She was raised a JW and still is. Lives in NYC and just married a brother, James Conran (born in the UK, but raised mostly in Michigan) this past year. They attend a hall on the Upper East Side.
respectful_observer
JoinedPosts by respectful_observer
-
6
Canadian top model a JW?
by behemot ini read somewhere that this top model is a witness:.
http://www.coco-rocha.com/.
anybody can confirm?.
-
-
-
69
KS Blood-Handout s-55-e (PDF)!!!
by yknot inwe interrupt your forum posting for this 'just in' item...... it appears an elder has not locked his doctor's bag and a member of the conscious class has brazeningly swiped & scanned a copy of the s-55e.
(((thank you anonymous cc jw!.
for the purpose of our bethel audience i want to assure you no actual elder was willingly involved in the obtaining of this scan.. link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/mnf7a0.
-
-
respectful_observer
"Some physicians or hospitals...will not give 100 percent assurance that they will not use blood...Nevertheless, when a cooperative doctor has performed similar procedures without blood in the past, he may assure parents that he will do everything he can to avoid using blood. Under this circumstance, parents may conclude that this is their best option. If they grant permission for treatment, parents should make it clear in writing that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion for their child...this would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."
I find this paragraph facinating for three reasons:
1. The WTS is putting in writing that a parent's "best option" may be to grant written permission for treatment to a doctor who "will do everything he can to avoid using blood."
- The WTS lawyers carefully worded these statements. The legal construct used here is intentional. It's legal meaning is that parents are permitted to consent, in writing, to treatment that they acknowledge may include the use of blood.
2. The parents are directed to also put in writing "that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion".
- Again, the legal construct used by the WTS is intentional. It lays the foundation for the following statement, that "this [consenting to treatment that may include the use of blood after the doctor has done "everything he can"] would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."
3. Thinking back the legal compromise made in Bulgaria: "The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."
- This new KS Blood handount seems to be carefully aligning all of its blood policies to comply with any potential future legal/human rights challenges.
This paragraph is, to me, the most significant portion of the entire KM Blood handout. The WTS is permitting parents to consent to treatment that may involve blood, yet it does so in way that the parents will not suffer any sanction by the congregation since it is "not viewed by the congregation as a comprimise. This paragraph protects the WTS's legal reputation to the authorities, yet allows it to protect its spiritual reputation to members.
I'm sure many here will disagree, but I see this new handout as yet another way they are SLOWLY loosening their stance on the use of blood. (I think we all understand the legal/organizational implications of what would happen if they did it quickly, or even in a way that was perceptable to members.) Whether they're doing it out of a legal need, or whether they're doing it out of a recognition that their previous stance was not correct is up for debate. But anytime the WTS puts in writing that consent to treatment that may result in the use of blood will not result in any sanction, it's undeniable what direction the WTS is moving in.
-
104
KM (Elder School) Brief Highlights
by XBEHERE inbesides the usual drivel there were a couple interesting things.
1. an entire 1 hour discourse on helping our children become little innocent martyrs for the wt via.
their flawed and unreasonable blood doctrine.
-
-
respectful_observer
SIAM, many thanks for posting points 1-8.
In one of your follow-up posts you mention that a review of an appointed man's qualification only occurs when there has been wronging, weakness, or a lapse in judgement. Am I understanding you correctly that the GB categorizes a father allowing his child to pursue higher education (or promoting it) as "a lapse in judgement"?
-
104
KM (Elder School) Brief Highlights
by XBEHERE inbesides the usual drivel there were a couple interesting things.
1. an entire 1 hour discourse on helping our children become little innocent martyrs for the wt via.
their flawed and unreasonable blood doctrine.
-
-
respectful_observer
XBEHERE, SIAM, or anyone else that can clarify by their attendance at the KM School, my questions below?
It was stated that:
"...even to the point of listing for a series of questions that the other elders would ask if a child of an appointed man were to have children go to college. They did a total 180 on their "policy" and are 100% against higher education in any form"; and
"There are 10 questions that elders were asked to write down to review an appointed man's qualifications. If your kid goes to college there is a likelihood that you will be removed."
