Posts by sd-7

22

You won't believe what the Jehovah's Witnesses proclaimers book exposes!!!

by EndofMysteries in

it's said that apostates/ex jws are the ones who twist and lie.

what if real strong black and white evidence, undeniable that the wt infact are the ones doing that.

look at the proclaimers book, page 218. they are talking about the june 1st and june 15, 1938 wt.

sd-7

So the point here is that the Proclaimers book really does quote the article verbatim, but it changes that phrase because it would be obvious to the reader of a later time period that the phrase used there doesn't fit with the current understanding. I guess it's sort of like a '1984' bringing-the-past-up-to-date kind of scenario.

Problem is, a line like this probably won't convince a JW that anything is even remotely wrong. The difference is such a thin one that they might argue it's merely semantics, as the anointed are indeed brought into the temple in unity with Christ, after all. The implication of it (no mention of holy spirit) would go over their heads. It'd be a case of 'does not compute'. There are more glaring examples in the Proclaimers book than this one, but it is an interesting point, nonetheless.

--sd-7

22

You won't believe what the Jehovah's Witnesses proclaimers book exposes!!!

by EndofMysteries in

it's said that apostates/ex jws are the ones who twist and lie.

what if real strong black and white evidence, undeniable that the wt infact are the ones doing that.

look at the proclaimers book, page 218. they are talking about the june 1st and june 15, 1938 wt.

sd-7

Okay. If we're going to discuss this, best to mention the details. If I'm following you correctly, page 218, bottom paragraph (or paragraph 2, using WT designation so far as I remember) in the Proclaimers book says:

"How, then, were current appointments to service in the congregation to be made? The Watchtower analysis of theocratic organization showed from the Scriptures that Jehovah appointed Jesus Christ "head of the...congregation"; that when Christ as Master returned, he would entrust his "faithful and discreet slave" with responsibility "over all his belongings"; that this faithful and discreet slave was made up of all those on earth who had been anointed with holy spirit to be joint heirs with Christ and who were unitedly serving under his direction; and that Christ would use that slave class as his agency in providing needed oversight for the congregations."

June 1, 1938 Watchtower, page 169, paragraph 21:

"It must be seen by all who love and serve Jehovah, and who therefore believe the revealed truths of his Word, that the Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of Jehovah's organization Zion has a visible part of his organization on the earth, which represents the Lord and acts under the direct supervision of the Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise the work of the Lord in the earth would be without order. His visible kingdom interests or "goods" must be committed to some representative, and the question now is, Who is that visible representative, standing in the place similar to that occupied and followed by Timothy and Titus, and which representative is clothed with certain authority to act? The answer must be found in the Scriptures, and not in the mere opinion of men. Jesus declared, as it is written, that upon coming to the temple he would commit all his goods or kingdom interests on earth to that "faithful and wise servant", which faithful and wise servant is made up and composed of all the anointed ones on earth brought into the temple in unity in Christ, and acting in complete unity under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ."

So there's the phrase that was tweaked to fit with the updated understanding. Now I'm assuming that the phrasing in 1938 was based on a very different understanding about the anointed, but I've yet to research the matter to prove it conclusively, and I've got to pick up my family from the KH--a 'special talk' today. But I hope this helps clarify the subject being discussed in this thread (and maybe is useful somehow, though I think more research would be required to pin it down conclusively).

--sd-7

123

New here

by Change Name in

i had been studying with the jehovah's witnesses for the last couple years.

they have been interesting study sessions and have learned quite a bit about them and their beliefs.

much of what they teach is what i had learned through personal bible study.. growing up was normal.

sd-7

"sd-7"

From my understanding, the prerequisits for being an NGO changed after they were accepted and when they found out you have to run through some hoops they did not feel comfortable running so they did not renew the library card. Simple.

Have I made up my mind? I may have after reading both sides of the issue. Those who oppose the JWs will never say a good thing about them. JWs will make the most innocent of mistakes and the opposers will jump on it like a zombie attacking a human making the mistake the biggest thing since Ted Haggards homosexual liasons.

First, this matter of the UN library card--this in itself could very well have been entirely innocent. It's just that the circumstantial evidence makes it look decidedly questionable. Viewing it objectively, one can see how any kind of interaction with the UN could stumble JWs (who by the way, are mostly unaware this ever happened). A more honest way to deal with this situation would have been for the Society to dispel any concerns publicly so as to prevent the brothers and sisters from being stumbled by any kind of misconstruing of the circumstances. But that's not what happened; the correspondence that explained this situation was not brought to the attention of the entire organization. And I guarantee that anyone asking too many questions would just be expelled from the religion. This to me suggests an unwillingness to be forthright and reasonable with people you claim you're willing to die for.

Second, I disagree with the notion that there's nothing good about JWs at all. That's not the case at all. They have some very good moral standards and tend to be knowledgeable in a general sense about the Bible. They often show kindness to each other and even to strangers at times. JWs I have known are generally decent people. I simply disagree with their teachings and the methods and procedures employed by the Watchtower Society.

