Posts by Cold Steel

12

Who is going to heaven? What does the new app say about this?

by Faithful Witness in

i just finished reading the letter at www.annointedjw.org, in which they respond to the new bible and its commentary.

interesting opening paragraph: .

"while we can appreciate the decision to revise some of the language to conform to a more modern understanding, we are quite at a loss as to why you would interject so much commentary of your own into such a sacred writing.

Cold Steel

Searcher: ...we are Witnesses of Christ, not God. Christ was God's Witness! ... So all Witnesses (virtually all!) are deluded into the false teaching that they have to be witnesses of Jehovah. They are opposing the clear teachings & commands of God's Word to represent Christ!

Why cannot one be witnesses of both? If one reads the Old Testament carefully, it's quite clear that Jehovah was the pre-existent Christ. The titles of both are virtually the same: Judge, Shepherd, King of Kings, Lord of Lords; Savior, Redeemer, First and Last. Jesus also enraged the Jews by telling them that "before Abraham was, I AM." As John pointed out, "The Father judges no man, but hass delivered all judgment unto the Son." (John 5:22)

The Society has long held that Jehovah is the great judge of mankind, yet they missed the doctrine that Jesus was the incarnate God of Israel. It was a big doctrine to miss, yet they have.

The emphasis is now on Christ. Jesus said that upon the rock of revelation he would build his church. He didn't say it was Jehovah's church, but his church..

23

The Great Grandmother Tragedy - New video on YouTube

by RayPublisher in

from the video description:.

a heartbreaking situation is played out every day for many grandparents that are former jehovah's witnesses or mormons: their precious grandchildren grow up without knowing them, and in some cases the little ones are told that their grandma or grandpa hates god and is serving satan and will be killed at armageddon.. .

why would such a terrible thing be done?

Cold Steel

Thanks, Publisher. All this information jives with my experience. I've found it's most often the people who leave the church who then snub (not shun) members.

I've read the bitterness of the ex-JWs on this board and I imagine the same bitterness resides in the hearts of ex-Mormons. It's the notion that they've been deceived, and they resent it. It's a source of embarrassment to them. Instead of going their own way, they set up and attend "ex-Mo" conferences and write books. It's as if they have a score to settle, and this is very human...not ecclesiastical.

2

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

by cognisonance in

biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'covert messiah' conference at conway hall in london on the 19th of october to present this controversial discovery to the british public.. http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm.

Cold Steel

One of Dr. Atwill's biggest problems will be trying to explain why the overwhelming bulk of early Roman scholarship on Christianity began long after the Jews were scattered to the four corners of the earth. Talk about closing the doors after all the horses were gone! While Atwill's theory does explain why Josephus might leave a testament so favorable to Jesus, it wouldn't explain why the Arab version of the same text was so watered down. Chances are that the text was subsequently altered by later Christians as scholars have surmised all along.

23

The Great Grandmother Tragedy - New video on YouTube

by RayPublisher in

from the video description:.

a heartbreaking situation is played out every day for many grandparents that are former jehovah's witnesses or mormons: their precious grandchildren grow up without knowing them, and in some cases the little ones are told that their grandma or grandpa hates god and is serving satan and will be killed at armageddon.. .

why would such a terrible thing be done?

Cold Steel

Video Description: Why would such a terrible thing be done? It is because of the Mormon Church and Watchtower Society’s harsh shunning policies. Some Jehovah’s Witnesses have used this terrible doctrine as a weapon against their own parents and it is a tragedy and a horrible loss for all sides. Once a person is indoctrinated into a cult, they will even turn on their own family members and this is one example of it in action.
-------------

Yes, except that the “Mormon Church” doesn’t have a shunning policy, harsh or otherwise. Daniel LeEarl Hall does not pretend to be objective or even to simply be reporting an incident. Instead, with no references whatsoever, he throws the Mormons into the same basket as the Jehovah's Witnesses, not only in regards to shunning, but of being a “manmade religion” and of being a cult, to boot! And though Hall may be correct about the Jehovah's Witnesses and its shunning policies, it he is incorrect in adding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the list.

Hall makes it clear that he’s an evangelical Christian, and it’s been my experience that many of these people who see it as their duty to expose “cults” (as they view them) actually employ many the same cult-like tactics they accuse others of, especially when it comes to stretching the truth for Christ.

