some of y'all may know why i am asking this, but i am curious about it.. sexting in the elders book says it's enough to warrant a jc but it's very loose at it... what's y'all opinion?
do elders care alot of it?
what if it's an old case?
If the person:
-- Was connected by phone to another human
-- They engaged in sex talk
-- One or both masturbated during the call
...then he/she could be DF'ed. That combination of circumstances was rendered equivalent to "porneia".
I remember hearing/reading about this in the context of online chat rooms. This would have been around the early or mid 00s.
my wife's mother has alzheimer.
it is progressing to the point that she is writing things like she wishes she was dead and does not want to live.
if you know my mil you would know this is not her at all.
I'm not quite there yet with my parents, but I'm not far off. Dad is 70 and Mom is 68. They live off social security. Never saved a penny for retirement. Made every terrible financial decision one can make. Dad essentially retired (refused to work is more like it) in his late 50s without a penny to his name instead of working hard to fund a retirement.
I dropped out of the Witnesses in my mid 20s, went to a four-year university, got a bachelor's degree, then got a professional degree after that. After eight years of building a career, I've paid off my massive, six-figure student loan burden and am now finally in a position to make long-term financial plans of my own.
At the same time my parents health is deteriorating and my siblings are starting to look at me as the logical one to bear the burden. I'm not having any of it. I won't let my parents starve, but I'm not going to let myself get taken down along with them.
I went through this in my early 20s when I was still a good Witnesses and living under my parents roof. I took a year's worth of savings and spent it all on badly needed repairs on my parents home. We're talking over $10,000 about 15 years ago. My parents then went out and bought $5,000 in living room furniture because they "got it on payments." Not only could they not afford the furniture, they had a dog who chewed up the couches within weeks.
But I didn't learn my lesson. A year or two later I bought my mother a car so she could get around and my father, jealous that I had done something nice for my mom, went out and bought a car himself, one he didn't need and couldn't afford. Again, he got it on payments. It sat in his driveway, mostly unused for years. It was a complete waste of money.
I'm not making the same mistakes again. I love them, but they have to face the consequences of a lifetime of bad decision-making.
the wt articles for the past 2 weeks were the typical every-3-months-or-so attempt at justifying the sovereignty of the jw popes, the governing body.. aside from the usual specious reasoning and ridiculous assertions, i noted this:.
the articles went through great semantic pains to emphasize that, for the jws, jesus is "the leader", while the gb are merely "those taking the lead".. what, exactly, is the difference between a "leader" vs. "one who is taking the lead"?.
in what other sphere of human experience is such semantic pretzel logic even close to rational?.
It's like they're not even trying anymore. Two generations that are really one. A GB that takes the lead but doesn't supplant the leader.
I guess that's what happens when you have a group that cannot be subjected to any kind of scrutiny or criticism. What's the incentive to try to have your statements make sense? The sheep will lap it up regardless.
friends!
we haven't heard that word for some time!
it must be due for another round from the wt you know what you can and cant do in marriage.. incoming!.
@Zeb
We're in our late 30s now. She's on marriage number 3 and I'm still single. She spent most of her 20s DF'd and on drugs, but she's a witness again and married to another witness who's also on marriage number 3.
I left the witnesses for good in my mid 20s.
friends!
we haven't heard that word for some time!
it must be due for another round from the wt you know what you can and cant do in marriage.. incoming!.
@stuckinarut2
Yes, everything about it was gross. Her parents were standing outside the back room when we were being interrogated. Normal people would be appalled, and rightfully so.
friends!
we haven't heard that word for some time!
it must be due for another round from the wt you know what you can and cant do in marriage.. incoming!.
I remember elders in my hall discussing the intricacies of the word as if they were Biblical scholars learned in ancient Greek. Most of them didn't even have a high school diploma (seriously).
During my JC they quizzed me on how far I'd gone with my girlfriend in an effort to determine whether the conduct rose to the level of porneia. Did you touch her breasts? Did you kiss her bare breasts? What about her genitals, did you manipulate them? That kind of thing. I was 19 and my girlfriend was 17.
so at last nights ministry school we had 2...yes that's right two that had parts and gave them with beards.. i found it interesting.
i thought the consensus was that you couldn't have any extra privileges if you wore one.. maybe the school is different?.
anyway, anybody else seen this in the u.s.?.
On my way out, about a dozen years ago, I started combing my hair more or less like this:
It was a scandal and it did not sit well with my elder body. I was told I could not read the WT or give any parts unless I started combing my hair modestly.
There were 3 types of approved haircuts for men in my hall, middle part, side part, slicked back:
That being said, even with the approved hairstyles, your hair couldn't be long enough to cover your ears or extend past the collar of your shirt. And if you slicked it back, your hair couldn't be long enough to extend past your forehead if you were to pull it down over your face.
Somebody came up with these rules back in the 60s and they stuck, even decades past the time when such hairstyles fell out of fashion. All those years I had been sitting there at the hall and only then did it strike me how odd all these men looked wearing one of three pre-approved, old-fashioned hairstyles.
I would have probably gotten thrown out of the hall had I dared grow a beard.
i know this must be coming down from the top because the elders in my hall who didn't really care before are all concerned about it.
must be on the list of things to do before the co comes back around.
in past years i never really thought about the dpa.
From a legal perspective, having elders hound publishers to sign blood cards, or worse, demanding that elders be able to keep signed cards on file, is a bad idea.
It would give a judge ammunition to void the DPA on the theory that it was signed under duress and wasn't a voluntary expression of the publisher's sincere wishes.
i've been thinking about this the past few days and curious what the honest consensus is here just for fun.. show of hands,.
is the governing body.... a: completely sincere.
they really do believe what they teach.. b: somewhat sincere.
This was the big question on my mind when I was exiting the JWs. Are the GB sincere but misled or insincere evil geniuses?
After 12 years of pondering this questions, what do I think the answer is? Neither.
The GB are clowns of below average intelligence. Climbing up the ranks is a long, grueling process of total obedience and ass-kissing. Anyone with a conscience or an independent thought would be weeded out in the selection process.
The JWs are stuck with a bunch of bureaucratic yes-men who were groomed to thrive in the cut-throat Bethel environment. Sincerity has nothing to do with it. These are people who are very good at climbing the ranks and the well being of the rank and file or the soundness of their doctrine is completely irrelevant.
Asking whether the GB are sincere is like asking what the marital status of the number nine is or what the color of love is. The question itself, I believe, doesn't make sense given the context.
They're drones who were groomed to perpetuate the existence of the religious organization, nothing more, nothing less. If sincerity plays a role at all, they're sincere in their interest in perpetuating the Watchtower organization.
1. in bro sandersons latest video (in which he shows a very impressive skill with russian) he mentions two likely results of the imminent russian ban: the liquidation of the branch office and its assets, and the individual brothers capacity to worship freely.
no prizes for guessing which one gets mentioned first!.
2. why have the gb never attempted in the past, and are not interested in attempting now, such a letter writing campaign in other communist countries where the work is under similar restrictions, like china, or vietnam?
Wonder why they didn't have a letter writing campaign back in 2004 when they were first banned in Russia?
My mother was all riled up about the Russia thing last weekend. I told her it was nothing new and that they had been banned before in Moscow. She said I was wrong and that this was like nothing they'd ever seen before. I didn't argue with her after that.
As a side note, I remember how excited some of the Witnesses were in 2004 when the Moscow ban came through. It was the primary subject of public prayers for a while. That was during the tail-end of my involvement with them, though. i was out by 2005.
