Posts by Olin Moyles Ghost

30

The Future New Lights (jw speak for corrections) Of the Illustrative GB

by frankiespeakin in

the scene of the world is changing and so must the jw religion in order to keep pace and keep losses in currant membership to a minimum and still offer an attractive lure for prospective new converts.

this must be done on a regular basis just to keep them afloat as old teachings were actually made by a group of old men with old ideas and old dates that have to give way to the obvious reality of unfulfilled predictions.. the wt publishing company has sought new blood in the way of younger men appointed to the high ranks of the gb,, some receiving their calling to the anointed latter than 1960 long after the once imposed cutoff date of 1935 for those with the heavenly calling.

i remember as an elder back in the 80's being told by the co not to count some in the congregation who were partaking of the emblems at the memorial, because they were not baptized early enough and the reason given was that they obviously had some emotional problems that caused them to make the claim and that counting them would throw the wt figures out of whack.. apparently the wt corporation's ceos are on the horns of a dilemma caused by their short sighted predictions and literal interpretations of the #144,000 in revelation, and adding to the mix of doctrinal problems is also the ever increasing scientific knowledge being taught in grammar, middle, and high schools much to the chagrin of bible fundamentalist who are seeking and even demanding equal time for their theory of intelligent design creationism.. will the wt go with the flow and learn from the catholic church(who at one time tortured and killed heretics) but now accepts the earth is not the center of the universe and who's leader the pope now claims the fact of evolution is not at odds with the bible?

Olin Moyles Ghost

I like Billy's analysis. As has been noted on this board, there has been no "oracle" since Freddy Franz left this mortal coil for his eternal reward. So, there hasn't been much in the way of creative new prophetic interpretation in some time. That's just not what these guys (the current GB) are into. Rather, these guys seem more like Knorr--focused on efficiency and organization.

Regarding the heavenly hope, even if the WTS decides that the 144k isn't literal, the VAST majority of Witnesses will still profess the earthly hope. Most JWs don't want to go to heaven--I know I didn't--it sounds boring compared to living on earth. Anyone who thinks there's going to be a massive group of JWs who start professing the heavenly hope is mistaken. Fact of the matter is that the JW religion simply doesn't attract people who want to go to heaven. (note that I recognize, and get a chuckle out of, the fact that the memorial partaker number is increasing; but 10-11k is still just a tiny fraction of the 7MM witnesses worldwide; I don't see the partaker number going over 15k...)

I do think the WTS could change its doctrine and allow everyone to partake at the memorial--whether anointed or those with the "earthly hope." The scriptural support for attending but not partaking at the memorial is nonexistent. But from the vantage point of the WTS, I don't see any pressing need to change this doctrine. Generations of JWs (no pun intended) have sat through the memorial, passing the wine and crackers without partaking. I've never heard any complaints from JWs about this practice. It's just accepted as the way things are. Even if there's little-to-no scriptural support for something, the WTS will err on the side of tradition and maintaining the status quo.

116

To Ex-JWs: Do You Regret Learning it Was a Lie?

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

this question was inspired by a question on another thread.

to the ex-jw community here,.

do any of you regret learning that wt is not god's organization?

Olin Moyles Ghost

Very good question. In many ways, life would be much easier if I had never awoken. But for years, I had the old "cognitive dissonance" gnawing at me--something just didn't seem right. Of course, the WTS recognizes that this is common, which is why it provides a steady diet of thought-stopping techniques such as (1) where else would you go?; (2) doubts are a snare of Satan and need to be amputated like a gangrenous limb; (3) anything critical of the Society is spiritual pornography; (4) people who leave the Organization are just looking for an easy way out, etc.

Those techniques are tremendously successful. They worked on me for years.

But to answer the question, no, I do not regret learning it was a lie. I wish I had realized it ten or fifteen years ago; but I'm glad I realized it now instead of ten of fifteen years from now.

Of course, there are definite detriments to waking up--especially for born-ins like myself. The friction with believing family members and long-time so-called friends is a high price to pay for intellectual honesty. But I'm the type of person who likes to be told the truth and hates to be lied to. So the trade-off is acceptable to me. To others, it may not be. In fact, to most Witnesses it isn't.

