I think this new focus on their website and public literature display stands must be seriously undermining the value of the door-to-door work in many JW's eyes. Why bother knocking on doors when you can just pop these fliers in people's letterboxes and stand at a train station with a literature stand? Just get your local junk mail provider to chuck these fliers in everyone's letterbox once in a while and stop going door-to-door. And how long before 'free home Bible Studies' become 'free internet Bible Studies'. Enrol online for your free bible-study course via JW.org.
yadda yadda 2
JoinedPosts by yadda yadda 2
-
37
New Tract for August 2014 - Scan
by BluesBrother inif someone has done this before , i apologise but this was new to me.....struck me as strange that nowadays, the answers to life's problems are found on the internet .
.
.
-
-
-
15
Sorry posters JWs leaders will not "change" 1914 or 144,000 "literal to figurative "doctrine
by booker-t ini actually called bethel a few weeks ago and i was shocked that i actually got thru to the writing dept.
i was abit nervous but i asked the jw writer if there was going to be a change in doctrine.
i thought he was going to immediately hang up on me thinking "apostate caller" but he was actually nice and we talked for a while.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
booker-t, what that brother in the writing dept told you, means nothing. I mean, if changes in 1914 and 144,000 teachings really are imminent, do you actually think that the brother in the writing dept woud tell you so and pre-empt the Governing Body's official revelation of it at an annual meeting or some other official means? Do you seriously think you can take that brother's word for it? Are you still indoctrinated? This is the most important statement that the brother made:
" if they do get changed the GB will let everyone know at the same time."
This.
-
20
Where does the Governing Body say "old light" comes from?
by matt2414 inthe governing body claims they've received "new light" from jehovah every time they change their doctrine.
so where did the "old light" come from that's being replaced?
if the old light is incorrect, could it have come from god?
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Perfect question and inescapable logic. Obviously the old light cannot have come from Jehovah, so why believe that any 'new light' does?
Applying the blistering blowtorch of simple logic and common-sense melts away the absurdity of such creedal incredulous nonsense on many levels....
...If there is presently a 'faithful slave', then who is presently the 'evil slave?"
...how can Jesus be 'present' from 1914 but he hasn't 'come' yet?
...how can Jesus be ruling as King on his throne since 1914 and the Bible says he rules for 1,000 years, and yet his millennial reign hasn't started yet?
Etc, ad nauseum.
-
12
Recent refinements / changes in WTS
by Da.Furious inwe had our co visit and on his second talk he mentioned we need to be a pillar and support of the truth.
we can do this by accepting and working with all the changes, refinements and the speed of jehovahs organisation moving forward.. he listed the refinements and changes that occurred in the last couple of years:.
1- study edition of wt - allows the society to use more meaty articles and not worry about non jws understanding them.. 2- public edition of wt and awake.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
A brand new edition of the NWT.
-
41
Could you get disfellowshipped for simply asking questions?
by LogCon inif so, what would be some examples?.
.
only questions that show a higher degree of thought and intelligence please..
-
-
yadda yadda 2
You can probably get away with it as long as you strictly say your questions are because of 'doubts' about certain things - see Jude 22.
But as soon as they figure out you are questioning because you no longer believe/disagree with certain teachings, you are toast!
-
51
What is the key to free yourself from the Organization?
by suavojr inthey key to free yourself from the organization is having mental clarity of what is happening in relation to the watchtower, inside and out.
their basic concept is that they are god's sole organization on earth.
there really is no basis for anyone to make that statement.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
The key is to realise that if Jehovah is a God who is perfectly loving and just, he would never exterminate billions of persons at Armageddon just because they didn't attend JW meetings and report at least one hour (or 15 mins) of 'field service time' on a bit of paper once a month.
C T Russell realised this. He knew it would be a gross injustice and contradiction to resurrect billions of dead, ignorant, sinful persons during the millennial reign after exterminating billions ignorant, sinful persons at Armageddon. Russell in fact believed that most of disobedient, sinful mankind will pass through Armageddon and be judged DURING the millennial reign, not exterminated before it.
