FatFreek 2005

Joined

• started 201 topics
• posted 1,419 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by FatFreek 2005

• 
  13

  To all elders, some probing questions on assault by a member by another member.

  by FatFreek 2005 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the title should have read, "assault by a member toward another member".

  (unfortunately, i couldn't find a way to edit the title).

  you happen to be driving by what looks to be your own empty kingdom hall and something doesn't look quite right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Thanks for what appears to be some expert input -- to Under The Radar, Steve2, and OrphanCrow. I certainly hope none of these scenarios ever plays out.
• 
  13

  To all elders, some probing questions on assault by a member by another member.

  by FatFreek 2005 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the title should have read, "assault by a member toward another member".

  (unfortunately, i couldn't find a way to edit the title).

  you happen to be driving by what looks to be your own empty kingdom hall and something doesn't look quite right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  In a somewhat related issue, an elder angrily told my son (unbaptized, former publisher), "we are not the police, we are not the police, we are not the police!"

  This was in response to my son's question about the flood of illegal immigrants in that area of Tennessee. The elder told my son that the immigrants would quietly admit their status to the body before getting baptized but were told they could not have positions of responsibility in the congregation as long as they continued to be lawbreakers.

  Yet, they could become baptized! My question -- How exactly does that work?
  

  My son's reaction? He was appalled. Doesn't that place you in a judges position of deciding which laws are unjust and which are not. In other words, obey Caesar but only if you agree with Caesar.

  In the scenarios above, I suspect that the elders may be tempted to play the role of judge when it comes to making phone calls. I suspect that sexual assault may be low end on the totem pole of serious offenses.
• 
  25

  Australian Royal Commission mentions that G. Jackson was inconsistent

  by Daniel1555 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  it's great that the following is officially mentioned in the royal commission's report:.

  when asked if the governing body members saw themselves as ‘jehovah god’s spokespeople on earth’, mr geoffrey jackson answered that it ‘would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that god is using’.

  mr jackson’s response seems to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence before the royal commission, which shows that jehovah’s witnesses believe that the governing body is the ‘channel’ by which jehovah’s ‘will’ is communicated to them..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  The Royal Commission obviously didn't deserve the truth. So JW's can use their secret weapon -- tell a lie. Totally endorsed by The Watchtower.

  Does being truthful with others mean that we must disclose every detail to whoever asks us a question? Not necessarily. While on earth, Jesus demonstrated that some people are undeserving of a direct answer or of certain information. . . . Similarly today, Jehovah’s people need to be on guard against apostates and other wicked men who use trickery or cunning for selfish purposes. The Watchtower, 2009, 6/15 p. 17, par 6

  
  
• 
  13

  To all elders, some probing questions on assault by a member by another member.

  by FatFreek 2005 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the title should have read, "assault by a member toward another member".

  (unfortunately, i couldn't find a way to edit the title).

  you happen to be driving by what looks to be your own empty kingdom hall and something doesn't look quite right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  The title should have read, "assault by a member toward another member". (unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to edit the title)

  You happen to be driving by what looks to be your own empty Kingdom Hall and something doesn't look quite right. A shadowy figure is leaving one of the entrance doors and quickly goes to his vehicle and drives off. It's too dark to make out the person and the vehicle. Besides, there has been no crime, right?
  

  You decide to check things out. You have the key to the front door, open it, turn on the lights and you then find:
  

  Scenario 1: You find a young sister curled up on the floor in fetal position, sobbing. She tells you that she was just sexually assaulted by the young ministerial servant.
  

  Scenario 2: You find a young sister sitting on a chair, sobbing with her face in her hands. She lowers her hands which reveals one of her eyes is swollen and blackened. She tells you that her fiance, the young ministerial servant used her head as a punching bag.
  

  Scenario 3. You find a young sister laying on the floor, dead, with a knife buried in her chest.
  

  Please list the telephone calls you would make, and please put that list in sequence
  

  1. The local elders
     
  2. The Watchtower legal department
  3. The 911 operator (in the U.S.)
  4. The hospital for an ambulance.

  Is the sequence the same in all cases. If not, why not?

  Len
• 
  16

  I've been embarrassed so many times!

  by stillin in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i was kind of proud to go out in field service, most of the time.

  important message, straight from god to their doors, right?.

  but if you met with the group and didn't have previous arrangements, you could end up with the village idiot for a companion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  For many meetings, and since we had a large vehicle, we would pick up Dorothy, an elderly and mentally challenged sister. By the time we got to the Kingdom Hall our station wagon smelled like an outhouse. Those who went out in service with her reported that her personal hygiene was so bad they hated to accompany her to the door. I followed her (not too closely) into the hall one day and notice the crotch of her panty hose extended below the hem of her dress. (Reminds me of those "pants on the ground" thugs you see at shopping malls today.)
• 
  11

  I'm not the only one who sees the similarity am I?

  by NikL in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been thinking this for some time.

  we all know what this picture is.... .

  well, this is dachau concentration camp.... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  We all know what this picture is...

  Looks like good Photoshop work to me. However, the metaphor fits.

