Posts by jabberwock

88

British Sociologist Predicts Possible Collapse in Jehovah's Witness Numbers

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

a newly published article by british sociologist david voas argues jehovah's witnesses may be about to experience a collapse in numbers.

contrary to claims by american sociologist rodney stark who predicts strong future growth for jehovah's witnesses, voas shows that jehovah's witnesses' efforts at recruiting new members have become increasingly unsuccessful over the past few decades: the rate of increase has steadily declined, and the number of hours each publisher must preach to produce an extra convert has gone up substantially.

voas suggests a reason for the stagnation may be that there is a natural limit to the number of people in a given population that are susceptible to conversion to sectarian groups like jehovah's witnesses - the 'carrying capacity' of the population, and that the limit has largely been reached.

jabberwock

Over the past few years there has been an increased emphasis on the importance of learning a foreign language and joining a foreign language group or congregation. Many of these groups and congregations enjoy greater success in meeting interested persons that were previously unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witnesses. Often this leads to an increased amount of literature placements, Bible studies, and converts.

I think encouraging those in English speaking congregations to join these groups can possibly serve two purposes: Those who are discouraged by the lack of response from those in their current territory can seek out a more fruitful one, while at the same time they help increase the number of active Witnesses by seeking converts in a previously overlooked community.

I don't know if anyone mentioned that, but that is what I first thought of when reviewing this thread.

jabberwock

23

What is the value of suffering?

by jabberwock in

in a recent talk the speaker asked the question, "how will god destroy the wicked at armageddon?

" the first and most efficient means will be to confuse them into killing one another.

second there are the forces of nature at his disposal.

jabberwock

In a recent talk the speaker asked the question, "How will God destroy the wicked at Armageddon?" The first and most efficient means will be to confuse them into killing one another. Second there are the forces of nature at his disposal. Lastly angelic forces will be used to mop up what remains of humanity alienated from Jehovah.

In some of the older publications, and in one recent Watchtower article, there are some horrific pictures of Armageddon featuring an assortment of rebellious faces twisted in fear and agony.

When destroying the wicked at Armageddon why does Jehovah have to make them suffer at all? Why confuse them into slaughtering one another? Why collapse buildings on their heads with earthquakes or zap them with lightning? Why should the angels have to be involved at all? Why can't he just painlessly take their lives?

Jehovah's Witnesses scorn belief in hellfire claiming that a loving God would never eternally torture people even for the worst sins of an entire lifetime. I always believed that God was above torturing them at all. As a Witness what was I supposed to believe?

And why did Jesus have to suffer? I understand why he had to die, but why was suffering a necessary part of that? Couldn't the ransom be had without a torturous death involved?

What is the value of suffering?

jabberwock

16

The new book released at the Convention has a photo of the current GB members

by BonaFide in

jw
friends

i will try to scan the photo tomorrow and put it on here.. i read some of the book today, it makes direct connections between the first century and jw's now.. for example:.

the book talks about the apostles and says, 'after jesus death, they took the lead, becoming the governing body of that time.".

congregations of that time - jw congregations today.

jabberwock

I'm pretty sure that a scan of this particular page has already been posted though I couldn't find it. The photo is of Jaracz and Barr out in field service. Can you imagine opening up your front door to find the two of them, smilingly widely no less, on your porch?

BonaFide, could you post the page numbers where such connections are made?

jabberwock

52

2009 Circuit Assembly Program - Devil's crafty acts in "education"

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

for your viewing pleasure:.

2008 2009 keep conquering the evil with the good circuit assembly of jehovahs witnesses.

saturday .

jabberwock

I really liked your post zagor and even though it's 8 months later I would like to respond.