Once you are mentally free from this absurd and morbid fear of eternal death of Armageddon, you need have no fear any more of leaving the organisation. It's similar to having no fear any more of leaving orthodox religion due to a wrong fear of being tormented for eternity in a burning hellfire.
-
36
Why Did the Governing Body Change Their Interpretation Of Matthew 24:45-47?
by Cameron_Don insome have wondered if "captives of a concept" had anything to do with why the governing body changed their interpretation of the most important scripture in their theology at their annual meeting on october 6, 2012.. this is because the book places great emphasis on the societys interpretation of matthew 24:45-47 and then holds them to it while examining the organizations history to make sure that went on in its history fits their interpretation.
this comparison is essential to the societys claim to being gods organization.. their previous interpretation came from their former most imminent bible scholar president frederick franzs in his "gods kingdom of a thousand years has approached.
" their history comes from their "jehovahs witnesses proclaimers of gods kingdom.".
-
-
yadda yadda 2
They could completely dump the entire 1914 chronology and finally admit that Jesus never became king in 1914 and yet still say that the FDS was appointed as the faithful and discreet slave to feed all the domestics in 1919, all completely disconnected from 1914, by simply pointing to Malachi 3:1-4.
They can claim that organisational historical events around 1918/19 when the senior members of the organisation were released from prison and the Society "repented" of certain former incorrect ideas around war-time neutrality followed by the new focus on kingdom preaching ("advertise, advertise, advertise the king and his kingdom") all prove that in 1919 Jesus came as a messenger to his template (ie, anointed Bible Students) and "cleansed them". (All pure circular thinking and eisegesis of course.)
1914 is NOW for all intents and purposes irrelevant for the Watchtower Society's total control to be propped up on. 1919 is when Jesus came to his spiritual temple on earth (refer 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21), refined them (a bit), and appointed the Watchtower Society leaders as his FDS.
Remember that talk a few years ago by a GB member who said Jesus has come/arrived/returned 7 or so times? No parousia as king from 1914 needed anymore as the doctrinal platform or concept that keeps JW's captive - it's now Jesus "coming" to his spiritual temple in 1919 that is the concept.
That's pretty much what the new light is, they just havn't got around to officially dumping the remainder of Russell's lunacy around 1914. But that is coming, as clearly shown by the fact the illustrated appendix at the back of the new NWT does not refer to 1914 only 1919, a HUGE hint of future doctrinal change re 1914 in the wings....http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/279909/1/Why-does-the-new-NWT-not-say-outright-that-Jesus-began-to-rule-in-1914
-
62
End shunning or lose tax free status
by kneehighmiah inwhich would the watchtower choose if it came down to this in the united states or europe?
losing tax free status would mean losing millions of dollars.
ending shunning means people would leave by the boatloads.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Old Goat is right that nobody can force someone else to associate with you or speak to you, and quite right that a few disfellowshipped persons are indeed right-royal *ssholes that nobody would probably want to speak to anyway, but he forgets that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have an individual choice of conscience in the matter, with the whole congregation (including children against parents, vice versa, etc) being mandatorily required by the Watchtower leadership to totally shun the expelled one, regardless of the 'offence'. And this due to a deliberately twisted policy that obfuscates relevant scriptures.
He appears to be unaware that it is entirely unscriptural to fully shun someone, ie, not even speak to them, except someone actively and deliberately preaching anti-Christ apostacy (John 3).
The correct scriptural injunction is to only stop associating socially (eating with, etc) with sinners and disobedient ones, not completely shun them as dead - 2 Thessalonians 3: 14 & 15.
1 Cor 5 and 2 Thess 3 are essentially the same policy. Paul simply never meant for sinners to be totally shunned per John 3.
The Watchtower Society tries to get around that by creating an artificial distinction between 2 Thess 3 and 1 Cor 5, and marginalising 2 Thess 3 by applying it only to non "serious" sins. Wikipaedia:
Marking[ edit ]
Members who persist in a course considered scripturally wrong after repeated counsel by elders, [17] but who are not guilty of something for which they could be disfellowshipped, [17] can be "marked", based on Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 3:14. Though not shunned, "marked" individuals are looked upon as bad association and social interaction outside of formal worship settings is generally curtailed. This action is intended to "shame" the person into following a particular course of action. [17] "Marking" is indicated by means of a talk given at the Service Meeting outlining the shameful course, but without explicitly naming any particular individual. Members who know whose actions are being discussed may then consider the individual "marked".