1. Could you post the 10 questions that the elders were asked to write down? I'm eager to see how they differ from the set of questions printed in the Elder book that are required to be asked of those who are newly appointed. I'm curious to know why they didn't want those particular questions put into print as being officially from the WTS.
2. Was the message of being "100% against higher education in any form" more severe (or more specific) than the direction provided through the COs to elders via the letter about a year ago? My recollection was that the appointed man's qualifications may be called into question if his child attended a 4-year program away from home, or if the student's chosen 4-year major didn't have a direct connection to a specific job skill/trade. I would be interested to see if they've either:
a.) added firm rules to these parameters, or
b.) if they've issued further/new direction regarding ANY higher education, including 2-year programs, or attending a 4-year program while remaining at home.
Thanks,
R_O
-
30
As Far as JW's and Thanksgiving go...
by OnTheWayOut init's one of the most confusing holidays to jw's.
it doesn't specify who to give thanks to, it's a u.s. holiday that is semi-patriotic and semi-religious but not necessarily either one.. i suppose jw's should go out of their way to avoid giving thanks this thursday so jehovah doesn't get pissed at them for being so slightly normal worldly and maybe accidentally smite them if armageddon starts this thursday..
-
-
respectful_observer
@ james_woods: "I think they are just stick-in-the-mud control freaks and cannot stand seeing anybody have a good time."
I think you're onto something! I often wonder what would be said should a bunch of young Bethelites start celebrating Festivus on December 23rd in their rooms...having Festivus poles, "the Airing of Grievances", "Feats of Strength", etc.
I can only imagine the scriptural references telling us why it's wrong: sacred poles are bad, we should hold our tongues, wrestling the head of the house shows disrespect toward the family arrangement and thereby disrespect toward Jesus as head of the congregation.
Sorry, I hope this doesn't hijack the thread, but whoever it is on this forum who writes parody QFR's....I'd love to see him/her write one up as to why it would be improper for Christians to observe Festivus.
-
30
As Far as JW's and Thanksgiving go...
by OnTheWayOut init's one of the most confusing holidays to jw's.
it doesn't specify who to give thanks to, it's a u.s. holiday that is semi-patriotic and semi-religious but not necessarily either one.. i suppose jw's should go out of their way to avoid giving thanks this thursday so jehovah doesn't get pissed at them for being so slightly normal worldly and maybe accidentally smite them if armageddon starts this thursday..
-
-
respectful_observer
I think it all depends on the area where you live. I've encountered some JWs who wouldn't eat a turkey on Thursday just out of principle. But I know of plenty (myself included) who have no problem with that. In fact, my Wednesday night and Thursday morning will be spend prepping a large turkey and all the sides for guests-- elders and pioneers included. No one's dressing up like Pilgrims or American Indians (that I know of), but we all realize it's a perfect day to enjoy everyone's company and that it doesn't matter what type of food we eat. It just so happens that turkey is a very economical way to feed a large group...and what do you know, they were on sale at the grocery store this week!
I think it speaks to an issue that arises on this forum fairly often-- that for as many "fundamentalist" JWs that are out there, there are an ever-increasing number of JWs that see the dangers of being consumed by hard-and-fast (pharisaical) rules that frankly are difficult (or impossible) to support from the Bible. Just as long as my guests wash up to the elbows before they eat, my conscience will be clean...
-
17
any active or inactive jw from Massachusetts
by TheLoveDoctor inany active or inactive jw from massachusetts.
-
-
respectful_observer
Born in MA and have lived here most of my life.
-
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
@ leavingwt...Do you believe that WT is 'God's Oragnization'?
.........................
I think I read that question out of a book somewhere once! LOL!
Seriously though, I come here strictly to observe (hence my screen name). I try never to inject my own thinking or feelings on spiritual matters into the conversation. Those that do and feel it's helpful to themselves and others, I respect them. For those that don't, I respect them as well.
That's one of the wonderful things about this forum, it allows people from every point on the spectrum to speak as they truely wish.
-
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
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.)
-
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".