Posts by miseryloveselders

I never say "Bless you", but I used to decline saying "thank you" when I sneezed and someone said "bless you." I would act like they never said a thing. The whole time I was doing that I never even knew why we were taught to not say it or thank someone for saying it. How old of a wive's tale is that? Most people who say it probably don't know the origin of it.

7

What do you think of this video?

by serenitynow! in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gmryqgg1po.

this is a toddler in i guess a fundamentalist church.

this video is creepy in a "children of the corn" sort of way.

miseryloveselders

Serenity its horrible to us because we recognize what they're doing to that little girl, because they did it to us too, just in a different manner. I've been giving talks since I was 7. They had to provide a stool for me to stand on because the podium and microphone were several feet tallker than me. So many kids have been giving talks, going out in field service, alienating themselves at school, the list just goes on and on. You never see how creepy it is until you're old enough and have enough experience under your belt to realize what they've been doing to us.

184

At what point did you realize JW's were a Cult?

by Think About It in

most of us x-jw's at one point no doubt defended the jw's when called a cult.

althought being out since 95', when i first came here it took awhile before i could use the cult word to describe the jw religion.

finding out about the pedophile scandal was disgusting, but it was probably finding out here about the wts history and terrible personal experiences of some on this board that made me finally admit that the jw's were a cult.

miseryloveselders

Hey Debator, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate that, and again I mean you no ill will. This forum does tend to be heavy handed on believing JWs. In some cases its warrented with trolls, but I don't categorize you as such.

, how would you define them considering the amount of control they wish to exert upon their publishers? How would you define their secrecy and fear of dissention, and intellectual criticizm? Is it safe to say that if they're not a cult, they're at the least a high control group?

look at all the assumptions of guilt you put on them in it! Everything highlighted in black is a loaded point.

Debator, its only an assumption of guilt when the party that the question is directed towards feels guilty and on the hot seat answering it. You ever hear the saying, "If the shoe fits?"

We are not controliing! We have to administer God's moral law so the question is..Is God's moral law controlling? We are God's publishers not their publishers. What secrecy? Everything we teach and tought is published to the eighth degree I get headaches from the amount of publications quoted on here from the last 100 years or so (never mind the referencing scriptures for everything we teach in principle or basic law).

Now bear in mind how you're answering the question. Your answering the question from the perspective of the brothers in New York. I don't know where your located, or your standing in this organization, but if you're the average Joe Blow publisher, its true you're not controlling anything. Now from the perspective of the brothers in New York in the Writing Departments, or the GB, yes they have a measure of control over our lives. I'll give you an example. I was talking to my sister who is significantly older than me. I was sort of what you might label a mistake considering how late I was born. At any rate I expressed to her my reservations on the WT's stance regarding higher education. She told me she agreed with me, but she told me to count my blessings. The reason she stated such was because when she was in high school, the WT's stance on education was much more strict. Granted a person could have and still can choose to attend a university or not after high school, but make no mistake about it, tremendous pressure will be placed upon that individual if they choose to attend a university. There's other aspects of this as well considering the polices on organ transplants in the past, and more recently the no blood doctrine turning into the acceptable blood fractine doctrine. Debator, bear in mind, what is printed for the publishers is law. It has serious impact on the lives of all JWs. To disregard the direction given in WT publications is to risk being marked, viewed poorly by your brothers and sisters, and the possibility of losing the relationship you have with close relatives, which by the way is something weighing heavily on my mind as I'm typing this.

fear of dissention? can a religion even function with division as the norm? the fact we have thousands of denominations today is proof that pandering to division just leads to a fractured faith. We are all told to agree with each other under our shepherds this is a personal responsibility to each of us not just our shepherds.

I agree with you that the thousands of denominations is disturbing. Especially considering the bloodshed throughout the years, incorrect teachings, and loss of faith as a result. However let me ask you, what difference does it make if there are thousands of denominations, or one denomination that has thousands if not millions of its adherents holding onto views contrary to what its clergy class teaches? That would be the case with the WT's leadership over 7 million JWs. I'm at work right now and don't have the WT CD Rom, but there's articles that state we should be submissive towards their leadership, and not to get haughty when we're proven to be in the right regarding doctrines that the leadership was late correcting themselves on. What makes this particulary complicated is what we're trying to do is figure out the doctrine of imperfect men who wrote various letters, and historical narratives from over 2000 years ago. Not to mention a tyrannical emporor consolidated his power by having a committee of imperfect men slap these letters, and narratives together and then call it God's word. The point is there's plenty of grey matter regarding what those imperfect men were supposedly inspired to write, and what should and should not have been included in the collection.

