i struggled with this question before i got baptised.
what helped you to overcome any doubts?.
Do you believe there are many lurkers here who are active members of the Society?
I mean, if someone is a real JW true believer, wouldn't lurkng here be a transgression in and of itself? The body doesn't tolerate the religious views of others, especially apostates. Nor does it condone in the least the questioning of its own doctrine or the teaching of new, or different, doctrine (even if it later becomes "new light").
so tonight my wife looked iver the wt for tomorrow.
she said what she got out of it was that apostates are negative murmurers who can cause you to question jehovah and his earthly org and that it reminded her of the negativity caused when i told her i read ray franz's book.
she said it caused me to question service, family worship night, and praying together.
DS211: After al it IS the Bible we should be reading.
That's always the best bet. Read the book of Acts and contrast the ancient church with the Watchtower Society. I've noticed that recently the Governing Body has been comparing itself to the ancient apostles. I visited that anointed website and was happy to learn that there's a push back and an emphasis on attaining the heavenly Kingdom. And though missionaries were sent out by the ancient church, it was not incumbant on the individual members to go out two by two. These were church callings. Reading Acts, ask her where the scriptures teach that each church member becomes an "ordained minister" when baptized. That's a demonstrably false doctrine. If that was the expectation anciently, it would have been recorded in the scriptures. Instead, we read that those ordained to the priesthood must be "called of God as was Aaron." (Heb. 5:4)
How was Aaron called? God told Moses, " And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office ." (Exodus 28:1-2) Aaron and his sons certainly didn't appoint themselves.
You don't sound like the type of person who would come across as bitter, and that's how "apostates" are described in the literature. Apostates are bitter and are under the control of Satan the Devil. So hide the Ouija board, the black candles and the Tarot cards and exercise patience.
so tonight my wife looked iver the wt for tomorrow.
she said what she got out of it was that apostates are negative murmurers who can cause you to question jehovah and his earthly org and that it reminded her of the negativity caused when i told her i read ray franz's book.
she said it caused me to question service, family worship night, and praying together.
If you value your family, ease up and work slowly to undermine her views in a way that won't threaten her.
Concentrate on finding out why she thinks that the JWs are Jehovah's earthly organization. Also, determine what the consequences she'd suffer if she decided to leave. Would she lose her parents or other extended family? Are all her friends JWs?
Compose a list of questions that bother you and then give them to a non-JW friend. Then, after a little work, arrange to drop by his (or her) home and then let your friend plant some seeds and, if necessary, go back. But know that it's like me and the cat. If my wife had to pick between us, I'd be the one hitting the road! So understand your place in the scheme of things. She's under full mind control mode and none of this will make any sense until she's out from under the spell. And if you pick now to stumble, you may find yourself in one hell of a situation.
As I understand it, she can't divorce you unless you take up with someone else, so you've got a little leverage. You just have to determine the right time to use it. What you've got going for you is that there's nothing in the Bible that indicates the Jehovah's Witnesses are God's organization; there are no angelic ministrations, no visions, no dreams, no spiritual gifts. Jesus didn't issue a press release in 1919 when he inspected the earth's religions and came to the rather remarkable conclusion that the Watchtower Society was the closest religion to what he wanted. If true, this is the first time in world history when God took a less than...proactive...part in setting up a kingdom, or church. In the past, Yahweh has not been very passive when it came to naming prophets, calling apostles, warning the wicked. Whereas the Lord spake unto Jeremiah saying, " 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 unto the nations." (Jer. 1:5) He didn't visit the earth and examine everyone who claimed to be a prophet and then choose Jeremiah as being the closest one to what he was looking for. So that's been my major problem with the Watchtower organization. Yahweh didn't instigate the religion, he didn't appear to anyone, didn't send any angels, didn't ordain a soul, never gave them the Keys of the Kingdom, necessary for being able to bind in Heaven or on Earth; never called anyone that we can determine. And yet the law states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. So even if Russell claimed to be chosen by angels, he's lacking a couple of witnesses and we're not obligated to receive his word only. So what's the draw? Seems to have all the attributes of a manmade religion to me.
Good luck!
"For ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you...."
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.
Perhaps, DATA-DOG, but Jesus, during his lifetime, always deferred to the Father, and I think that is where much of the problem comes from. When he was baptized, both the Father and the Holy Spirit bore witness of the Son. It also was clear that Jesus had a special relationship with the Son. When people attempted to glorify the Son before his resurrection, Jesus always pointed the way to the Father as the one worthy of worship.
When Jesus was born, I believe he (like us) was born into mortality with no memory of his former past. He grew and progressed, and eventually was put to death and resurrected, then was given all glory and power in Heaven and on Earth. And while we still pray to the Father in Jesus' name. I think it's only right that worship Jesus as the God of Israel.
The Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was not Jehovah, but Michael, the archangel. I suppose if that's your belief, you wouldn't want to be caught worshiping an angel. They don't realize that if man needs an intercessor in the days of Jesus that they'd need one in the days of Moses, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And that intercessor was Yahweh, not Michael.
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.
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..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