But I've seen many people who leave university and never learn how to think critically for themselves...What university does for you at best...is focusing on honing your technical skills of whatever sort you chose...I would strongly disagree that University education necessarily leaves one with ability to think critically.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. When it comes to a college education you only get out what you put into it. Many young people are only looking for job training, which is very important, but they ignore many of the other learning opportunities that can be had. Fortunately, many universities and colleges require that all students enrolled in a degree program take a certain number of credits in the humanities, social sciences, and the "hard" sciences as well. The more exposure to these subjects a student gets the less likely they are to be taken in by pseudo-scientific or pseudo-historic claims. Once a student, especially one who is a Witness, understands how scientists, historians, and other scholars arrive at their conclusions they are less likely to believe that they are all prejudiced know-nothings with hidden agendas.

Whatever the field of study you will most likely be required to consider a subject from a variety of viewpoints and draw information from a variety of sources. Oftentimes, you will also have to review these sources critically.

Academia is a very conservative place of its own that doesn't easily allow for changes, and many great ideas have gone unnoticed precisely because of that hardened attitude

This is a valid point. Academics may, at times, favor old ideas rather than challenging new ones, but they can be convinced of new ideas, even if it means they are personally wrong. Great ideas may sometimes go unnoticed, for awhile, or unappreciated, but where are such ideas better served? It seems to me that for all its faults academia contributes to a well-rounded knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world better than other similar institutions.

This reminds me of an old Awake article (g90 1/22 5-7) entitled, "Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase". The article criticized the peer review process for inadequately dealing with fraud. It seems to me that such an article criticizes the scientific community's sincere, though imperfect, efforts to root out fraud, but offers no alternative except to treat all of science with suspicion, which is hardly a palatable alternative. I find this article and the attitude that it promotes to be extremely frustrating.

I think entire educational system will need a shape up

I unequivocally agree.

jabberwock

72

2009 Drama Synopsis and Comments

by jabberwock in

jw
friends

this year's drama was based on the parable of the prodigal son.

the theme was "your brother was dead and came to life".

as some have probably heard, it is a modern day story based on that parable, so there are no fancy costumes or fake beards.. .

jabberwock

So, let me get this straight, did the father in the drama slaughter the bull, did he put a ring David's finger and clothe him in the finest robes? Was David accepted back without conditions?

The father doesn't put any conditions on accepting his son back, but it isn't really necessary that he do so as David expresses a desire to both return home and return to Jehovah. Of course we can safely assume that David would not be welcomed home if he did not return to Jehovah.

I think the slaughtering of the young bull, etc. is supposed to be represented by David's family inviting friends over for dinner in order to welcome him back (this is described as about to happen though it never occurs onstage). If he was not taking steps to return to Jehovah or if he was but was going to be disfellowshipped I'm sure that no one would be coming to share a meal with him.

How old were the 2 sons? In particular, the one who moved out on his own? Interesting that these presumably grown men are encouraged to live at home, rather than the normal, healthy thing, which is to move out on your own. Was the sobbing mother properly dressed in an apron?

You raise an excellent question here Cadellin. The youngest son, David, has just graduated from school so he is most likely 18 years old. His brother James is probably a few years older. There was a definite suggestion that it was better for young adults to live with their parents and pioneer rather than move out.

jabberwock

3

Can anyone scan a copy of the DC program please!

by boyzone in

jw
friends

jabberwock

The text of the program was posted about a month ago:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/173315/1/2009-Keep-On-the-Watch-Convention-Preview

Were you looking for this or something else?

jabberwock

72

2009 Drama Synopsis and Comments

by jabberwock in

jw
friends

this year's drama was based on the parable of the prodigal son.

the theme was "your brother was dead and came to life".

as some have probably heard, it is a modern day story based on that parable, so there are no fancy costumes or fake beards.. .

jabberwock

This year's drama was based on the parable of the prodigal son. The theme was "Your Brother Was Dead and Came to Life". As some have probably heard, it is a modern day story based on that parable, so there are no fancy costumes or fake beards.

