the wt magazine states that it has been "published continuously by jehovah's witnesses since 1879".. .
there were no jehovah's witnesses before 1931. only bible students.. .
you can't even get past the wt's "mission statement" without encountering untruth.. .
The WT magazine states that it has been "published continuously by Jehovah's Witnesses since 1879".
There WERE no Jehovah's Witnesses before 1931. Only Bible Students.
You can't even get past the WT's "mission statement" without encountering untruth.
you know, the one that's only available by an official request to the boe in child custody cases.
anybody have a scan or link?.
That's the one! Thanks.
Christ, this is sad. "We're not a cult. You need to make that clear. So here are 64 pages of instructions as to how to answer questions about whether we're a cult."
you know, the one that's only available by an official request to the boe in child custody cases.
anybody have a scan or link?.
You know, the one that's only available by an official request to the BOE in child custody cases. Anybody have a scan or link?
whenever i heard of witnesses talking about someone.
(often a son or daughter) who has "fallen away" from the truth, .
they always say in a sort of wistful sigh, "well we just .
If somebody was disfellowshipped for "apostasy" but then had a change of heart and wanted to get reinstated, would they even be ALLOWED to? I mean, didn't we just have a recent WT about "unforgivable sin" (being, of course, "apostasy")?
the watchtower claims that the practice of shunning is/was:.
1) scripturally tenable;.
2) practiced by early christians.. .
All righty, how about the second part (practiced by early Christians)?
the watchtower claims that the practice of shunning is/was:.
1) scripturally tenable;.
2) practiced by early christians.. .
The Watchtower claims that the practice of shunning is/was:
1) Scripturally tenable;
2) Practiced by early Christians.
How would you refute the above statements?
and your take on said sites.. i check http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com regularly.
like this site, good for news, etc.
but much more believer-oriented (albeit anti-wt).. used to visit http://h2o.aimoo.com quite often but nothing much of substance discussed there lately.. and this one of course.. .
And your take on said sites.
I check http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com regularly. Like this site, good for news, etc. but much more believer-oriented (albeit anti-WT).
Used to visit http://h2o.aimoo.com quite often but nothing much of substance discussed there lately.
And this one of course.
How about you?
new blog post here: http://shunningmuststop.blogspot.com/.
please visit, bookmark, and forward the link to whoever you think might benefit.
questions, comments, criticism, etc.
What about non-American courts? Any precedents there?
new blog post here: http://shunningmuststop.blogspot.com/.
please visit, bookmark, and forward the link to whoever you think might benefit.
questions, comments, criticism, etc.
I think it's possible for a precedent to be set on an individual, if not organizational, basis (i.e. the policy is kept as Official Organizational procedure but exceptions made "unoficially" on a congregational basis). Once this is done, the news will make the rounds on boards such as this and it could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back (though some say the 16 child abuse lawsuits settled out of court by the WT will prove to be the turning point for reform, schism, or implosion).
new blog post here: http://shunningmuststop.blogspot.com/.
please visit, bookmark, and forward the link to whoever you think might benefit.
questions, comments, criticism, etc.
If the above is true, just think of how many "next-gen" JWs would have a legal out. The Society is encouraging them to get baptized younger and younger, before their minds can fully grasp the enormity of the problems of the organization. But it may be gone or reformed by the time the current bunch of 7-year old initiates turn 18 anyway. Makes me breathe a little easier when I think about my own kids.