When you were a kid, did you ever line up with several classmates, and then one would whisper to the kid next to him a message and tell him to pass it on? You remember how mumbled up it came out at the end? Imagine if the last two kids of a dozen or so, had differing views on what the original message was. Thats to be expected right? Lets take it a step further. Imagine if those two kids developed followings from the other children picking sides. Thats whats happened with the Bible and the various denominations we see. Imagine a new kid moved into the neighborhood and even though he's never talked to the original message carrier, he claims to know what the original message is. All that disagree with him are badmouthed, and any of the children that initially supported him but no longer agree with him, are badmouthed and punished too. Thats exactly what the WT has done. The only difference is, this isn't fun and games. These are our relatives, the people we love and cherish. We're being forced to decide between our own sanity or pleasing our families. My father said to me a week ago, "It would hurt me to be in the new system, and not have all of my family there." A not so subtle message to me that I need to get in order with what the WT is dictating, otherwise my father will lose me. Its nothing short of extortion.

Intellectual criticism from whom? On the whole people on this forum don't challenge our bible drawn doctrines just our having shepherds. the critisism is usually on functionality of the congregation rather than what we believe. The point always being to try and dismember the need for an authoritive structure within the flock which simply isn't biblical.

I agree as I stated before that this forum can be heavy handed on individuals such as yourself. Personally I think you should be welcomed with open arms as you help lurkers and posters to see both sides of the argument. As I said I'm still formulating my own thoughts and any input from any party is welcome from my perspective. However it needs to be said that this forum has provided a viable avenue to discuss JW doctrine. We've discussed information here and exposed faulty WT doctrine that you could never question in your congregation, nor taken seriously by higher ups if given the oppurtunity to explain your reservations. Don't kid yourself thinking that you have any share in the doctrines dictated from Bethel. They didn't invite you or me and ask our opinion. The closest we may get is a Question from Readers in the magazine. Just as we saw regarding the Blood doctrine, Organ transplants, This Generation, 607 vs 586, and a ton of other questionable doctrines, the leadership is not interested in debate with a view to accurate teachings that may make their life uncomfortable. Ask Carl Jonnson, Ray Franz, JAmes Penton, and every poster on here. There's a reason I won't reveal who I am on this forum, the same reason you won't either Debator.

High control? Living by God's moral law means submitting to a specific lifestyle which is strictor than the current immoral world can ever understand. Is it high control to recognise this authority?

I can agree with you to a degree. Most who get disfellowshipped, are DF'd for sexual related matters. However, lately I'd make the argument that their conduct very well may be the result of trying to get some relief from the totalitarian atmosphere of what the WT has created in congregations. Everything that is natural in life is frowned upon in the WT's world, and the only thing the WT substitutes these natural things with is more meetings, field service, assemblies, conventions, study their literature, repeat. If thats not enough, they remind you that you're probably not doing all of these things well enough and to try harder. Remember a person can choose to follow or not follow their directions, but remember there are consequences that you and I are all too familiar with. Eventually when push comes to shove, how much will a person accept before they break, or seek some kind of way to relieve stress via alcohol, sex, porn, drugs, etc.?

184

At what point did you realize JW's were a Cult?

by Think About It in

most of us x-jw's at one point no doubt defended the jw's when called a cult.

althought being out since 95', when i first came here it took awhile before i could use the cult word to describe the jw religion.

finding out about the pedophile scandal was disgusting, but it was probably finding out here about the wts history and terrible personal experiences of some on this board that made me finally admit that the jw's were a cult.

miseryloveselders

Hi misery

thank you for seeing my point of view but I didn't fall for the loaded question of this titled forum do you think I would fall for a more detailed one from you?

I do not agree with any of those points.

There are two laws we as humans live by

Secular law

Moral law

The government by God's allowance are abiters of secular law atm And Jesus God's son made our shepherds which we choose from among ourselves as administrators of God's moral law for the whole flock.

I willingly subject myself to God's moral law.

You have no problem recognising the authority of governments given secular law so why do have a problem with shepherds that help us live by God's moral laws?