The drams itself was very emotional and clearly designed to tug at the heartstrings of the audience. Here is a brief synopsis:

The story centers around David who leaves the family business for a job with his friend Al. His father is confused as to why he would leave the family business and worries about how this might affect his goal to pioneer. His older brother James knows Al and thinks that he is bad association.

Early on David's new boss makes it clear that he is to work long hours and that the his job should always come first. When being introduced to his coworkers one young woman shamelessly flirts with David and it's clear that Al is purposely trying to set them up. Al also discourages David from mentioning anything having to do with religion around his coworkers and gives him advice for how to handle it when counseled by his elders or parents.

Eventually, David and Al move to an apartment in the city and David loses touch with his family. We see scenes where David is out partying with his friends while his family is spending time with a missionary couple discussing their new assignment. In one scene we see David's father up late at night waiting at the window hoping that his son will come home. David's mother is said to cry every night for months after he is gone. His brother James is so angry at him for what he has done to the family.

As they leave a nightclub one evening, David's friend Al insists on driving even though he has had too much to drink. After a terrible accident, Al begs David to take the blame. David refuses and is hauled off by the police along with Al. The girls that they are with survive, but are badly hurt

David eventually calls his father saying that he wants to come home and come back to Jehovah. Some time later we see that David is indeed back at home and taking steps to return to Jehovah. While on the phone he even thanks an elder and other members of a judicial committee that he was brought before.

James though is resentful at how David is being welcomed back. The drama ends with the father counseling James about being forgiving.

Unfortunately, I was unable to include all of the interesting details, funny quotes, and corny dialog, but I think the synopsis should give you a decent understanding of the drama as a whole.

One important thing I think should be mentioned is how much stereotypes of worldly people were reinforced, and extended. The worldly people were mere caricatures. David's boss is made to seem demanding and actually says, "Can you work all hours?" The girl that is interested in David, and who he ends up dating, eventually becomes interested only in his money. She berates David when he is worried about Al drinking and driving, but later lies to the police and says that she was the one who was concerned. Al gives David advice to avoid the scrutiny of his parents and the elders while at the same time plotting to set him up with a worldly girl. Al becomes verbally abusive to his girlfriend and to David and unabashedly says that he is only interested in getting ahead whatever the consequences might be.

Another important aspect of the drama was the way in which it seemed to play on emotion and in particular the ties to family. It seemed as if it was emphasizing avoiding worldly association and goals because of how you might hurt your family rather than anything else. David's father seemed hurt that he wanted to leave the family business. When David left home he told his father the very night he was leaving and gave no warning whatsoever and his parents were left distraught. David's father in particular gave David the benefit of the doubt even when it was clear that he didn't deserve it.

Interestingly, David never explicitly said that he didn't want to serve Jehovah and yet it was understood and even said that he had left Jehovah. Before it became clear that he was involved in any serious wrongdoing he was described as "leaving the truth" when he had been missing meetings and moved to the city. David does express doubt about the end coming soon and says that he doesn't feel comfortable coming to the meetings, but for the most part he seems to be "fading" not abandoning the truth altogether. It seems to me that the things that are involved in "fading" are being clearly described as "leaving the truth" and "leaving Jehovah".

When David decides to come back he makes the call and his family accepts him back willingly. An offstage judicial committee apparently has decided not disfellowship David as he warmly thanks one of the brothers from the committee on the phone for their encouragement. Old family friends come over to welcome him back. This seems to be an idealized version of how these things usually, or can potentially, unfold.

In fact, at one point David's worldly coworkers ask him about what happens when a Witness breaks the rules. His friend Al says you say your sorry and that is it, but David explains that unless you are truly repentant you will be disfellowshipped. The worldly friends think that is a little harsh. Of course, they represent the worldly way of looking at things. David has a similar attitude early on when he is upset with his brother and others for judging Al and later David himself. Again, we know that Al is a bad person and that David is merely feeling guilty about the bad things he is up to, so there is no need to be concerned about being judgmental. Only bad people think of that as a bad thing.