15

Common JW Response to Apostates

by KingDavidwasframed in

one of the things i hear from jws and even my mother is "if being a jw is so bad, where else would we go?

" or along the same line, but different wording "i know the society isn't perfect, but where else do they teach about jehovah?".

so i got to thinking last night, is there really a fds?

Olin Moyles Ghost

I'm probably not the best person to answer this question since I'm not convinced of the Bible's inspired nature. With that caveat, here are my thoughts.

Be careful not to get sucked into JW theological traps. The whole FDS doctrine is a perfect example of this. Just because the WTS interprets this parable a certain way does not mean that settles the matter. Think about it. If the FDS is really a clergy-type class that makes rules for Christians, why did none of the Apostles or Bible writers refer to themselves (or anyone else) as the FDS? Paul had a perfect opportunity when setting out the headship principle (1 Corinthians 11:3). He said that it's God-->Jesus-->man-->woman. Notice the glaring omission of any "FDS" in that equation.

Thus, the FDS likely means something else. Perhaps Jesus was simply referring to Christians who help one another (providing food at the proper time). This would fit in with other scriptures, such as those discussing an "interchange of encouragement," "not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together," and "wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in may name, there I am also."

But what about the "appointment" over "all my belongings"? As you know, the WTS teaches that this occurred in 1919 when Jesus appointed the FDS (theoretically the anointed remnant, but for all practical purposes Rutherford and the WTS) over the "belongings" which include all other JWs. There's practically no scriptural support for this doctrine--the WTS tries to twist the eponymous language of Malachi 3--but it's a real stretch.

I think a more reasonable (and Scriptural, for what it's worth) interpretation of the "appointment" is that when an anointed Christian dies and goes to heaven to rule, Jesus appoints him (along with other heavenly resurrected Christians) over his belongings, such as the earth.

To sum it up: There's no evidence that the early Christians considered the "FDS" to be a set of church leaders. That term is not even used (or hinted at) in the New Testament other than in Matt and Luke where Jesus gave the parables. If this was such a crucial doctrine, wouldn't Paul, Peter, James, John, etc., have mentioned it? To the contrary, this complete absence of the FDS doctrine in the early church strongly indicates that the FDS does not mean what the WTS claims it means.

54

Anybody Know What Presiding Overseer's are Being Told at Bethel School ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

i guess there is a special training school going on for presiding overseers according to my jw mom.

my elder brother went back there for a week training session .

he explained that they are doing this training first in the united states only for presiding overseers and if it works out well - they'll implement it across the world in other countries.. apparently he stated that the training they are getting is very detailed and to the point.

Olin Moyles Ghost

What are Presiding Overseers (or whatever they're called now) being taught at their new schools? Obviously nothing groundbreaking--otherwise we would have heard about it already. Sounds like some combination of instruction on administrative tasks and counsel about Internet pr0n, materialism, etc.

15

3/09 Study WT- new light on 'annointed'??

by isaacaustin in

jw
friends

my mom got a call from a friend who told her the 3/09 study wt has new light on the annointed.

anyone in the know?

?.

Olin Moyles Ghost

She's probably talking about the "one flock, one shepherd" article that's been discussed on this board. It's available on jw.org. You can download a PDF of the study articles. Click the "downloads" tab, then on the left side of the page, under "digital publications" click the "magazines" link.

23

What will 2010 Bring?

by e-watchman in

jw
friends

what will 2010 bring?

is the topic of the latest blog entry on the watchman's post.

.

Olin Moyles Ghost

Of course the WTS has not been found negligent in the child abuse cases...because it settled many of them, paying out millions of dollars (from its followers' donations for the "worldwide work"). The fact that the WTS makes a practice of paying "hush-money" to victims of its clergy doesn't exactly paint it in a favorable light.

This is especially true given the Society's long history of litigious behavior. Historically, the Society has always fought against false charges--often winning landmark cases in the process. For such a litigious organization to completely reverse course and begin paying out settlements indicates that something is amiss in the Watchtower world. And this is confirmed by the mountains of evidence on this board and others, consisting of personal experiences of children being abused by JW clergy.

