being led were more effectual than the leaders. If such was the case, and it WAS some in the R&F who were hyping up the claims, then WHY DID THE WTS NOT SAY SOMETHING . In fact, the reality was that it was THEY who were encouraging the R&F to do certain things, like defer medical attention, sell homes, withdraw savings etc, JUST to show LOYALITY to the WTS. It was these ones, who made unbelievable sacrifices, that the WTS has betrayed.

Today we stand as a visible and potent testimony to the brash, and obscene quackery of a devious group of men who made the arrogant claim to speak for the God of Heaven. A claim that history has shown to be empty and vain.

And I have news for them: WE WILL NEVER GO AWAY !! Everyday, with every breath we will expose them for the worthless scum they in fact are.

Cheers

27

What made us different?

by Lo-ru-hamah in

jw
friends

i am wondering, what made all of us different?

to explain.

obviously most all of us here were at one time brainwashed and endoctrinated with the rest of the rank and file of jw's.

moggy lover

I suppose the only illustration I can appeal to, is that of growing up. When we were kids we believed in Santa Clause, fairies, and the Easter bunny. And then one day we kinda grew up and realised that there was no such thing.

Same thing with us being in the WTS. One day we woke up and saw that the emperor actually has no clothes. We were made to believe that he had, but we knew otherwise. As TV and Hollywood [not to mention Bollywood] have shown, reality can be manufactured and distorted with such diabolic cunning that it becomes believable. It takes a great deal of real effort to see the illusion behind that which is presented as reality.

I am reminded of the movie "Matrix" Remember how what the people were forced to believe was in reality simply a sleep-induced coma? WT literature comes like that. Its contents are not designed to enlighten or teach, but to act as a soporific, ensuring that the R&F remain in the desired state of suspended animation. For some reason our synapses unplugged and we saw the truth behind the legerdemain

cheers

25

WHO HAS READ C.O.C.? WHAT WAS AN EYE OPENER FOR YOU?

by juni in

jw
friends

i am half way through the book and am finding some surprising information.

i was always told that the gb met on wed. and prayed before considering their decisions on things, but was i surprised that different ones were given the assignments and to use if they wanted other "worldly" written things and then were off on their own to work independantly or w/another to come up w/the book, etc.. also, the malawi and mexico difference in treatment.

brothers lied to escape military service in mexico.

moggy lover

The lid needs to be blown off this obsessively secretive organisation. And Ray has done a sterling job in doing just that. Reading this book one begins to realize that WTism is'nt actually a religion. It's an instrument of power weilded by a covert and stealthy group of men who, with their flunkies, have deceived the innocent into a monstrous subjection.

The policies they pursue, and the demands they exact, are not based on "biblical principles" but on expediency and the maintenance of their authority.

I think COC should be made required reading for every JW and ex-JW

Cheers

29

? for Barry. How do Seven Day Adventists compare to JW's

by jwfacts in

hi barry, .

noticed you are online, so i wanted to grab you and find out how you perceive seven day adventists compare to jws: .

1 - equally cult like .

moggy lover

According to my understanding [having spoken only to a very few SDAs] there is a major difference of belief between the two groups, the WTS and the SDAs in regard to the "Afterlife" MissBehave has touched on this a little earlier, but may I be allowed to elaborate:

According to WT belief, as we all know, they teach that when a person dies he/she passes into a state of non-existence, his/her entire being is snuffed out, and that person no longer exists in any real sense of the term. Thus when the time for resurrection arrives, jhoover, esq, has to RECREATE the person using his memory of what he/she was in life. The person thus recreated actually has NO biological link to the previous existence, whatever link that is retained being rather tenous, at best. The important thing, however is that the WTS does not teach a resurrection, which requires a re-animation of exactly the very same person as the one who died.

That to my understanding is NOT what SDAs teach. This is how it was told to me: The person who is resurrected must be exactly the same as the person who died, with a direct concious link for the two. This is achieved by the following. When a person dies, whether good, or bad, he does NOT pass into non-being, rather there is something that does survive the person's death. It is not the soul of course, because like the WTS, the SDAs teach that the soul is the person. However the "Spirit" of the person survives. This is the real husk, the essence of being, the vital source that undergirds the person's sense of consciousness and being. The ego, if you will.

This "spirit" of the person continues to exist after death, but in a state of suspended animation either with the Lord if good, or in Hades if bad.Come the resurrection, the "spirit" of the godly person which contains the person's real being is clothed with a new, resurrection body, similar to Christ's. Thus a direct link is maintained with the two conditions of the person. He/she is aware of being exactly the same as the person who died

The ungodly are, however interesting. At the Final Jugement when all ungodly persons will be judged, they too will be resurrected. They will have their "spirits" reanimated and clothed with bodies. They will then be told the reason for their adverse divine sentence and THEN they will be annihilated, ie, go into non-existence. This is because there is no further need for a resurrection.

