hi, does anyone know which watchtower says not to disfellowship if someone has a transfusion?
something about that person disassociated themselves so there is no need for dfing?
Claudia,
There is no WT that says this. I read it first on H2O almost a year ago, got the info officially during the CO's visit about 3 months ago, and some elders still dont know. Publishers dont have a clue.
It was released to the world by the society but nothing in print yet other than the letter to CO's shared with elers during his visit.
jst2laws
i was just wondering about most of you guys.
since you aren't jws anymore, what are your beliefs now?
have you rejected the bible as a whole?
Flowerpetal,
What a mess of variety here. If we still believe the Watchtower we are dogs returning to our own vomit.
I personally wonder if we as a whole are not more diverse in our beliefs now than before we became JWs. I personally am in flux. I see good things in JW’s that originally attracted me, but too much wrong to overlook. I haven't left yet but wonder should I wait for them to change? A good change started in 1970’s but since 1980 we took a strong turn to the right. I would be long gone but there are a lot of good people here and a few I feel compeled to protect if I can. But I believe in God and the Bible (although Farkel about destroyed me with his ‘arbitrary god’ post last week). I likewise believe there must be a congregation of God, at least united in some common beliefs and bonded in love and faith.
It is hard to withdraw from one extreme without tending to swing to the other extreme. I don’t know where I’m am for sure, but I know I’m swinging.
Jst2laws
reading responses to casper reminded me of our recent meeting with the co. he kept using the phrase this is what mama wants.
it seemed to be applied whenever anyone with common sense would have objected to what was being said or done.
however it was not employed by the co to excuse himself of responsibility but to give unquestionable authority to what he was saying.
bluesapphire
Oh would I like to respond. But at this point I'm cowardly protecting myself. It was not violating any scriptural law but a matter of pushing policy to the point of completely ignoring the law of love. I have heard the phrase before in evaluating brothers for appointment as servants and nit-picking a person to pieces. Let me just say it was similar in this case. Whether it is congregation programs or judicial matters the phrase as employed as a blanket of loyalty. Sorry for lack of details
jst2laws
reading responses to casper reminded me of our recent meeting with the co. he kept using the phrase this is what mama wants.
it seemed to be applied whenever anyone with common sense would have objected to what was being said or done.
however it was not employed by the co to excuse himself of responsibility but to give unquestionable authority to what he was saying.
Reading responses to Casper reminded me of our recent meeting with the CO. He kept using the phrase “this is what Mama wants”. It seemed to be applied whenever anyone with common sense would have objected to what was being said or done. However it was not employed by the CO to excuse himself of responsibility but to give unquestionable authority to what he was saying. Another elder and I caught each other rolling our eyes.
This one really stinks because it is not even a direct WT teaching but seems to be a service department original, yet appears to be saying turn off your mind and your conscience and do what you are told. How could Ephesians 5:23 be so ignored: “Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body”. Where does “Mama” fit in? Remember, this is coming from someone who still thinks, despite the harm and oppressive control, there is enough good to salvage something here.
Jst2laws
to all those who have in some way left the organization (be it disfellowshipping, disassociating, dis-whatever):.
come now, i know the amount of people who "realized that wt doctrine was in serious error" and politely handed in their letter of resignation has to be very small.
the level of bitterness and hostility towards the closest-to-what's-biblical organization has to develop some other way.. what did you do?
StiLLinTruth
“Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah! -Psalm 144:15”
You refer to that quote as if you are the only one here who worships the true God, Jehovah. Your statements are so dogmatic I wonder if you are for real. This is not the way Jesus reasoned with his opponents. Sounds more like the Pharisees. If you are for real the people here will be there for you when your eyes are opened. And I’m not a bitter ex-Jw kicked out who “forget about any Christian moral”. I’m an elder, maybe in your congregation, who hopes you open your mind and heart and learn to be more Christ-like.
Jst2laws
this is my first post in any network such as this.
i have been "lurking" around the "apostate" sites for the last year or so.
i am glad i have!
Thirty years, Truman,Terally and Mole,
I too just started posting a little over a week ago. I’m still serving as an elder, unless the CO gets his way. That’s a story to tell when the dust settles. But we all have interesting stories. I just wanted to suggest we are careful of two things:
1 We cannot share what we learn here with anyone local. You have probably already read several disaster stories due to that. I have been dropping little clues on my wife such as, “why do you think it is that we don’t baptize in the ‘name of the father, the son and the holy spirit’?”
2 My second concern you may not subscribe to. Accepting reality does not mean loosing God. Some here have doubts even about God. As you have observed, however, nearly all are kind and concerned. I personally belief I have learned a lot of good from the WT society. It stimulated me far beyond my Baptist experience. But now we see what we have been drawn into and we are looking for ways to get back out. But getting out does not mean we leave spirituality. I believe, as others have proven, we can back away as more spiritual persons than we have ever been. Bible reading, prayer and your personal relationship with God should actually improve because now all the wrong motives are removed and you are walking away from ‘dead works’.
This is just theory considering it is coming from a 35 year dupe who hasn’t left yet.