Note how the pages of The Watchtower pull no punches in routinely referring to opposers as liars, thieves, ravenous wolves, essentially like they're diseased, sick individuals. All for the simple act of disagreeing. The Society can change its mind ten times a year and it's being led by holy spirit, but the individual has fallen to Satan if he changes his mind once. This is an inflexible, unreasonable way to approach things if you're going to say this is a worldwide brotherhood. Something as simple as wearing a beard is 'the most innocent of mistakes', but guess what? You won't be giving any talks with that beard on, that's for sure. Something's wrong with your spirituality.

Everyone makes mistakes. I don't think every little thing warrants jumping down their throats. But there are specific things that are simply not minor and cannot be overlooked, especially given the claims to be the one true religion. A group that routinely has nothing good at all to say about all other Christian religions and has spent much of the last century picking at every mistake they've made since 325 C.E.

But since you are still responding, it is clear that you have in fact not decided to be loyal to the JW organization, as it strictly commands you to avoid all contact with 'opposers'. If you had decided, we wouldn't be hearing from you again.

--sd-7

22

You won't believe what the Jehovah's Witnesses proclaimers book exposes!!!

by EndofMysteries in

it's said that apostates/ex jws are the ones who twist and lie.

what if real strong black and white evidence, undeniable that the wt infact are the ones doing that.

look at the proclaimers book, page 218. they are talking about the june 1st and june 15, 1938 wt.

sd-7

Fascinating. I'll have to look into this. Nice thread.

I noticed a similar misleading scenario with the 'superior authorities' issue--not that I was the first one to notice it, I think I was reading Randy Watters' site (freeminds.org) and he mentioned it. The fascinating thing about the change to the current understanding in 1962 was that the WT articles in that series do not present the previous viewpoint at all. If you didn't know the belief about the 'higher powers' from 1929-1962, you would never have known it existed. While that may not be a direct lie, it's certainly a lie by omission. The Proclaimers book presents this as if it is the light getting brighter, when it's a case of human error eclipsing the light of clear, scriptural reality for more than three decades.

But the important thing is that this false belief was eagerly shared with others, worldwide, via the pages of The Watchtower.

--sd-7

76

more wifey issues. she seen my phone and this web site was op

by unstopableravens in

my son grab my phone and wifey seen this site.

on for a second she was mad.

led into arugment today.

sd-7

"when we got married we both had the same goals"

That's a tough one to hear. But we need more than goals in life, we need to know that we're pursuing the right goals for the right reasons and that those goals and those reasons both agree with our own conscience. Sometimes you learn something new that makes you reconsider how you're pursuing your goals altogether. Maybe your goals didn't fundamentally change, they just don't involve the same exact set of beliefs they did before.

"just go to a baptist church"

If I decide to do so, I leave the judging of such a decision in the hands of the one to whom judging has been entrusted, Jesus Christ. Or [sarcasm]: Are you telling me to go to a false religious building? How encouraging! <--That one'll get ya in trouble...

"jehovah does not want you anyway"

John chapter 9--Jesus found the blind man after he'd been thrown out of the synagogue. It was men who decided they didn't want him, but Jesus had other plans. That said, I'll leave it to Jesus to decide who he wants, as no human can speak for him. [Sarcasm: Certainly not you.]

Or [sarcasm again]: Are you just projecting your feelings onto Jehovah? How dangerous it can be to fall prey to presumptuous thinking! Developing the quality of modesty will help us be aware that our feelings are often not in line with Jehovah's.

Gee, I'm really not helping, am I? I've had some pretty bad sarcastic moments with my wife...never a good idea. It's a tough process, truly. The only thing that'll really make a difference is time and just doing your best to be a good husband and dad. Those things count in themselves for quite a lot. At least if you're doing that, you can feel good about yourself.

--sd-7

123

New here

by Change Name in

i had been studying with the jehovah's witnesses for the last couple years.

they have been interesting study sessions and have learned quite a bit about them and their beliefs.

much of what they teach is what i had learned through personal bible study.. growing up was normal.

sd-7

Even an outsider like me can read through the blather that the opposers produce in regards to this.

If you can read through blather, I think you'll eventually figure it all out for yourself. It's really not complicated, though. Either it's true or it's not. Have you actually read the letter that the United Nations posted on its website? I find it hard to imagine anyone thinking it would be okay for the Society to do the things listed in that letter on behalf of the UN. Comparing the Awake! article published around the same time to that letter puts two and two together. If they didn't know about those requirements until 2001 or something, why would such an article have been printed? Further still, they were in New York. Was there a lack of library materials in New York City, some sort of book shortage in the 90s? I would disagree with the usage of the statement that JWs "joined the UN", as obviously they're not a government, but they applied to be associated with the UN as an NGO. Based on the requirements to do so, requirements that coincidentally the Society fulfilled via at least one Awake! article, it looks shady at best, regardless of the reasons. The Society would, I would think, be deeply concerned about potentially stumbling people (speaking of trying to stumble people any way you can--ever heard of "Millions Now Living Will Never Die"?), concerned enough that they would carefully avoid even the appearance of UN involvement. The same sort of caution they would urge their own people to demonstrate in their actions.