These are just a few of my observations. Let me know what you think, especially if you have seen the drama in person.

jabberwock

22

Question about "marking" in the congregation

by Olin Moyles Ghost in

can one of the resident scholars settle a disagreement about the current jw practice of "marking"?.

my understanding is that marking works this way: suppose annie is a jw who persists in an activity that is strongly frowned upon by the society--but is not a df-ing offense (for example, she is dating a non-witness), then annie gets counseled by the elders.

if annie continues to date the unbeliever, then the elders may decide to "mark" her.

jabberwock

To marry in the Lord is about as close to a direct command as you'll find in the NT, yet the WTS doesn't disfellowship for this, they 'only' mark the person.

Excellent point. I still cannot understand why this is not a disfellowshipping offense.

In practice, I think dating a non-Witness is the only real marking offense. There may be others on the books and I'm sure some people have been marked for other things, but it seems to me that this is almost always the reason. Of course by that logic porneia could be considered the only disfellowshipping offense. By the way, since it covers so many different things can we call it the porneia spectrum?

My understanding was that dating someone who wasn't a Witness was what got you marked not marrying them. From what I was told, by an elder in reference to a specific situation he was dealing with, if the person married the non-Witness they would be, for all practical purposes, unmarked (or is it demarked?). Since dating was the offense, after the couple was married it was, "clearly evident that the individual has abandoned his disorderly course ".

If marriage is the actual marking offense wouldn't it be impossible to abandon your disorderly course without getting divorced? I suppose instead they demand that you publicly express regret or remorse over marrying someone to whom you are still happily married. Asinine. How could anyone truly believe someone who said such a thing?

All of this goes to show how poorly defined and inconsistently applied marking is.

jabberwock

22

Question about "marking" in the congregation

by Olin Moyles Ghost in

can one of the resident scholars settle a disagreement about the current jw practice of "marking"?.

my understanding is that marking works this way: suppose annie is a jw who persists in an activity that is strongly frowned upon by the society--but is not a df-ing offense (for example, she is dating a non-witness), then annie gets counseled by the elders.

if annie continues to date the unbeliever, then the elders may decide to "mark" her.

jabberwock

They use that card to keep people from doing things that, while scripturally acceptable, might "stumble" others.

But people can be disfellowshipped for doing things that are "scripturally acceptable". If that is the case why would marking be necessary?

Things like...masturbating, can get you "marked".

Masturbating will NOT get you marked. Even though the process differs from congregation to congregation (the process of marking that is!) I'm pretty sure that this is not a marking offense.

Besides, if someone was marked for masturbating how would the congregation know who the masturbator was?

jabberwock

28

Spanish JW's Upset Over Bethel Move

by Gary1914 in

jw
friends

on april 1, 2009 a letter was sent from the governing body of jehovahs witnesses to congregations in spain informing them that the printing, shipping, and storage of watchtower publications would be discontinued at the madrid branch office.

the letter expressed confidence that the spanish witnesses would, despite the move, continue to generously support the world wide work and ends with an appeal to remain united under the direction of the witness leadership.. at a glance, this story may seem like a non-issue, perhaps, just another example of reorganization and consolidation within a multinational corporation; however, the dissolution of the printing branch has caused considerable hard feelings among some of jehovahs witnesses in spain.

to understand the reason we must first look at the history behind the branch office and external factors that some feel prompted this abrupt move.. early in their history, jehovahs witnesses began printing their trademark watchtower magazines and associated books and tracts in-house at their bethel headquarters in brooklyn, new york.

jabberwock

This articles explains things really well.

One thing that was mentioned was a possible connection between the case Swaggart Ministries v. Cal. Bd. of Equalization and the end of charging for Watchtower literature in favor of the donation arrangement. Does anybody have anymore information on this? It mention that the WTBTS submitted an amicus brief. Can anyone get hold of that?

jabberwock