Wonderful, thanks for the clarification and insight into your view!
I'll classify myself as "an active JW who's normal and somewhat active on the board." (I keep very up-to-date with it, but only occassionaly feel the need to weigh in.)
respectful_observer
JoinedPosts by respectful_observer
-
51
Has there, or are there any normal pro-WT members on this forum? As in mentally stable, anybody?
by miseryloveselders infirst off, forgive me if i'm guilty of being judgemental.
i got my own fair share of mental problems.
it goes without saying that a bunch of us on this forum are misfits and freaks.
-
-
-
51
Has there, or are there any normal pro-WT members on this forum? As in mentally stable, anybody?
by miseryloveselders infirst off, forgive me if i'm guilty of being judgemental.
i got my own fair share of mental problems.
it goes without saying that a bunch of us on this forum are misfits and freaks.
-
-
respectful_observer
Sorry, I had interpreted "active JWs on this board" as meaning that they were "active JWs" in the congregational sense rather than the frequency of posting.
I didn't see any overt reference is MLE's thread title and post to the frequency of posting, only phrases like "...members on this forum...", "...does it go without saying that the only people on this board...", "I'm yet to see a proJW on this board who's somewhat normal...", "... the makeup of this board...", etc.
MLE could you clarify?
Sab, if I inferred incorrectly, I respectful withdraw myself from consideration as a "normal active JW on this forum".
-
51
Has there, or are there any normal pro-WT members on this forum? As in mentally stable, anybody?
by miseryloveselders infirst off, forgive me if i'm guilty of being judgemental.
i got my own fair share of mental problems.
it goes without saying that a bunch of us on this forum are misfits and freaks.
-
-
respectful_observer
Hmmm...I would consider myself normal, credible, and mentally stable. I'm educated, professionally employed, well-liked, and socially involved with the JWs that I know.
I am an active JW and don't consider myself "on the way out" in any sense of the word. Do I think that everything and everyone is perfect in the organization? No. Do I think that there are plenty of crazy people in it that follow it in cult-like fashion? Yes. Do I think everyone in it is like that? No.
I would agree that anyone who comes here to be actively "pro JW" may be a bit touched in the head, since most others arrive here precisely because they are unhappy with some aspect of "the Org". What good does it come here to debate someone who has such a fundamentally opposite viewpoint on this religion? It seems too often to disolve into personal attacks and name-calling.
I simply find it interesting to see the different perspectives represented on this board-- call it intellectual curiousity.
-
25
Is the WT going to move on this leak?
by wheelwithinwheel ini'm sure the legal, public relations and other depts.
are all asking the gb how to handle this situation.
and i'm convinced the gb is scratching it's head trying to decipher j's spirit direction in all of this.
-
-
respectful_observer
Personally I'd be surprised if any news organization would have interest in this. I could be wrong, but something that affects 0.5% of the population usually doesn't make for awfully compelling news.
I imagine that the WTS will still continue its efforts to remove it from file-sharing sites, but that's about it. Perhaps a reminder letter to each CoBE, and maybe a stern reminder during the CO visit and the elders' meeting at the SAD/CA, but nothing else.
For the WTS, it only becomes a big deal if they start treating it like one. The more action they take-- or the more they say-- the more it will take on "urban legend" status in the organization. It's in their interests to simply downplay the importance of it to everyone.
-
35
What is "Brazen" conduct according to new 'Shepherd the Flock of God' book
by TastingFreedom inwhat is brazen conduct according to the watchtower?.
here are some references from the new flock book:.
they have really pushed the envelope to bundle a bunch of things into one really evil word.
-
-
respectful_observer
"Consider other examples: ....there is strong circumstantial evidence and there may be elements of brazen conduct. The innocent mate's conscience may allow [him or] her to choose to divorce and remarry; the elders would not take action against [him or] her for making this decision."
Wow... this is a change (I know first-hand it's gone back and forth over the decades). Oh, how my life would have been different. What a difference just a couple of years makes.