The Jehovah's Witnesses publish their doctrine on shunning to all the world because they admit it right up front. It’s a tactic to keep people active (or else). The Latter-day Saints, however, are people, like anyone else, and if shunning occurs, it’s because of the individual members—not because it’s a church policy or even encouraged by the church. This means that every instance must be viewed on a case-by-case basis. For example, if I had children I was raising in the church, and grandma was actively interfering by attempting to plant doubt or sow the seeds of contention among my children, yes, I may limit contact to times where either my wife or I could monitor the contacts. But wouldn’t evangelicals do the same if grandma was an outspoken atheist and was attempting to subvert their parenting?

Other LDS families may have their reasons for keeping granny at bay, but the church as an organization has no official policy on shunning except to avoid it whenever possible. How can one love someone and shun? How can someone forgive and shun? Since love and forgiveness are key Christian components, ritualistic shunning would be counter to Christianity.

The problem with Daniel Hall is that he’s a hypocrite. I know full well he wouldn’t want his own children to be torpedoed by anyone in the family, and, in the words of the Chad Mitchell Trio, “If mommy is a commie, then you’ve got to turn her in!” I’m not saying that shunning doesn’t go on in the LDS church, but I am saying that it’s not ritualized as it is by the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor is it encouraged.

Apparently, if one is a Jehovah's Witnesses, he or she can be disfellowshiped for not shunning someone. This is also true about the Amish. But why didn’t Hall add the Amish to his text instead of the Mormons? I submit it’s because it did not fit his own twisted agenda.

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

Mindnumbed: ...if they had JW's coming to them with their questions and doubts like members of LDS did to Hans Mattsson, maybe one of them would also come to a crisis of conscience.

Mattsson's problem was that he (and others) had simply joined the church and failed to do any reading or investigating. Most of the stuff he said he'd never heard of, or seen, had been published by the church in its monthly magazine, not to mention apologetics groups like the Maxwell Institute and FAIRLDS. I was baptized a Mormon is 1971 and by 1972, when I left on my mission, I knew about the vast majority of the things Mattsson said he'd never read about. It would be like becoming a first century Christian, then complaining, "Hey, you guys never told me this guy claimed to come back from the dead!"

Mattsson and his wife were contacted by LDS historians, who discussed many of the contentious issues that bothered him (and is often horribly mis-represented by anti-Mormon groups). As FAIRLDS reported, "He didn’t know, for instance, that Joseph [Smith] used a seer stone in hat to translate the Book of Mormon or that he engaged in plural marriage. At this point his world came crumbling down." Hugh Nibley had published an article entitled Strange Ships and Shining Stones years earlier and no one can point a gun at you and force you to read these things. And almost everyone knows that the saints practiced plural marriage in the 19th Century.

In the Society, you can get disfellowshiped for openly questioning, but not in Mormonism. In fact, as one LDS writer noted:

…doubt is a natural part of our mortal sojourn. It is not sin, nor does it always (or even mostly) stem from sin. Faith is not belief without doubt, but rather faith is obedience to imperfectly-understood-but-true principles in the presence of doubt. In general, I would counsel leaders to not assume that doubt stems from transgression and to not assume that doubt is in some way the “fault” of the individual experiencing it. I think leaders can best serve those going through a crisis of faith by being understanding, sympathetic, and compassionate.

And most often, that's exactly how it's handled. Only fools would equate doubt with transgression. But it's also not always the church's fault when misunderstandings occur. Back in 1971, we didn't have an Internet, yet I still was able to educate myself on such things. Mattsson certainly had access to the information he sought; he just looked in the wrong places.

LDS author Michael Nash rightly explained:

It’s important that we understand that questioning the things we do, believe, or accept is normal and part of the process that leads from youth to maturity, as well as from maturity to wisdom. There would be no growth without questioning. Questions lead to answers, resolutions, solidifying convictions, and even to discarding false assumptions. Many doctrines and teachings were revealed as the result of questions petitioned to God.

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

I don't know. A lot of members seem on the verge of dissatisfaction (to be nice). And this 1914 thing can only go so far before they have to change it.