  
  
  
• 
  6

  "Watchtower Beliefs Clarified", JW.ORG site Ripe for the Picking.

  by FatFreek 2005 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i can just hear them now.

  oh, how wonderful that the faithful and discreet slave is by going to bat for us against those wicked apostates who are always trying to dig up mud, especially from the older publications.

  hey, they even go all the way back to the year 1870. hey, they even concede, with this timeline, the triple flip-flop of changes that the superior authorities teaching was changed to position no.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  I didn't see anything about blood fractions being permissable.

  I also didn't see anything about the allowance of organ transplants.
• 
  15

  Jehovah's Witnesses Crime Against Grammar

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so this is really starting to grate on me the more i think about it because it's just wrong grammatically.. one of my friends always refers to me used to being "a jehovah witness" which used to grate whenever she said it but now it seems more correct.. think about it this way: bruce springsteen has fans.

  they are fans of bruce springsteen or, bruce springsteen's fans.

  but each of them isn't a bruce springsteen's fan.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  I've watched several of the "Kim Mikey" videos (I suppose those are the first names of this husband / wife team -- a good team in my opinion). Mikey consistently uses the term "Jehovah Witnesses" and it grated on me at first -- and I've been out for some 39 years. However, you make a good argument that pluralized "Jehovah's Witnesses" is incorrect.

  Thanks.
• 
  6

  "Watchtower Beliefs Clarified", JW.ORG site Ripe for the Picking.

  by FatFreek 2005 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i can just hear them now.

  oh, how wonderful that the faithful and discreet slave is by going to bat for us against those wicked apostates who are always trying to dig up mud, especially from the older publications.

  hey, they even go all the way back to the year 1870. hey, they even concede, with this timeline, the triple flip-flop of changes that the superior authorities teaching was changed to position no.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  I can just hear them now. Oh, how wonderful that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is by going to bat for us against those wicked apostates who are always trying to dig up mud, especially from the older publications. Hey, they even go all the way back to the year 1870. Hey, they even concede, with this timeline, the triple flip-flop of changes that the Superior Authorities teaching was changed to position no. 2 in 1929, then to position no. 3 in 1962.

  Chalk one up for Watchtower. First, I have to applaud Watchtower for finally legitimizing the older publications because that is what this web page does. However, it gives us one more weapon when a JW uses that lame excuse as we show them some ridiculous or contradictory teaching published by them that is older than, say, the year 2000. "Oh, that's old truth and we only go by new truths."
  

  I say, Thanks, Watchtower -- cuz we don't have to listen to that alibi any longer.
  

  But that Superior Authorities blunder was just a token.
  

  A cursory search for a few of my favorite Watchtower blunders reveals the following:
  

  1. "The 1,260 Days". The Clarification site reveals a single change, that in 1993. However, here's a link to where some 5 years ago a compiled list revealed 10 different published Watchtower positions for when that time period began, and when it ended. I've since updated that table (but not published it) to include their very last change in 2014 (begins "1914", ends "early 1919").
  

  If you're counting, that makes 11 different published Watchtower positions for a single doctrinal position -- not 2, as Watchtower is claiming.
  

  2. Resurrection of the Sodomites. The Clarification site shows a single change, that in 1988. However, this essay shows 8 different published Watchtower positions beginning with 1879 when they first thought Sodomites would be resurrected. Each subsequent change over the years till 1988 reminds me of certain modern day politicians as they change their stance on some issue -- yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
  

  An abstract to the above essay link says that it was "designed for newly interested ones but JWs had better be prepared. More and more householders are asking the JW an embarrasing question contained herein. "The Great Watchtower Contradiction" exposes Watchtower by revealing the single most outrageous Watchtower contradiction that most of us (ex-JWs) have seen and that most JWs have not seen. It goes beyond the regular exposé by answering two vital questions: why they've contradicted themselves on this single issue and why most JWs are not even aware that it's happened. It does it from Watchtower's own publications and encourages the person to get their own WT Library CD for verification. It does it without arguing subjective doctrine, which, as you know is like talking to your cat. It's An 11 minute read, 19 minutes if you include all the supporting endnote references."
  

  Watchtower's attempt at clarification of changes shows that they are either ignorant of contradiction or blatantly and dishonestly put it aside. In either case, the spirit direction that their governing body is getting is clearly not the same as the one to which it lays claim.

  Len
• 
  22

  I Think I have Found a Way to Litigate

  by Simon Templar in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have been thinking about how the wtb&t society bullies all of its members into submission with the threats they use (by practice), i.e.

  “if you do this we will df you and you will be shunned”.

  “if you da yourself, we will make an announcement and your friends, relatives and family will abandon you”, etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Nathan Natas: ALL of us made a BAD DECISION when we "decided" to be baptized as JWs. At some point you just have to accept responsibility for you MISTAKES, FORGIVE YOURSELF . . .

  To those who did, in fact, get baptized -- that is true. However, not all who receive the shunning treatment have been baptized. Case in point is here on another thread that is running right now, Shunning & separation from family. There, the OP states:
  

  I was raised in JW as a child. My dad was a jw my mom was not, they are divorced now. I was never baptized or anything but I stopped going once I had the choice at age 12. Now I am 41 and my dad will not associate with me, my wife or my 3 kids.

  And his is not unusual. One of my sons, now 54, decided to not get baptized before leaving home. He continued to have a family relationship till a few years ago when they virtually cut him off, shunning included. I suspect that the org has put the hammer down -- even on unbaptized ones who had long exposure to Watchtower stuff -- not long ago.