Reading this probably just ruined my day.
-
21
Joel P. Engardio's article on JWs (Washington Post)
by behemot injehovah's witnesses: a model for church and state begin blogger thumbs end blogger thumbs by joel p. engardio.
if i'm ever allowed to legally marry, my mother won't attend my wedding.. i'm a gay man and my mom is one of jehovah's witnesses.
to remain true to her faith, she can't in good conscience be part of a same-sex marriage celebration.
-
-
respectful_observer
I personally find it fascinating to read Mr. Engardio's perspective in the Post, or occassionally hear on NPR. I suspect that he hasn't personally endured many of the trials of so many on this site, but I think he exemplifies what respectful and intelligent debate should be. He understands that very few people on either side of this arguement will completely agree with him, but it seems that one of his continuous messages is that just because people may have fundamentally different core beliefs, we can still show genuine respect to one another. Anyone who espouses that gains my attention and respect-- if only because it's too rare in society today.
I hope that others follow his example and realize that someone who is willing to highlight the positive aspects of a movement that they don't personally support doesn't hurt them; it makes them a stronger, more understanding person.
-
66
KS10 Chapter Two Discussion
by yknot incontinuing onward into chapter two (as directed by the boe ltr dated aug 23, 2010) of "shepherding the flock of god" a publication by the non profit organizatin known as the wts of penn & ny as part of their for donation only bible educational work.. for those of interested in chapter one discussion please see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
chapter two discusses the various titles within the boe.. subtitles are:.
2) elder's meetings.
-
-
respectful_observer
M_J_N_M... you highlight an interesting point that I'm sure many may agree with.
-
66
KS10 Chapter Two Discussion
by yknot incontinuing onward into chapter two (as directed by the boe ltr dated aug 23, 2010) of "shepherding the flock of god" a publication by the non profit organizatin known as the wts of penn & ny as part of their for donation only bible educational work.. for those of interested in chapter one discussion please see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/200524/1/ks10-chapter-one-discussion.
chapter two discusses the various titles within the boe.. subtitles are:.
2) elder's meetings.
-
-
respectful_observer
Yknot, your commitment to making organizational/judicial structure as "open source" as possible reminds me of how egalitarian the first-century congregation was (I can only imagine). Far from the clergy/laity separation ("special knowlege") that's so openly embraced in most faiths.
Since I can't access the file-sharing sites at work, I haven't seen them. That being said, from reading the old book, there likely aren't very many "secrets" in this new one. It was true with the old one that most material could be found elsewhere in "public" literature. I can understand the desire to consolidate this information into one easy-to-reference book for the elders, but why this type of extreme secrecy and control? It just unnecessarily leads to exactly what is going on here and provides ample ammunition to anyone that argues that there is a clergy/laity separation.
Plus, for those going through the judicial process, knowing that only the elders have this "secret" book, encourages them to feel that the deck is already stacked against them-- that they're being judged against a set of rules that they don't even have access to. Just my two cents...
-
29
2010 partakers.... lets bet!
by cyberjesus inlets see who gets closer to the number.
bets will end when the new yearbook is ready (when is that?).
i say 11000.
-
-
respectful_observer
I don't remember seeing any published explanation when they stopped publishing the monthly Service Report specifics in the KMs (unless I missed it). I would expect a similar approach with this.
-
29
2010 partakers.... lets bet!
by cyberjesus inlets see who gets closer to the number.
bets will end when the new yearbook is ready (when is that?).
i say 11000.
-
-
respectful_observer
....I'd say there is a 75% chance they pull the plug on the number this year...
I'm leading a little more toward 50/50 myself! But if they do publish it this year, it will be one of the last times. They either won't offer any published explanantion, or they'll address it word-of-mouth through DO/CO's-- that because none of us can judge the validity of another's partaking, publishing the number really only encourages needless (and potentially harmful) speculation.