16

Genesis 3:6 - Is it correct or incorrect?

by bytheirworks in

an examination of genesis 3:6.... .

in the 2013 nwt we read: "consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at.".

in the douay-rheims bible we read: "and the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold".

Cold Steel

A lot depends on your theology. Mine tends towards the latter interpretation, that the tree was one of knowledge. Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit in order for Christ's Atonement to effect mankind's progression. In other words, the fall of man was pre-planned with the intention of exalting man to levels impossible to attain for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve both had the capability of living forever, but they would have had their ability to progress severely retarded. This is a doctrine shared by both Mormonism and the Eastern Orthodox, both which believe man's fall and atonement were engineered to advance man to a potential of deification; in other words, for God's children to be able to become as God is.

Man first had to attain a knowledge of good and evil, which was brought about by eating the "forbidden" fruit.

Technically, however, the fruit was not forbidden. God simply said, "You shall not eat of it, lest you die." Or, originally, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." They were told they could freely eat of any tree, but God told them not to partake of the forbidden fruit because it would introduce death into the world, and He could not be seen as actively advocating it. It had to be man's choice. At the same time, it was necessary and God had already set up the plan by which man could be redeemed. In other words, Jehovah had already been chosen and ordained to bring about man's redemption and thus becoming co-heirs with Christ of everything that the Father had. It's also important to understand that Satan did not lie to man. He was right in saying that man would not die...immediately, and he was accurate in saying they would become as the Gods [Elohim], knowing good from evil. But he lied in making them think they would not become subject to death.

When they partook of the fruit, they immediately had their eyes opened to good and evil and began to understand they had been deceived. The Father, however, could not overlook the fact that man had sinned, and, according to the dictates of Justice, He had to appoint an intercessor, an advocate and redeemer. This was Jehovah, who later was born as Christ. It's difficult to read the "old" testament and not see the same names and titles of Jesus being applied to Jehovah (Savior, Redeemer, King of Kings, Lord of Lords; First and Last; Shepherd, etc.). In Psalms 110:1-2, David writes, "The LORD saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." But who was David's Lord by Jehovah? And if Jehovah was the second Lord, who was the first? According to the new testament writers, the first Lord was the Father.

Once man's (and Earth's) redemption is complete, Jehovah will present the glorified Earth back to the Father and his work will be completely fulfilled. And even though the Atonement is complete, we're still to ask the Father for the things we need in the name of Christ. Evangelicals don't understand the distinction because I've heard them pray to Jesus and then say, "We ask these things in thy name."

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

Also, had not Raymond Franz been forced to resign, he might not have gone anywhere. It's easy to suffer a crisis of conscience when you've been booted out.

I always wondered what would happen if there was a split. If Franz had denounced the faithful and discreet slave thing immediately and accused the rest of trying to wrest the authority of the "true" slave, he might have been able to seize on a few more unpopular doctrines and create a rift. He might have also made the argument that the GB was the prophecied "man of sin" who was to bring about a mass apostasy. He could have reasoned, too, that the year of apostasy (1980) was the one in which the "generation" in which Armegeddon would happen:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [Armageddon] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

By trying to expel the anointed class as the faithful and discreet slave, this "man of sin" would be trying to oppose the true order of governance and exalt himself above all that are "called of God" (meaning the true FDS) and seek to take the place of God in the temple [Bethel], essentially "shewing himself that he" (the GB) "is God." If Franz had made that claim, he probably could have torpedoed the Society and eased the bruised feelings of dissatisfaction within the Outfit.

31

Who Will Be The Next Member Of The Governing Body To Defect From The Corporation?

by frankiespeakin in

while it may seem unlikely which of the currant governing body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

i know it is a loaded question.. what about wealthy anthony morris iii?

or mark sanderson or geoffrey jackson?

Cold Steel

Frankie: ...which of the currant Governing Body members do you feel would be most likely to defect?

Let's see...the deference, the expense accounts, the power, being fed...ummm...Answer: None of Them!

You'd have to be nuts to give it all up. And why would you? God has called you to be part of a collective, spiritual prophet. I'd give anything to know what they think when they look into a mirror. I mean, they have to know the ramifications of being false prophets, so they really have to believe God has chosen them or they have to know the whole thing's a sham. The question really is one of principle. They get up in the morning, shower, shave, go to work day after day. And yet there's no incoming messages from God. No angels, no inspired dreams, no visions, no miraculous happenings. So again, the question is, do the principals have principles?