Whereas the WTS has already played God and publicly denied certain ones the resurrection, like most evangelical believers, the SDAs teach that every single person who has ever lived will be resurrected. The characterizations of Good and Bad however are detirmined by God, not the SDAs

Cheers

9

When did the governing body start ruling

by hijack in

i have started my own research as to what day the gb took power and here is what i found.

http://www.nucleus.com/~faxdir/jwrumble.html.

and then this site http://gwest59.tripod.com/christislord/id46.html says that the gb did the following adjustment.

moggy lover

Hi Hijack

The book COC was first published in 1984 and has had several reprints since then. I believe the latest updated edition came out in 2004 with information current till then. The book is extreemly popular and should be available in most bookshops if you are in the USA. In Australia it is distributed by the Koorongs Book chain who are currently selling the latest edition. If you have trouble finding a copy in your country you could contact the publishers who are:

Commentary Press, PO Box 43532, Atlanta, Georgia, USA 30336

You may reach them at www.commentarypress.com [Sorry, dont know how to get those lines underneath for you to click them - you will need to punch the letters in] The book has evidently been translated into 11 languages

On page 27, Franz mentions that he was invited to join a then embryonic GB which had no function beyond consultancy, but does not provide any details. As to who actually recommended him he does not say.

He does, however give a detailed account of his eventual expulsion from the WTS by a local cong in Gadsden, Alabama. In 1979, it appears that three JWs from the Spanish Translation Section at Bethel HQ [Rene Vasquez, Cristobal Sanchez, and Nestor Quilan] were talking privately at the home of friends in the NY area. One of the guests reported to his local cong that the three had made statements attacking current policy and that evidently Ray Franz was sympathetic to their cause The local cong elders then went to Bethel HQ with this information and in tactics more in keeping with the RC Inquisition, all three were expelled from Bethel and the WTS.

Franz was brought before the GB and told to explain himself. He did and evidently it was accepted that the "charge" against him was false. But the GB kept him under surveillance from that time . Eventually, on May 22 1980, he resigned from the GB and left Bethel.

He then moved down to Gadsden and was given work by a Peter Gregerson a good friend from way back. However, Gregreson disassociared himself from the WTS, and by implication Franz was considered mixing in company with an Apostate. Franz naturally explained that he had to "associate" with Gregerson, because the man was Franz's boss. The GB did not accept this explanation and ordered the local cong in Gadsden to expel Ray immediately. This occured on Dec 31 1981

Franz identifies the writers of the "Aid" book as: Lyman Swingle, Edward Dunlap, Reinhard Lengtat, John Wischuk, and himself.

It is a tremendous book and well worth the experience

Cheers

9

When did the governing body start ruling

by hijack in

i have started my own research as to what day the gb took power and here is what i found.

http://www.nucleus.com/~faxdir/jwrumble.html.

and then this site http://gwest59.tripod.com/christislord/id46.html says that the gb did the following adjustment.

moggy lover

Hi, Hijack. Your date is confirmed by Ray Franz in his book "Crisis of Conscience" There is an illustration on pg 91 of his book showing a diagram of how the GB is supposed to work with the date firmly insribed as Jan 1 '76.

Interestingly, Ray covers a great deal of material in his book on how the GB actually came to be [Pgs 50-94]. It certainly was not the intention of what was then called the "Corporation" [ie a monarchial/dictatorial system laughingly called "theocratic" and run by one man, the WTS President] to have such an arrangement. This corporation ran the WTS during the reigns of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr. The flunkies who were in this "corporation" did exactly what the President said [or they were out on their arses]

In the mid 60s Knorr, exerting his kingly authority, assigned Ray Franz and others to write a sort of "Bible Dictionary" covering various topics. This eventually became the "Aid" book. While reaserching material from various other Bible Dictionaries available in the extensive WT Library, Franz became convinced that the practice hitherto exercised by the WTS, where one man, the "cong servant" ran the local congs, was wrong. Franz felt that there was convincing evidence, instead, for a "body of elders" to do this. He submitted his proposals for this "new truth" to his uncle, then Vice-President of the "corporation, Fred Franz. Fred agreed to this change and so, in ' 71 this was introduced into every one of the WTS congregations. It was also introduced into every Branch Office.

Now came the tension. Almost everyone of the flunkies in the "corporation" as well as many in Bethel HQ generally became aware of a glaring anomaly. The whole WTS structure had been converted to a "Body" arrangement EXCEPT THE BETHEL HQ. That was still a one-man show. Much of the book tells of the struggle between these two forces and how after 5 years of dispute it was finally settled in favour of a collective arrangement. In Jan '76, almost 5 YEARS after the original installation, the GB was born. Interestingly, also, Franz tells of a certain "price" the flunkies had to pay to get free of Knorr's authority. He finally relented, and gave up his "monarchical" position, but he exacted a price. In order to introduce any new teaching, or to reform an older one, a simple majority rule was not enough. Knorr insisted that the GB agree to a two-thirds rule, where that many members would now be necessary for any change. Franz shows how this became a frustrating millstone round the collective neck of the GB. Imagine getting that many members to agree to anything, especially if it appears to threaten their position!!

