Earnest

Joined

• started 51 topics
• posted 2,250 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Earnest

• 
  9

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: THE EFFECTS OF MILLENARIANISM ON THE MAINTENANCE OF A RELIGIOUS SECT.

  by carod2000 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  dear,.

  i am doing research on the history of jeovah's witnesses and would like to know if any of you have this research work to share: .

  jehovah's witnesses: the effects of millenarianism on the maintenance of a religious sect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  You can order a copy of Curry's dissertation here for $41.
  
• 
  22

  First 3 Presidents never knew JC began his reign as King in 1914 ?

  by smiddy3 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the first 3 presidents of the i.b.s.a ./ jehovah`s witnesses / wtb&ts.. w.h.conley ,c.t.russell ,j.f.rutherford .. how many jehovah`s witnesses know that ?

  how many ex jehovah`s witnesses knew that ?

  the wt society teaches that jesus returned to begin his "invisible presence" in 1914 directing his attention toward the earth as ruling king.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  smiddy3 : No such belief about a paradise earth where survivors would live.

  There was a belief in a paradise earth where those who had shown kindness to or support for the believers would live. It was also reserved for those resurrected, which is (ostensibly) why Beth Sarim was built and "The Way to Paradise", 1924, Van Amburgh, was written.
  
• 
  26

  Drinking during Prohibition

  by Davros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  during a recent conversation i had with someone, a question came up that i really don't know the answer to.

  did jw's still drink during prohibition in the us during the 1920's until it's repeal in 1933?

  was alcoholic beverages considered forbidden and possibly subject to disfellowshipping?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  mynameislame : And as we all know alcohol isn't the least bit addictive.

  I expect alcohol would also be included if it weren't mentioned in the Bible. You can hardly make the use of alcohol a disfellowshipping offence when Jesus turned water into wine and commanded his followers to keep drinking it (at the Lord's evening meal - 1 Cor.11:25).
  
• 
  26

  Changed From "Disfellowshipped" to "No Longer One of Jehovah's Witnesses!

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a friend is trying to figure out the approximate date or letter, which indicated a change from the wording of public announcements.. they changed from saying the person has been disfellowshipped to saying that a person was no longer one of jehovah's witnesses.. i thought it was around the time of the bulgaria scandal.. could you help us out to remember when this change took place?

  if we could remember the approximate year, we could look up all the boe's for that year and might find the letter.. many thanks!.

  atlantis!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  In the 1981 book Pay Attention to Yourselves and to all the Flock it says, regarding those who disassociate themselves:

  Those who disassociate themselves should be viewed and treated the same as disfellowshipped persons.
  

  A brief announcement should be made to the congregation that this individual is, by his chosen course, no longer desirous of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Branch Office should be notified.
• 
  17

  Fred Franz 85 talk on WTS History

  by Vanderhoven7 in

  1. social
  2. humour

  learn why fred quit university to join the watchtower.

  https://youtu.be/fkjw-r9oitk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Diogenesister : Earnest did you listen to the speech? I'm talking about the above speech! He claimed to those in the stadium he had gained a place to study at Oxford university.

  This is what Fred Franz said in "the above speech" :

  At any rate I was scheduled to go to Oxford college. Well, now, this was 1914 and ... we were expecting the end of the Gentile times, the appointed times of the nations to take place in the fall of the year of 1914. And here I was attending [Cincinnati] university and with further study at Oxford college university. For what?

  This is what Fred Franz said in the Watchtower account of his life :

  A high point in my academic life was when Dr. Lyon, the [Cincinnati] university’s president, announced to an assembly of students in the auditorium that I had been chosen to go to Ohio State University to take competitive examinations with others to win the prize of the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, qualifying me for admission to Oxford University in England. One of the contestants outranked me with regard to field athletics, but because of my comparable grades, they wanted to send me, along with him, to Oxford University. I appreciated that I had measured up to the requirements for gaining the scholarship, and, normally, this would have been very gratifying.

  I have never regretted that, shortly before the announcements by the educational authorities regarding the outcome of the examinations for the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, I wrote a letter [in 1914] to the authorities and advised them that I had lost interest in the Oxford University scholarship and that they should drop me from the list of contestants. This I did even though my professor in Greek at the university, Dr. Joseph Harry, informed me that I had been chosen to receive it.

  What I understand from this is that at that time top students were selected by their respective universities to write examinations to determine who qualified for a Rhodes Scholarship. Fred Franz was selected by Cincinnati University to write the examinations which were being conducted at Ohio State University. He was subsequently told by his professor (Dr Joseph Harry of Cincinnati University) that he and another student had been chosen for the scholarship. Before the award took place he considered that the end of the Gentile times would occur in the Fall of the same year and wrote a letter to the authorities asking them to drop him from the list of contestants.

  Considering that Franz only heard about the Bible Students in 1913 and was baptised on April 5, 1914 it seems that between the time of his writing the examinations and being told he had been chosen as a Rhodes Scholar, Franz came to understand the end of the Gentile times was in the Fall of 1914. Of course he saw no point in further study

  Diogenesister : We actually have a statement from the Rhodes society itself stating he is not on their list of successful candidates.