Debator, I have to say I've believe I'v been reasonably fair with you. I've defended you on a couple occasions. I asked you a sincere question as I see where you're coming from regarding the definition of a cult plus I'm sympathetic toward you being here. I still have some sympathetic bones for this religion. I'm still working it all out as far as what I believe and agree with, and what I don't believe and disagree with. The very first page of this thread I stated that I have trouble labeling the WT/JW as a cult for some of the same reasons that you've mentioned since. What disturbs me is first you insult me by alluding that I'm asking you a loaded question as if I have ulterior motives. Believe me when I tell you, you're not that important to me. Your just another anonymous poster out of millions, posting on one of the many thousand message boards on the web. What do I stand to gain by asking you a question? All I wanted was your perspective, and you decide to insult me instead.

On top of that, you failed to answer my question. Not only have you insulted my character, but you're also insulting my intelligence. I asked you a simple question. I wanted to know since you have a reasonable argument that the WT/JW is not a cult, than what do you label it? Would you consider it a high control group? I didn't insult you, and I'm not looking to make a fool out of you. I asked you question. If you don't want to answer it because it makes you uncomfortable, than say so. But don't insult my character or my intelligence.

184

At what point did you realize JW's were a Cult?

by Think About It in

most of us x-jw's at one point no doubt defended the jw's when called a cult.

althought being out since 95', when i first came here it took awhile before i could use the cult word to describe the jw religion.

finding out about the pedophile scandal was disgusting, but it was probably finding out here about the wts history and terrible personal experiences of some on this board that made me finally admit that the jw's were a cult.

miseryloveselders

He Debator, I'm enjoying reading through this debate, and I see where your coming from. However, I've got questions.

You've spent a sufficient amount of time reasonably making the case that the WT/JWs are not a cult. Let me ask you, if the WT/JW is not a cult, how would you define them considering the amount of control they wish to exert upon their publishers? How would you define their secrecy and fear of dissention, and intellectual criticizm? Is it safe to say that if they're not a cult, they're at the least a high control group?

If possible, please don't speak on Debator's behalf, I'd like to hear what Debator's answer to this is.

17

If you love chocolate...

by serenitynow! in

and you love wine, you must try chocovine!

this is one of the best things i've tasted in a long time!

it's like a chocolate milkshake..

miseryloveselders

No, female.

And I like any flavour of chocolate.

Have mercy, have mercy........

14

Current guidelines for assembly speakers

by billyboy in

these are the instructions currently given to brothers who have parts on assemblies or special days.

note that beards are still officially a no-no.. please read and follow carefully the following information: the material is to be.

presented extemporaneously.

miseryloveselders

They don't mention it there but in the Midwest US it is understood that speakers and brothers wear white shirts on the stage at the DCs. One brother was taken off his part and a local brother had to run home, get a white shirt, and give the part instead.

Thats interesting. Where I'm at it always depended on the "current" CO and DO. Younger COs tended to be more modern and ok with colored shirts. I saw a brother give a talk with a black shirt a few years ago. That CO was and is a pretty ok guy, I genuinely liked him. A couple of the old guard COs from years past would have threw a fit if a brother wore a nonwhite shirt. They're like white shirt supremacists.

Wsup with the beard thing? Its 2010, and they're still worried about the beatniks, hippies and bikers. Ridiculous something as natural as facial hair is viewed negatively. Unreal. I feel bad for brothers that get ingrown hairs.

36

KS10 Chapter Three

by yknot in

chapter three from 'shepherding the flock of go' published by the wts of penn/ny as part of their worldwide bible educational work.

the wts is a non-profit whose publications are not for sale but are freely given to those who show 'genuine' interest..... while not required, a donation is always joyfully accepted .

well i was going to stick to the boe ltr for a 'pre-view' but somebody deleted my sendspace links.

miseryloveselders

Another tidbit from paragraph 19 on page 38. If it comes to light or an appointed brother confesses that he has committed a disfelloswhipping offense years in the past: The body of elders amy dtermine he can continue to serve if the following is true: The immorality or other serious wrongdoing occured more than a few years ago, and he is genuinely repentant, recognizing that he should ahve come forward immediately when he sinned. (Perhapes he has even confessed to his sin, seeking help with his guilty conscience.) He has been serving faithfully for many years, has evidenc of God's blessing, and has the respect of the congregation.

Pornograpy is kicking their booty!!!