yeah, that was before my time.
but i'm interested to hear from those who were around back in the day when they did this.
what were the questions like?
My dad (not a JW) who was a College Professor for decades, always said the Q&A method of study was the worst, most uneffective and fallacy-prone.
Years and years later I realized: They don't write 'answers' to 'Questions'; they write an article expressing a bunch of ideas, then add questions that fit those ideas, and Bingo! You think you are finding answers to your questions. It's genius! they don't answer, they don't teach you.. THEY INDUCE YOU TO ACCEPT what they wrote.
well, i picked my username because that's what i saw in front of me and i like the way it sounded.
no real story behind that.
i picked my avator because that's the way i felt.
I simply admire that man: WC would move ahead nomatter what. He kew when to be hard, when to be soft; always was strong. And he didn't take crap from no one.
Avatar? I tried to put one, but I can't!
yeah, that was before my time.
but i'm interested to hear from those who were around back in the day when they did this.
what were the questions like?
In our BookStudy Group we had a brother who would raise his hand and ask questions, very politely and sincerely, if he didn't understand something. This happended quite often and I'd just smile and say "Well, that's an interesting question, let's see who can answer"; sometimes a sister would answer. This would irk some (I was allowing a woman to teach!!!!). Sometimes I'd answer myself, sometimes we'd engage in discussing the point. It made the consideration lively and more than a couple of times I would stand corrected by his comments/questions (And I never had a problem admitting I was wrong, or I didn't know the answer).
In general, the rest of the group enjoyed it. But, as I said, some critized me for this; even some fellow elders who got to know about this 'counseled' me, and a CO even told me that I should know better than letting a brother in the audience 'direct' the consideration. Now that the BS is gone I get to conduct only every once in a while and at hall it's just not the same.
yeah, that was before my time.
but i'm interested to hear from those who were around back in the day when they did this.
what were the questions like?
I've been in for almost 40 years and never heard of the audience being allowed to ask questions.
if there is a change in the works to the co arrangement, it's not happening this year..
Yeah, is great to see our current CO go away... a real moron, unsensitive and manipulative. Bad thing is they're sending another one who probably will be more of the same or worse.
does anyone have a report on the content of this talk please?
any "new light"?.
How much free reign are the speakers given at a DC?
Almost none. Funy thing is less and less talks are manuscripts; and even those are assigned to highly ranked people (i.e. Bethel speakers and Traveling O's).
But outlines are increasingly dense and short. 10 years ago a DA would have some 40 talks. This year over 60. and when you see the outline for a typical 10 minutes part, it's so full that you can almost read it verbatim and make the 10 minutes. So no room for adding anything. On top of that, Assembly President (typically a CO), stricly enforces rules against adding, changing, switching the order of ideas, etc.
A few days ago, I compared, side by side a talk I gave 4 years ago with the outline I was assigned this year. The first one was for a 29 minutes talk -no demo, no interviews- and it was page 1 and three lines on page 2. This year's is for a 9 minute talk -no demo, no interviews- and it's a page and half long.
Bottom line: absolute control!
a friend of mine was asked if she had become "moist" along with had penetration actually taken place , why is that necassary to ask along with did you fondle breasts etc surley they could keep it short and ask if the "deed " was done , yes or no ?
why all the other questions ?
she was only 19 with no experiance of life and sex and was so embaressed she could not answer and was disfellowshipped for being "cocky" any ideas ?.
In a world where x% of people don't think of oral as "sexual relations", some questions must be asked.
However, while the manual says you have to ask questions to determine exactly what happened, it also warns against asking too intimate, unecessary questions (e.g. "Did you have an orgasm?").
When presiding JC's I simply invite the person to briefly and not too explicitly describe what happened. That gives them the choice to pick up words they feel less uncomfortable with. Sometimes you have to fine-tune with questions, but simple questions. Asking if the girl was moist, if 'it' was too hard, did it hurt, did you enjoy... those questions are totally out of line. If there's a theme people have a vast library of euphemisms for is sex. So i don't see the point of asking too much. Last comitee I attended (like a year ago) we had an argument afterwards because I stopped on his tracks an elder that was asking too much.
But to me it mainly boils dow to this: Curiosity and (sick) excitement. Don't forget that some find power 'aphrodisiac'
OTWO Nailed it.
good morning to everybody!
is a pleasure to participate in the forum.
my name is anderson, i have 43 years and i live in rio de janeiro, brazil.
BEM VINDO!
of course anyone not a jw is "worldly""...i think that mentally this is the hardest part to overcome if you are born in..... you should have seen the look on my wife's face recently when i told her that i feel that things are prob about as good as it gets.....no evil wicked system of things exists........ ya..... i know times are tough here in usa as far as employment.....but damm....this ain't like the great depression or wwi or ww2!!
!.......life in the middle ages used to be 38 years......now it is 88 years!!!.......
i can walk just about any neighborhood without fear...if the "world" were as bad as they say...there would be a prisons every 1000 meters!!!
Just a thought: I really don't think we have (at least I don't) enough information to stipulate the world (not you city, not your country, not your continent, but the WORLD) is in better or worse shape than ever.
However, I have to say that years ago -I vividly rember the moment- as I was preaching along with a local elder during my visit, in a very poor neighborhood, I saw a man helping a homeless, elderly, apparenly blind woman cross a busy street, then give her a few bills. It was a scene of compassion. And since at that moment we were talking about how petty and selfish some elders within the congregation were being, I pointed him to this act of kindness we were just witnessing, and told him: "See, people are good. There's good people everywhere, even outside the congregations, people with good hearts. Seing this makes me furious about how much evil we see inside the congregations". I think he was astonished, listening to the CO saying this, but wouldn't (and couldn't rebut).
To this day it amazes me how on that ocasion I talked from my heart, without thinking, and it was the starting point (at least the one I remember) of my realization that the outside world was not as terrible and hopeless as I had been taught. Almost 15 years after that, I have only found more evidence convincing me that the contrast between JW and 'Worldly' people is just a big myth.
what do you think about the new host on the tonight show, conan o' brien.
i truly enjoyed jay leno and his monologue but cannot stand conan' sense of humor.. personally i think he's going to get his butt kicked by david letterman..
Both JL and CO have nothing on Letterman and Ferguson. Leno was funny but too 'scripted', and Conan is more a writer than a comedian. Letterman and Ferguson are naturally funny, and while keeping an interesting conversation with guests, they can be funny too.