Apparently not. You'd think they'd have to question this whole gig. They're the leaders of a religion that has a reputation as being kind of an intellectual and theological joke, so as they get older and, perhaps facing their own mortality, they have to deal with their eternal prospects. Is all this stuff you've been preaching, teaching and expounding true, or is it nonsense? At what point do you begin to question your calling?

Jesus warned there would be false prophets and false messiahs, and that many would come in his name. As we look through history, do we have any precedent of anything like a Governing Body? Nope...not one. We have the apostles, but they were called and ordained by Jesus himself, and he told them, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have CHOSEN YOU and ORDAINED YOU." The Lord also told Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ORDAINED thee a prophet...." (Jer. 1:5) The Lord told Moses: "And thou shalt put [the priestly garments] upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and SHALT ANOINT them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office." (Ex. 28)

The list could go on. Moses called by the Lord through the burning bush, Samuel called in his youth, and even David was anointed King. The bottom line is that there's not one place in the holy scriptures where anyone ever called themselves to a position of power or authority. If the Governing Body is of God, it would be the ONLY instance in which God departed from His standard operating procedure and let someone call themselves.

So I'd defect from the GB immediately lest I die of a heart attack or get hit by a bus and then be in the position of having to face God as a false prophet. (You know how sticky He is about things like that!) As it is written: " Thus saith the Lord concerning Shemaiah.... Because that [he] hath prophesied unto you, and I sent him not, and he caused you to trust in a lie: Therefore thus saith the Lord : Behold, I will punish Shemaiah...and his seed...because he hath taught rebellion against the Lord." (Jer. 29)

.

35

What has happened to Jehovah's Witnesses???

by DATA-DOG in

i know this is old news, but as i sit here, and ponder the upcoming agm, i can't help but think, " what happened?!!

" i actually awoke an hour before my alarm went off, just thinking of everything that is bothering me about the wtbts.

approach this list as a born-in, someone who was told that you were different from everyone else.

Cold Steel

DATA-DOG: What has happened to Jehovah's Witnesses???

Yes, indeed. What has happened? Back in the early 70s, the JW missionaries seemed to know the scriptures and could at least give one reasons why they believed in some of their more bizarre doctrines. I actally had a number of very pleasant discussions with them. But now, everything has been dumbed down. About three years ago I had a couple of guys in and they kept pestering me about my religion, which I refused to tell them. "If I tell you, I fear the discussion will turn from what's right with your religion to what you think is wrong with mine." They finally backed me up against the wall and, sure enough, on the next visit they brought an elder who was an "expert" on mine. He wasn't pleasant at all and the other two guys were clearly treating him with a great deal of deference and a certain amount of fear. He sat on the edge of the sofa with the other two guys looking at him as though he were Gandhi. When it came to the soul sleeping doctrine and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C., he pretty much folded. And when they left, they never called or came back.

On another thread, SloppyJoe describes an encounter with his in-laws. He writes:

I was truly amazed about how very little [my mother-in-law] knew doctrine. She has been in 46 years. No idea how to calculate 1914. No idea how vital 1914 was to the organization. No idea 1919 has no biblical backing. No idea how the governing body receives communication from God. I had to tell her I was amazed she didn't know any of it. I showed 587 in an encyclopoedia and she was shocked it didn't say 607. Even still she just didn't seem to grasp the importance of 1914 and it's lack of foundation. To end this story after I explained all this she even acknowledged that they make stuff up to suit what they want.

They now seem to believe doctrines because to believe otherwise would risk being disfellowshiped. They also were more optimistic about the 1970s being the decade where everything would come to a bloody end. Now they just seem to have been whipped too much. It's like Mario and Vito are enforcing the doctrines. I have a whole Watchtower dedicated to Armageddon, and whoever wrote the article didn't know squat about the subject matter. I would have been embarrassed to give it to anyone.

What would happen if someone took an investigator to one of the Watchtower meetings and he or she questioned the material. Would they be angry or would they patiently try to explain it to them?