Good little article here that sums up what is so very wrong with the Society's trying to ring-fence and ignore 2 Thess 3, from the website http://www.jwreform.org/shunning.html:
The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses asserts that the action Paul calls for here is a complete shunning of the individual who has been "handed over to Satan." Is this really the case? Further discussion of what it means not to "mix in company" (sunanamignusthai) with a person like this is given in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians:
"But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him (sunanamignusthai), that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother" (2 Thess. 3:14-15).
Paul uses the same word here as in 1 Corinthians and makes it clear that not to mix in company with someone does not mean a complete shunning, for he urges his readers to keep admonishing the one with whom they are not to associate. In order to do that, they would have to speak to that person. Congregation members, therefore, would limit their association with one who has been "handed over to Satan," not enjoying a meal of fellowship with that person, but would not shun them completely. The Governing Body, however, to avoid this obvious conclusion deliberately created a new category of congregational discipline called "marking" to which they could apply 2 Thessalonians and separate it from 1 Corinthians. However, there is no other place in the Bible that speaks of "marking." It is a concoction made for the sole purpose of explaining away 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, so that it could not be applied to disfellowshipped ones.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3 only apply to gross sins, not for merely expressing doubts (Jude 22) or disagreeing with certain disputable or unconvincing teachings of the organisation when that person is otherwise a moral person professing Christian faith.
Basically, Jehovah's Witnesses have been hoodwinked, duped by their leadership to totally and utterly shun all "disfellowshipped" JW's for anything the Society deems is a disfellowshipping offence using a false interpretation of scripture.
This total shunning policy, especially of persons who merely disagree with certain teachings, is one of the foremost traits of high-control, religious cults. The Watchtower organisation will always deservedly be lambasted as a 'cult' cult as long as their current shunning policy remains.
-
41
The CO visit this week he says" In August..."
by James Jackson inup until 5 years ago, the co used to work up their own parts for specfic congregations in their circuits.
everything is up to script, in other words, every co in the country are givings the same talks in the local congregations they visit.
what got me to cringe is when he said at the meeting, trying to encourage everyone to pioneer this august; he said :" you know this october it will be 100 years since gods kingdom began ruling, remember what happen when joshua told the israelites to march around jericho on the seventh day, and what happened when they let out a great war cry?
-
-
yadda yadda 2
JW's have been marching around in circles for 120 years thinking the end is right around the corner.
-
8
JwTalk confirms it's all bollocks
by konceptual99 inread this earlier on jwtalk in a thread about if the 100 years of the kingdom is part of the 1000 year reign.. actually this question goes back to how the brothers believed and saw things back in bro.
russell's day.
they thought 6000 years of human history and christ's second presence began in 1874, ( their chronology was 100 years off from that which we now accept - this was corrected in the 1940s ) believing such they thought the 1000 year reign began at that time.
-
-
yadda yadda 2
As a result, they began to see in time that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's Second Presence. and they advanced in their understanding of Armaggedon and Christ's 1000 year reign. As a result they came to the conclusion, as explained already by other brothers on this thread, that the 1000 years comes after Armeggedon, and the binding and abyssing of Satan.
Wow. He forgot to add one very important but glaring omission from his statement above: that they also believe Jesus started to reign in 1914 while at the same time admitting that his thousand year reign hasn't started. A total knock-down argument against their whole 1914 creedal nonsense. It's just mind-numbing isn't it, how such an obvious and grotesque contradiction can come straight out of their mouth and not be seen for what it is, in fact even lauded as a flash of truth. Unbelievable.
It's even worse than the Seventh Day Adventists silly 1843 Investigative Judgement creed (which many SDA's openly say they no longer believe without fear of being cast out). At least the SDA's aren't so blind and stupid as to say Jesus began to reign in 1843.
