in coc, he is reported to have said, (quoting from memory, so i may be a little off) "we didn't come here to have you teach us, brother franz.
" from that remark, i gather he chaired the judicial committee?.
given his first name, i assume he's black.
Again, I'm not sure how the congregation boundaries were drawn in Gadsden/Etowah County the early 1980s, but the city of Gadsden has a much higher African-American population than the county as a whole. See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=gadsden&_cityTown=gadsden&_state=04000US01&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010
According to the 2000 census, Gadsden was about 35% Black. That's a sizeable minority community.
in coc, he is reported to have said, (quoting from memory, so i may be a little off) "we didn't come here to have you teach us, brother franz.
" from that remark, i gather he chaired the judicial committee?.
given his first name, i assume he's black.
It appears I may have stepped into a flame war. Nonetheless, here's a possible explanation for why a Black elder in rural Alabama chaired Ray's Judicial Committee: demographics.
I think it's beyond doubt that African-Americans are over-represented among JWs in the USA. By that I mean their percentage among the population of Witnesses exceeds their percentage among the general population. Black people make up about 13% of Americans, but according to the 2008 Pew study they make up about 22% of Witnesses. Thus, they're over-represented.
Anecdotally, I've observed and heard that this is exaggerated in the deep south--particularly in rural areas with sizeable Black communities. For example, once upon a time I had a conversation with a "worldly" person from such an area and he was surprised that I was a JW because he thought it was a "Black religion." (I'm a ghost, so obviously I'm white ;)
Again, I don't have specific knowledge about Gadsden Alabama, but it could be one of those cases where the congregation has a sizeable African-American population. In such a case, it would not be surprising that there would be several Black elders and that one of the Black elders would end up chairing Ray's J.C.
To me, that seems like the simplest explanation for all of this.
for the entire time i was a jw (1999-2007) i never believed in demons.. a few times i remember this getting me into small confrontations with jws.
a jw would talk about how demons were scary and powerful.
i would argue that i've never seen a demon, and that to be affraid of such things was silly.
To the OP: you summed up my position exactly. When I was a believing JW, I never believed any of the demon stories floating around the congregation. It seemed to be an odd coincidence that the only JWs I knew who claimed to have "demon experiences" were nut-jobs. I never knew any circuit overseers (or even elders for that matter) who had experiences with demons. None of my friends had experiences with demons. Rather, the demon experiences seemed to come from people who were already mentally unstable. Coincidence? I think not.
more and more i have been thinking about the mindset that considers the idea that billions are to be destroyed at armageddon as perfectly ok. farkel's articles on freeminds.org really helped to bring it home for me.
as jws, we do (or did) think it was perfectly reasonable that billions will have earned a death sentence simply for not accepting religious literature from an uninvited person at their doorstep.
how do otherwise good people (for the most part) come to accept genocide as an acceptible, even good, solution to the problems they see and experience?.
Well-put, Zoiks. Reminds me of the Kingdom Melody song called "Then They Will Know"--a nice little ditty preemptively gloating over the destruction of God's perceived enemies.
I think most JWs don't really believe that God is going to kill all non-Witnesses. I know that I didn't believe that. Most of my JW acquaintances don't, either. They say things like "he will read hearts at Armageddon." When I started thinking about this, it cemented the idea of how pointless the JW "preaching work" really is. I've had Witnesses admit to me that the preaching work is really no more than busy-work. It's how we prove to God that we're obedient and want to serve him.
So, yes, the doctrine about who is going to survive Armageddon (which is "imminent," by the way ;) is definitely one of the soft spots in WT/JW theology. While the WT almost never comes out directly and states that you must be a JW to have a chance at surviving Armageddon, they constantly talk about the "life saving" nature of the JW preaching work. Pick up any Kingdom Ministry and you're guaranteed to see at least one reference to the "life saving" work.
So, if it's truly a life-saving work, doesn't it logically follow that the lives of people who don't respond to (or aren't reached by) the preaching work are not saved? I don't see any other explanation. And then doesn't it follow that those whose lives are not saved will die? Otherwise, what does it mean to have your life saved?
this is in response to dubr post.
welcome to the board dubr.
i whish you and your wife success and happiness in your new path.
A couple thoughts:
First, taking the Bible literally requires a belief that man has been on this planet for only 6,000 or so years. One poster advanced the theory that whole generations were left out of the Bible. If so, how do you explain Matthew 1 (genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham) and Luke 3 (genealogy all the way back to Adam)? Setting aside the fact that these two genealogies contradict each other--if there are generations missing in the Bible, then that proves that the Bible is inaccurate which calls the Christian God (alleged "author" of the Bible--2 Tim. 3:16) into question.