I also have read much of what the opposers will foist upon the unsuspecting reader.

This statement sounds like you had already made your mind up that opposers were (a) trying to push something on you and (b) trying to willfully deceive you (else why would the reader be an 'unsuspecting reader'?). So we've just learned quite a lot about your position. Specifically what you have read, apart from the UN issue, has yet to be mentioned.

To be sure, you don't walk into a Kingdom Hall and automatically see a child getting raped and poisoned Kool-Aid being passed around. But I was there for more than 20 years of my life. I have read the Bible 4 times over, and came to realize that much of what was being done and taught was simply not to be found in scripture at all.

If you feel that opposers are merely desperate to stumble JWs any way they can, what will you do about it? Do you wish to become a loyal JW? You are not a loyal JW if you have joined this website to communicate with individuals who disagree with the Watchtower Society's teachings. So...that said, this gets really awkward. But I look forward to hearing your further thoughts.

--sd-7

76

more wifey issues. she seen my phone and this web site was op

by unstopableravens in

my son grab my phone and wifey seen this site.

on for a second she was mad.

led into arugment today.

sd-7

sd 7 : bro i 1000 percent agree i hate the idea of not keeping my family together. and i understand not talking doctrine ,but what should i do when she brings it up?

Be careful to defend and not attack. Don't say one word that you can't back up with some tangible proof. Even the slightest misstatement will undo any attempt at defense.

If you have to respond, you may have to evade if you can do so honestly. What kind of stuff is she saying, may I ask?

--sd-7

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

sd-7

Do you agree with Jeffro and AnnoMaly that the context does not indicate that the word used for servitude in Jeremiah meant slavery or do you agree with this arsenal of scholars and experts whose combined credentials immeasurably exceed that of everyone on this forum? You decide.

Question--what year do these experts think Jerusalem's slavery/exile/whatever began?

You are free to quote them on that, if possible--it would help us all to get your point. (I say that without any hint of sarcasm or ad hominem attacking, I might add.)

--sd-7

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

sd-7

Ah, so Ethos did respond to my question--was it on page 10 of this thread?

Problem is, you still didn't explain how it was possible for exiles who were exiled years before Jerusalem was destroyed could be told that they were going to be in Babylon for 70 years, assuming 607 is correct. For them, the exile started before Jerusalem was destroyed, regardless of what date you happen to believe it was destroyed. The prophecy wasn't, wait a few years and then 70 years after that, you'll come home. It was, nope, you won't be back anytime soon, despite what you were told by that other guy. At the end of 70 years (at/for Babylon), you'll come back. The context of chapter 28 doesn't help your argument, as it proves nothing about the timing of the statements made in chapter 29. Chapter 29 states the timing itself, it opens very clearly as saying: (1) Zedekiah's still in power, so thus we know Jerusalem hasn't been destroyed yet. (2) The exiles to whom Jeremiah is writing were taken during Jehoiachin's reign. And they're in Babylon. Before Jerusalem's destruction. Thus the timing is solidly fixed as BEFORE JERUSALEM WAS DESTROYED. That's the inescapable fact here. The context of the 'seventy years' in Jer. 29:10 has to be connected to the timing of the message's delivery, and the timing is clearly stated in Jeremiah 29:1. And that timing is BEFORE JERUSALEM WAS DESTROYED.

So are you saying that the exiles who were already in exile in Babylon before 607 were in fact not in exile until the year 607? I think if you can say that, then there's really no point in continuing the debate. That sentence would destroy any computer in 'Star Trek' instantly. Just say 'yes' or 'no' to that, and go from there.

--sd-7

12

When did the Watchtower first raise the idea of 1919?

by moggy lover in

with all the changes arising from the shifts in watchtower "understanding" of its own prophetic ministry, i think we can discern a slow but detirmined interest in elavating the date 1919 to almost iconic standards - soon to displace the other date of significance, 1914.. my question to those with access to watchtower material is: when in fact did the watchtower leadership first mention this date as having any significance?

popular watchtower mythology proceeds along the lines of jehovah coming to his temple in that year, and on inspecting the then watchtower leadership, chosing them to be his exclusive spokespersons on earth.. although this supposedly took place in 1919, it was certainly not in that year that there was any awareness that such was occurring.

it was many years after when this first began to be pressed.

sd-7

I would think the most obvious place it started is one the Society has in more recent times referenced quite often--the "Birth of A Nation" article in the, was it March 1, 1925 Watchtower? It's there that it's laid out that the two witnesses in Revelation 11 were to be seen as 'the officers of the Society', if I recall correctly. 1919 is clearly important to that idea as far as the timing.

But I guess that's just me. I've not been staying abreast of 'the history of Jehovah's organization' lately...

--sd-7