69

If theres no God why the earth, the brain the universe? (Atheist and Agnostics)

by cyberjesus in

(this question is directed to all the atheist and agnostics in the forum only).

i like most of the people here believed in a god who created us and the earth.

it was easy to explain the reason on many things like the degrees of inclination of the earth, the existance of water in our planet, the existance of an atmosphere, they joy in all the senses, the clear superiority of the human beens versus all other animals, the posesion of a brain who attempts to explain itself.

Olin Moyles Ghost

If there is a "God" who is intelligent and powerful enough to create our Universe, who created that "God"?

23

What if there was "new light" that the 144,000 was symbolic?

by Sour Grapes in

i really think that if the watchtower had an article.

that had the new light that the 144,000 was a symbolic.

number that the majority of jw's would accept this.

Olin Moyles Ghost

I agree with UC for the most part. It will cause some to begin questioning and researching--just like the generation change in 1995.

But overall, it won't be that big of a deal to most JWs. As 'V' once said (I miss that guy, by the way): "JWs don't believe in anything." In other words, doctrines are secondary. With the exception of (1) hell, (2) trinity, (3) immortal soul, and (4) paradise earth, the WTS could change its teachings any way it chooses and 99% of JWs will go right along with it.

35

The Ransom for Nitwits

by Farkel in

mark 10:45: "for even the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.".

1 timothy 2:5-6: "for there is one god, and one mediator between god and men, the man christ jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.".

the ransom that was taught for the first 1,000 years of christianity.

Olin Moyles Ghost

Good work, Farkel. As a believing JW, I never understood the ransom. How could being dead for 36 hours compensate for Adam being dead forever? And if Jesus paid the ransom 2000 years ago, why are people still dying? I always figured it was too "deep" and I wasn't "spiritual" enough to understand it. Kinda like the "issue of universal sovereignty"...

126

Is the Bible Really Scientifically Accurate?

by FreeAtLast1914 in

jw
friends

the society (and others) love to quote job 26:7 where it says that "[god] suspends the earth over nothing" and isaiah 40:22, where it speaks of "the circle of the earth".

they use these scriptures to boast about the incredible scientific accuracy of the bible, proving god had a direct hand in everything written in it.. the trouble is that elsewhere in the scriptures, opposing views are put forth explaining then-unexplainable physics and geographical notions.

one is job 26:11: "the pillars of heaven tremble.

Olin Moyles Ghost

@lovelylil--sorry for the delay in responding. I don't typically log into this board every day.

Regarding the "literal days" of creation: You are correct that the Genesis account does not explicitly state that the "days" are 24 hours. But the way the days are described strongly weigh in favor of literal days. Specifically, when discussing each day, the writer states "it came to be evening and it came to be morning." Why would the writer discuss "evenings" and "mornings" of figurative days? That makes no sense. Are there any other places in the Bible where it refers to "evenings" and "mornings" of figurative days? No. The inconvenient truth for all except young earth creationists is that the Genesis writer was referring to literal days...and he gives it away by referring to evenings and mornings.

Regarding the sun revolving around the earth: For hundreds of years, the church taught that the Bible supported this view. Eccl. 1:5 states that the sun hurries back to where it started. In other words, it is saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Also, in Joshua 10:12-13 Joshua asked the sun to stand still and God allegedly made the sun stand still. If the writer realized that the earth revolved around the sun, he would have written that the earth stood still. Again, I realize that apologetics torture the plain meaning of verses such as these to cling to their beliefs. But when you look at the plain language of these verses, the most likely explanation is that the writers did not understand that the earth revolved around the sun.

Regarding the order of creation and photosynthesis: So you're arguing that Genesis 1 supports the position that light from the sun reached the earth before the third "day." So even though verse 15 says that "lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth" are created on the 4th day--after plants, you allege that the "light" of day 1 was the sun providing light to the earth? That just doesn't add up. Of course, Genesis 1 just doesn't add up. I feel sorry for people who feel the need to defend this nonsense.

Regarding the flood: You say that because I can't prove a negative, you don't have to respond. So if I say there's a purple teapot orbiting between earth and Mars, you won't be able to argue against it because you can't disprove it, right? I think any reasonable person has to understand that a global flood with waters higher than Mt. Everest about 4300 years ago simply didn't happen. And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people arguing in favor of the supernatural?