Jst2laws
jehovahs witnesses are lovely people, i should know - i officially still am one ... but ... although their great cult leader, judge joseph rutherford, banned them from taking part in the evil pagan celebrations of birthdays and such, there is one ceremony that is ridgedly and solemly adhered to.
the anual celebration of the "lords evening meal".
as most here are aware, each nissan14, kingdom halls around the world are packed to the collection boxes with the 'happiest people on earth'.
This has just occurred to a friend as we read this thread and I may later regret this comment but thought I would just drop the thought. I am introducing a friend, an elder, to this web site and in reading this thread he raised this thought. Out of all the good Christians who at this time of year are interested in commemorating Christ’s sacrificial death, one group of over 14 million attendees will meet around the world on the same night and will, in nearly every congregation, simply watch the emblems passed by without actually partaking. As pointed out here all but about 8000 of these attendees will reject those emblems instead of doing “this in remembrance of me”.
On the most important evening of the year who is more disrespectful of the sacrifice than those who come just to refuse it. This rejection of the emblems could be viewed as rejecting Christ, as the emblems represent the flesh and blood of the Christ. Yet who in the scriptures so rejects the Christ except the “antichrist”? I hope he is wrong but I agreed to post his question.
Jst2laws
you said, "so would it be wrong to accept the fact that the wts, despite its flaws, has many good scriptural truths to share.".
i think most of us accept that the wts has done some good, but as the years pass, i find that the good i thought they did is getting less and less, and more importantly, the harm caused is getting greater than i could possibly imagine.. you continued, "can we reject what they have pressed to the world: god has a name, his kingdom is to solve mans problems, the earth is to become a paradise as god purposed, man will live endlessly on earth as intended, those who died will return in a resurrection of the dead rather that burn in hell, and this good news is to be preached in all the earth.".
at this point in my life, after 25 years of being a jw and now an ex-jw, i find their message, its very root concepts, pure fantasy that may not necessarily god's will.
Amazing,
I have really neglected your posts. I am so new and overwhelmed this last week-end I’m sorry I did not get to this. You, however, have got a lot of compliments from others.
Lets first say, while I mentioned many things the WTS has done, I added in my first post they have not necessarily done it ‘just so’. I agree with you there is no basis for a ‘central government’ concept of the kingdom. I believe the kingdom of the heavens is just that, not of this earth. God ruled from heavens before a kingship was established on earth, against God’s wishes, and only in imitation of worldly nations around God’s people.
(1 Sam. 8:4-18) If “government experimentation” is an issue at all it should be to demonstrate that ”man has dominated man to his injury” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) No exceptions, not even for a human run alleged ‘theocracy’. I think the WTS theocracy alone demonstrates this Bible fact.
That’s why I said in that original post that we may not understand what the kingdom is, but to the irritation of the world of mankind, JW’s have been preaching it, putting the issue in front of people. We would probably not be here debating the kingdom – whether or not it is this or that, if it were not for the preaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses. To the Catholics it has come and gone. To the Baptist it is a condition of the heart, which up till now is a pretty defunct kingdom.
You made many good points, but more that I can address. Its late and must work tomorrow. I will try to pay closer attention in the future. Sorry for taking so long Amazing.
Jst2laws
we hopefully all agree it is wrong to reject an entire race because we have found one of its member to be flawed, or to reject an entire concept an the basis of finding a flaw in its argument.
would not fair people look for a way to accept the good in the concept, modify the flawed portion and rejoice in what was gained from the refined concept?
it would also be wrong, as the wt does, to reject an entire institution because some of its precepts are flawed.
To all,
In my second anxiety filled post to this board I said to I-Ching,
I anticipate a beating. I try to see some good in all things. I appreciate the many things I have learned as a JW. I came from a religion that is at least as tainted in corruption and false teachings, even conspiracy to hide the truth as is also true of the WTBTS, yet I appreciate what I learned from both. Show me a perfect religion and I'm ready to jump. My faith is based in the Bible, which gives me appreciation for what I have learned as a Witness but also puts me at odds with the borg. Even if I am caught and expelled, I cannot deny that I have learned much from Jehovah's Witnesses. So I risk a beating from my brothers, as well as a 'crash course' from friends here. I'm not ignorant of the facts but expect disapproval from both sides.
Who well be the kinder?
_____________________________________________________________________
I am still looking for good in everything, but I certainly didn’t get the “beating” I anticipated. I hope this will be my last post on this thread, but I wanted to thank you all for the kind dialog and stimulation. While I will not always be this active in participation I will be here learning and occasionally tossing in a thought.
When I feel up to it I have some other threads just wanting out. Thanks all.
Jst2laws
we hopefully all agree it is wrong to reject an entire race because we have found one of its member to be flawed, or to reject an entire concept an the basis of finding a flaw in its argument.
would not fair people look for a way to accept the good in the concept, modify the flawed portion and rejoice in what was gained from the refined concept?
it would also be wrong, as the wt does, to reject an entire institution because some of its precepts are flawed.
Farkel,
Yes, thanks. I found this about May of last year, read it, printed it and studied it like a WT study ariticle.(not all habit are bad) Also read Ray's chapter on blood twice.
Now to my chief concern, the one I mentioned last night. I tried to e-mail you but your address is locked. E-mail me and let me know how to reach you about that concern.
jst2laws