  He never was. Even though it was intended to award a Rhodes scholarship to him it never happened. That does not make it a lie to say he qualified for it but did not take it up.
  
• 
  37

  We in the UK are dealing with COVID all wrong

  by LoveUniHateExams in

  1. social
  2. current

  yeah, so boris johnson has plunged the whole of the uk back into a second lockdown.

  kids are still going to school (thank goodness!

  ) but this second lockdown is ruining the economy and killing small businesses.. the first lockdown was forgivable because, at the time, nobody knew what we were dealing with.. but now, we know more and more about covid-19.. it is lethal to elderly people (the average age of deaths with covid in the uk is 82 years - the average age of deaths without covid in the uk is 81 years).. it is also lethal to obese people and people with diabetes.. i'd imagine hiv+ people are another vulnerable group.. but to everyone else, catching covid is fairly similar to catching the flu.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  perdurabo : In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Roosevelt

  There are no records of Roosevelt having made that statement. The earliest use of it is found in the 1971 conspiracy theory book None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham.
  

  In the second chapter:

  Every conspirator has two things in common with every other conspirator. He must be an accomplished liar and a far-seeing planner. Whether you are studying Hitler, Alcibiades, Julius Caesar or some of our contemporary conspirators, you will find that their patient planning is almost overwhelming. We repeat FDR's statement: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

  It is curiously convenient that the first appearance of a conspiracy-endorsing statement attributed to FDR should be in a conspiracy-endorsing book.
• 
  17

  Fred Franz 85 talk on WTS History

  by Vanderhoven7 in

  1. social
  2. humour

  learn why fred quit university to join the watchtower.

  https://youtu.be/fkjw-r9oitk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  In the account of his life story in the Watchtower 1st May 1987, pp.22-30, Fred Franz explains the sequence of events :

  A high point in my academic life was when Dr. Lyon, the university’s president, announced to an assembly of students in the auditorium that I had been chosen to go to Ohio State University to take competitive examinations with others to win the prize of the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, qualifying me for admission to Oxford University in England.
  

  On April 5, 1914, in Chicago, Illinois, I symbolized my consecration​—as we used to call dedication—​by water baptism.

  I have never regretted that, shortly before the announcements by the educational authorities regarding the outcome of the examinations for the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, I wrote a letter to the authorities and advised them that I had lost interest in the Oxford University scholarship and that they should drop me from the list of contestants. This I did even though my professor in Greek at the university, Dr. Joseph Harry, informed me that I had been chosen to receive it. [My italics]
  
• 
  26

  Drinking during Prohibition

  by Davros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  during a recent conversation i had with someone, a question came up that i really don't know the answer to.

  did jw's still drink during prohibition in the us during the 1920's until it's repeal in 1933?

  was alcoholic beverages considered forbidden and possibly subject to disfellowshipping?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  There is a chapter in The New Creation (1904) (Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 6) entitled Order and Discipline in the New Creation (Study VI, pp.273 - 347) which can be read in full here. The information below comes from that chapter, particularly the section Discipline in the Ecclesia (pp.289-293).
  

  FFGhost : Was there an "official" procedure that was to be followed?

  If one appears to be in error or in sin, his supposed wrong should be pointed out to the erring one only by the one he has injured, or by the member first discovering the wrong. If the reproved one fails to clear himself, and continues in the error or sin, then two or three brethren without previous prejudice should be asked to hear the matter and advise the disputants. (Elders they may or may not be, but their eldership would add no force or authority in the case except as their judgment might be the riper and their influence the more potent.) If this committee decide unanimously with either party, the other should acquiesce and the matter be wholly at an end--correction, or restitution, so far as possible, being promptly made. If either of the original disputants still persists in the wrong course, the one who made the original charge or one of those called in committee or, preferably, all of these together, may then (but not sooner) exercise their privilege of bringing the matter before the Ecclesia, the body, the Church. Thus it is evident that the Elders were in no sense to be judges of the members--hearing and judgment were left to the local body, or Church. The two preliminary steps (above mentioned) having been taken, the facts being certified to the elders, it would be their duty to call a general meeting of the Ecclesia, or consecrated body, as a court--to hear the case in all of its particulars, and in the name and reverence of its Head to render a decision. And the matter should be so clear, and the condemned should have such generous treatment, that the decision would be a unanimous one, or nearly so. Thus the peace and oneness of the body (the Ecclesia) would be preserved. Repentance even up to the moment of the Churchʹs condemnation is possible. Nay, to secure repentance and reform is the very object of every step of these proceedings--to reclaim the transgressor; his punishment not at all the object. Punishment is not ours but Godʹs: ʺVengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.ʺ (`Rom. 12:19`) Should the wrongdoer repent at any step in this proceeding, it should be a cause of thanksgiving and rejoicing to all who possess the Lordʹs Spirit, and no others are members of his body. `Rom. 8:9` Indeed, even if the transgressor refuse to hear (obey) the decision of the entire Church, no punishment is to be inflicted or even attempted. What then? Merely the Church is to withdraw from him its fellowship and any and all signs or manifestations of brotherhood. Thenceforth the offender is to be treated ʺas a heathen man and a publican.ʺ `Matt. 18:17`

  FFGhost : Who made the final determination?