Cheers

Moggy

13

Are Women Allowed To Be Ministers?

by lucifer in

jw
friends

i was out last night with my friend that i went to church with a couple weeks ago (he's presbyterian) and i asked him if he had been to church lately and he told me that him and his family went to the main church in town instead of his little one in the country.

then he told me that his aunt and cousins got up and left the service because it was a woman minister??

so i asked if they were allowed to have women ministers and he said no that it is against the bible ..."the bible clearly says that women are not to have authority in chuch/congregations..." .

moggy lover

There is at least one reference to a woman of rank in the Apostolic Christian Church, which has set a favourable precedent for our times.

In Ro 16:1, Paul commends one Phoebe, who is said to be a "Dia-con-e" of the Cenchrea church. The word has had a cotroversial history in Evangelical circles, especially the Ulra-conservative, Taliban wing of the Christian Church today. It can simply refer to a "servant" in a secular sense, [An attitude appently assumed by the WTS], or a "waitress" serving at a table in a tavern. But when used within a Church context, as here, it admits to a meaning of some authority in the Christian community.

Several translation use the word "minister" here: Helen Montgomery NT, JB Rotherham, and JN Darby. Calvin used the word "deaconess" and so do the Living Oracles NT, and Gods Word To The Nations translation. Several Conservative translations recognize this as well because they allow for "deaconess" in their footnotes [NIV, NASV etc]

I am aware of several Baptist Churches that have Deaconesses, as do the SDA church

Cheers

7

The Nicolaitans

by Clam in

revelation 2 verses 6 and 15. .

does anyone know what the watchtower angle on the nicolatians is and if it differs from the mainstream?.

thank you in advance,.

moggy lover

Freddy Franz decided to "translate" the Greek word "Nikolaiton" with the expression "sect of Nicolaus" Seizing on the word "sect" the Revelation/Grand Climax book offers the following information, which I understand is still current:

Pg 35: Rev 2:6: "Christian copyists who removed the word Jehovah from the NT, teachers in such "Babylonish" doctrines as The trinity, hellfire, and purgatory. The clergy class. In the '20s the 'Sect of Nicolaus' were teaching various God-dishonouring doctrines [as above] while the "John class" received a "well done" from their Lord for teaching , in 1919, the invisible return of Christ. [significantly no date is provided for which the "John class" were proclaiming the invisible return - 1874]"

Pg 44 Rev 2:16:" Proud apostates, who through smooth speech, cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching provided through jehovah's channel''

Betcha you did'nt know you were a Nicolaitan did yah?

And please no jokes like: Santa Clause and Niko Lause both against the Empire

Cheers

30

Jesus the archangel Michael? No.

by mdb in

jesus the archangel michael?

1 thess 4:16 (daniel 10:13).

the watchtower teaches that michael is the only archangel (aid to bible understanding).

moggy lover

Hi, Leolaia

In reading my post again it appears that I erred in not allowing "aram" to have a meaning of "rule" in those seven verses cited in Dan 8 and 11 by the WTS For this I apologise. My point, which I believe is a valid one, was that from a lexical point of view, none of the authorities I used at the start of my post, actually commit themselves to that inference. Indeed, both the Theological Dictionary of the OT and Gesenius specifically cite Dan 11:2,3 etc and give the lexical meaning of "stand up, establish, preserve" [Ges. Lexicon pg 638] that this may include the possibility of "Rule" is something that ought to be considered. In this your point is taken.

My original premise, I believe, still stands, however. And that is that in Dan 12:1, the meaning of "to rule" is remote at best when applied to "aram" and that extending the meaning from some verses of Dan 8 and 11 to cover this does not make for good exegsis. The first to do this in any published form was, I believe, the SDA scholar, Uriah Smith in his commentary on Rev and Dan

I do believe there are some scholars who identify Michael with a Messianic figure of Judaism, but identifying Michael with Jesus Christ specifically appears to be relatively recent [Late 19th Cent with the rise of SDAism. Since Russell was incapable of any original thought it is my belief he acquired his conclusion from that source] and no, I have not read the authorities cited by you. Jewish belief in Michael seems to be ambiguous. Views range from identifying him with the Messiah, a guardian angel of Israel, one of seven archangels, and there are even some who identify him with a special angelic being in the service of Ahura Mazda, the chief deity of Zoroastrianism. Evidently the Jews were influenced by this concept when in captivity to Babylon, although Zoroastrianism was the religion of Persia

None of which was my primary concern since all these noncanonical identifications appear to be imaginative embellishments of the few details which can be gleaned about him from the biblical accounts

Your post was excellent, as usual.

Cheers

10

Rare books

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

moggy lover

As far as I can recall, Nelson Herle never actually published his work. It ended up as an unpublished manuscript distributed among a select group of JWs in the Los Angeles/San Francisco area. The only other copy is held by the WTS in Brooklyn.

I think you may be able to get some information at this site: for an answer.com [I'm sorry but I don't know how to put those lines at the bottom so you could acess the site you will need to punch the letters in]

Cheers