so the wt society is going to contest the recent norway ruling.. jehovah’s witnesses to appeal unconstitutional ruling in norway (jw.org).
their true colours are shown in the statement: "the decision to deregister jehovah’s witnesses denies us the financial aid and other benefits that the government provides to over 700 registered religious communities in the country.
additional consequences include losing the right to appoint and authorize ministers of jehovah’s witnesses as officiants for weddings.".
I remember seeing a clip of a GB member whinging about the Norway decision.
That was AM III of course on the 2022 GB update #8.
2022 Governing Body Update #8 (jw.org)
He clearly said they would not change their beliefs because of government pressure.
What happened? Within 3 months AM III had gone and change is taking place.
Money changes everything!
George
so the wt society is going to contest the recent norway ruling.. jehovah’s witnesses to appeal unconstitutional ruling in norway (jw.org).
their true colours are shown in the statement: "the decision to deregister jehovah’s witnesses denies us the financial aid and other benefits that the government provides to over 700 registered religious communities in the country.
additional consequences include losing the right to appoint and authorize ministers of jehovah’s witnesses as officiants for weddings.".
So the WT Society is going to contest the recent Norway ruling.
Jehovah’s Witnesses to Appeal Unconstitutional Ruling in Norway (jw.org)
Their true colours are shown in the statement: "The decision to deregister Jehovah’s Witnesses denies us the financial aid and other benefits that the government provides to over 700 registered religious communities in the country. Additional consequences include losing the right to appoint and authorize ministers of Jehovah’s Witnesses as officiants for weddings."
George
regarding the poster from jw headquarters, who claimed that the gb would eventually loosen the rules regarding sex.
the question is, is there really a bible rule explicitly prohibiting sex without marriage?
because this would be the only possible reason why loosening those rules would even come up in a discussion.
I vaguely remember a situation many years ago in a country where divorce was not allowed. A JW couple split up and one of them went and lived with someone else and was disfellowshipped. The innocent party could not get a divorce in order to remarry according to the law but was free to marry according to WT dogma.
The outcome was that the innocent party was told they could live with the new love without being disfellowshipped but would need to accept any negative feedback from people in the area.
Someone may remember this case and fill in some more details and the country involved.
George
I'm sure it's an age thing but I cannot understand why a guy would want to wear earrings or other piercings nor have his body tattooed other than maybe an anchor on his forearms if ex-navy!
George
i am thinking that the "ten year plan" that some have spoken of is the most likely scenario.
the org.
has to both attract new members and retain as many existing ones as possible.. so i think they will let the recent changes "bed in" for a while, maybe a year ?
Whoever came up with the overlapping generations crap is a world-class idiot.
I thought that was David Splane. We haven't seen much of him of late.
George
last night the subject of simony reared its head.
there was a picture (artists impression) of the event resembling a bunch of clean-cut americans in fancy dress busy performing or observing miracles.
in the foreground offering a bribe to join in is simon.
all this recent new light etc has everyone talking but none of it is that unusual here in ireland.
i've been df'd for 15 years, my parents started talking to me again when i had my first child nearly 13 years ago now.
last year my sister in law started talking to me again also, at the one meeting i attended last year quite a few people chatted to me and said hello.. i'm just wondering if all this is only a big deal in the usa or is this neck of the woods just particularly rebellious anyway?
In the 1970's I had a beard for years. Nobody ever said anything about it nor did it impact on anything I did in the congregation such as talks etc. I have read on here also about having a practical car that can take others out in FS. I had two seaters and remember the laughs we had extracting the 80+ year old PO after giving him a lift.
My wife regularly wore trousers to the meetings and in FS, it could be very cold "up North"!
My current congregation must be very apathetic, I have never heard any comments about the changes, we will see if anything is said after this evening's item. As for AM III's involvement in any of this, I doubt if many of them even know who he is or was.
George
i am sure we were all shocked at the governing body update #2 with the unusual and impulsive changes set forth.. i am an insider at whq, and when i was on reddit and in communication with avoidjw i explained to the best of my ability that the approach on disfellowshipping was going to change based on the new light at the 2023 agm, that the jubilee rumor was false, and there were going to be changes on how jws approached disfellowshipping in response to the norway situation if it didn't turn out in watchtower's favor.
the decision came because of a legal blow to watchtower, not because "holy spirit" wad directing a faithful slave, who is going to become the "evil slave", more explanation on this soon.. everything i stated came true.
i left reddit exjw community due to the immature and mentally unstable nature there, and yet as has been the case my words came true.
I am very unlikely to live for another 10 years. That is a real shame as I would dearly like to see these changes taking place. Possibly my wife will see them, I hope she is not too upset by them.
Thanks for posting
George
i know they're panicking and trying to gain favor with governments, former members, prospective converts & those who are teetering, all for financial worries.
still, the latest update in some ways made things worse, and if there's any jws watching it who are beginning to wake up it should be very disturbing.. starting with dress codes: they say that suits, ties & skirts are no longer required, but in so doing they admit that they were required, something not often appearing as an explicit command in print.
(similar to how lett referred to the "policy on beards" in his video, even though this direct policy wasn't made available to rank and file.
Howzabout a spare tie and jacket and a velcro looong wrap skirt in the back room. Just in case.
I remember when a few congregations in my area had spare WHITE SHIRTS ready in case a visiting speaker turned up with a non-approved coloured shirt. I would have told them what to do with their second hand shirt!
George
i know they're panicking and trying to gain favor with governments, former members, prospective converts & those who are teetering, all for financial worries.
still, the latest update in some ways made things worse, and if there's any jws watching it who are beginning to wake up it should be very disturbing.. starting with dress codes: they say that suits, ties & skirts are no longer required, but in so doing they admit that they were required, something not often appearing as an explicit command in print.
(similar to how lett referred to the "policy on beards" in his video, even though this direct policy wasn't made available to rank and file.
I don’t think “slacks” is a word in the UK.
The GB forget there is a world outside of the US. As SBF said we don't use "slacks", we use the the word "trousers" here, both for men and women. As for "pants", I am currently wearing some very racy ones my wife bought me recently, but UNDER my trousers I hasten to add!
George