  Thus it is evident that the Elders were in no sense to be judges of the members--hearing and judgment were left to the local body, or Church.

  FFGhost : What happened if the person was found "guilty"? The New Creation book mentions "withdrawing fellowship", but what did that mean in practice? Everyone, including family? Did "fellowship" mean within the walls of the meeting place, or outside it as well?

  There was a distinction between those who commit a sin that incurs death (1 John 5:16) and other sins. In the case of the "sin that incurs death" :

  We are not to judge of any by what is in their hearts, for we cannot read their hearts; but if they commit wilful sin unto death it will surely become manifest outwardly--by their lips, if they are doctrinal transgressions, denying the precious blood of atonement; or by their immoralities, if they have turned to walk after the flesh, ʺlike the sow that is washed, to her wallowing in the mire.ʺ It is respecting such as these, referred to in `Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31`, that the Apostle warns us to have no dealings whatever--not to eat with them, not to receive them into our houses, and not to bid them Godspeed (`2 John 9-11`); because those who would affiliate with them or bid them Godspeed would be accounted as taking their places as enemies of God, and as partaking of the evil deeds or evil doctrines, as the case might be.

  In the case of other sins :
  

  He should not be passed by on the street unnoticed by the brethren, but be treated courteously. The exclusion should be merely from the privileges of the assembly and from any special brotherly associations, etc., peculiar to the faithful. This is implied also in our Lordʹs words, ʺLet him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.ʺ Our Lord did not mean that we should do injury to a heathen man or a publican, nor treat either in any manner unkindly; but merely that we should not fellowship such as brethren, nor seek their confidences, nor as New Creatures give them ours. The household of faith is to be cemented and bound together with mutual love and sympathy, and expressions of these in various ways. It is from the lack of these privileges and blessings that the excluded brother is caused to suffer, until he feels that he must reform his ways and return to the family gathering. There is a suggestion in this respect to warmth, to cordiality, to true brotherliness, that should prevail amongst those who are members of the Lordʹs body.

  FFGhost : What was the procedure for one found guilty to be "restored"?

  It is not within the power of the Church to exclude permanently. The brother who, having offended either a brother member or the whole Church body, returns again and says, ʺI repent of my wrong course, and promise my best endeavors to do right in the future,ʺ or the equivalent of this, is to be forgiven-- fully, freely--as heartily as we hope the Lord will forgive the trespasses of all.
• 
  26

  Drinking during Prohibition

  by Davros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  during a recent conversation i had with someone, a question came up that i really don't know the answer to.

  did jw's still drink during prohibition in the us during the 1920's until it's repeal in 1933?

  was alcoholic beverages considered forbidden and possibly subject to disfellowshipping?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Since the Watchtower article of 1929 the understanding of "the powers ordained of God" has changed (in 1962) to apply to the governments of this world. So, if the prohibition of alcohol were to occur today Jehovah's Witnesses would have a different view and (officially) obey it.

  This doesn't really answer your question about ingesting legal cannabis for recreational use but their current view of using snuff (which does not differentiate from smoking tobacco) suggests it would be forbidden. The book Shepherd the Flock of God, April 2020, says:

  However,a judicial committee is required for a practice of abusing addictive drugs, including betelnut, marijuana, and tobacco. (2 Cor. 7:1; w06 7/15 pp.30-31; lvs pp.110-117)

  
  
• 
  26

  Drinking during Prohibition

  by Davros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  during a recent conversation i had with someone, a question came up that i really don't know the answer to.

  did jw's still drink during prohibition in the us during the 1920's until it's repeal in 1933?

  was alcoholic beverages considered forbidden and possibly subject to disfellowshipping?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  FFGhost : There really wasn't any sort of "enforcement mechanism" for undesired behavior until well into the reign of Pappy Knorr.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, pp. 186-187 says :

  As early as 1904, in the book The New Creation, attention was given to the need to take appropriate action so as not to allow a demoralizing of the congregation. The understanding that the Bible Students then had of the procedure for dealing with wrongdoers as outlined at Matthew 18:15-17 was discussed. In harmony with this, there were, on rare occasions, 'church trials' in which the evidence of wrongdoing in serious cases was presented to the entire congregation. Years later, The Watchtower, in its issue of May 15, 1944, reviewed the matter in the light of the entire Bible and showed that such matters affecting the congregation should be handled by responsible brothers charged with congregation oversight. ( 1 Cor. 5 : 1-13; compare Deuteronomy 21 : 18-21. )

  The New Creation (1904) (Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 6), p.289 says :

  [After discussing the application of Matthew 18:15-17] ... if the transgressor refuse to hear (obey) the decision of the entire Church, no punishment is to be inflicted or even attempted. What then? Merely the Church is to withdraw from him its fellowship and any and all signs or manifestations of brotherhood. Thenceforth the offender is to be treated ʺas a heathen man and a publican."