Second, there were undoubtedly large local floods in ancient Mesopotamia. But the problem is that the Bible describes a global flood. Genesis 7:19says "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." (NIV). It would take some linguistic gymnastics to read that passage and argue that it's not describing a global flood. Sure, some people do this--but I think they're disregarding the plain language of the Bible.
this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.
i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .
Jonathan Dough:
But that's all right, I don't always read other people's comments as closely as I should either. And I knew better than to have assumed you actually meant the Tennessee State Court of Appeals. I must add that until I read the case itself I doubt that it covers any and all issues related to the disfellowshipping.
Me: No worries. Note that the Anderson v. WTS case doesn't cover any and all issues related to disfellowshiping. But the opinion does include what appears to be a fairly thorough analysis of establishment clause case law as it relates to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.
i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .
Me: For example Barbara and Joe Anderson tried several novel tort theories against the Society, but all were dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Jonathan Dough: That is just one circuit. States have different laws. You can't go by that.
Me again: I hate to be pedantic about this (but I can't help myself). It's not technically a "circuit." It was the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which is part of the Tennessee state court system--separate from the U.S. Federal court system.
And, yes, states have different laws. The decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals is only binding upon the trial courts in the Tennessee state court system. But that decision is in harmony with other cases (such as the Paul v. Watchtower case--which was a federal court matter). This indicates that there is a general hostility toward such claims in the state and federal courts.
Now, don't get me wrong, I would love to see someone succeed in court against the WTS. But you need to be realistic and learn from the experiences of others who came before you. And that experience indicates that it is difficult if not impossible to succeed in a suit against the WTS related to disfellowshiping.
this is probably too simple and perhaps to good to be true but the wtbts practice of officially announcing a person by name at a meeting to be "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses", combined with the wtb literature that clearly states how to 'treat' such named person is a clear act of public defamation of the named person... an act that one would maybe have legal grounds on which to take out a lawsuit???.
i suspect this is an angle that may have been over looked from a legal perspective.... it's just a thought.... do we have any lawyers in the house???.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation .
Every few weeks, someone starts a topic about suing the WTS based on disfelowshiping. As others have stated, this has been tried and failed several times. For example Barbara and Joe Anderson tried several novel tort theories against the Society, but all were dismissed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. (see http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/Tca/PDF/071/WatchtowerOpn.pdf). Another case is Paul v. Watchtower, where the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Society's right to engage in shunning (see http://openjurist.org/819/f2d/875/paul-v-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society-of-new-york-inc).
As far as I know, the only person who successfully sued the WTS for libel/slander is Olin Moyle. He had a pretty good case because Rutherford publicly slandered him in front of the Bethel family, then authored two WT articles further defaming Moyle. If the Society prints a WT article defaming you, then you will have no problem finding a lawyer willing to take your case in exchange for a piece of the action (33 - 40%). Perhaps that's why the WTS has never mentioned Ray Franz in print since the 1980 Kingdom Service announcement that he was no longer a GB member...
in your own opinion: do the governing board members believe their own prophecies, stories, and articles?
.
do you think they are true believers in the core religion or fakers simply behaving as profiteers?.
I think the GB consists of believers--as the OP put it--in the "core religion." I take the term "core religion" to mean things like no Trinity, no hellfire, paradise earth, and the faithful and discreet slave doctrine (which is the most important JW doctrine). Under that standard, I think the GB consists of true believers.
But they don't believe that every current doctrine/prophecy is correct...I daresay that most JWs fall into that category.
just got this excerpt from a friend who is an elder all excited about how jah's people are using technology.
guess we won't have to provide links anymore.. excerpt:.
we are pleased to inform you that the study articles in the english edition of the watch-tower will be made available as pdf files in the public area of the jw.org web site.
"So much for the accusation of 'members-only' and 'secret' watchtower."
The whole idea of the study WT being "secret" is a bit overblown in my opinion. There's nothing secret in there, it's just got more WT/JW mumbo-jumbo and cuts to the chase more quickly than the public WT. Anyone visiting a KH on Sunday can get a study WT. When the study WT was first announced, I recall reading JWD threads stating that visitors to Sunday meetings would be allowed to use a study WT but would be required to return it before leaving. Of course, this is complete B.S.
"The file will in-clude a cover sheet with the publishers’ information in the header."
This is probably referring to the copyright info that's present in print versions of the WT and Awake. But the statement is ambiguous and I could be wrong...
