the un has banned religion.
what are you're thoughts?.
also changes to it seem to be on the way.... http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/trump-vows-israel-vote-161224040133216.html.
Ha! Highly unlikely. You think Trump voters got wound up over immigration and feared that Obama was going to steal their guns? Try taking their Bibles and see what happens.
Even if the UN tried, let's face it-- it's the UN. The biggest, most bloated, least effective bureaucratic body on the planet. How many countries blatently ignore UN mandates left and right? The UN banning religion would have as much success as if it tried to ban McDonalds.
a circuit overseer friend of mine serving in latin america called me today to say hi.
i asked him what's new and he dropped the news that they have received notification that the branch in mexico will be closing!!
this branch also called the central american branch (although located in mexico) oversees all of mexico's 800,000+ publishers plus all 7 countries of central america of over 100,000 publishers.
Interesting. If this turns out to be true, I wonder if the circuit overseers will stop rotating to new geographies every few years...thinking of the old "city overseer" role. If that were the case, being a CO would be similar to the role a bishop fills in Catholic Archdiocese. Basically the head elder of 10-20 congregations.
if you're looking for something new to watch, i can really recommend this show.
it's on netflix and there is a new series starting soon.
don't let "series" put you off - they are only 3 or 6 episodes long.. how to describe it?.
We've watched every single episode and love it! Reminded us both of an updated Twilight Zone.
i have two questions about warwick.
see the picture included.
1) at the other side of the lake you see other buildings.
"That said, I'm still not sure why they bought MORE property. They have a TON of unused land in Wallkill and Patterson."
I asked a family member who's reasonably high up the Brooklyn (now Warwick) chain that very question.
His response?:
First: "Deer-in-the-headlights" look. Could tell it hadn't ever crossed his mind.
Second: "I'm sure that's just what made the most sense. We don't always have access to all the facts that go into these decisions."
after reading some experiences, i have found that this organization has had quite a big change in its operations within the last decade.
back when i was talking to the ocassional witnesses at a local hotspot i remember some of them having respectable intelligence.
what i want to know though is those who have been aquainted with who they felt were more educated and independent in thinking, how they handled the rapid changes.
We were just talking about this subject last night as a couple. We'd just found out that a married couple we liked, respected, and classified as of a higher intelligence than the average JW, recently and dramatically "dropped off the grid". Apparently they encountered something regarding the Org's history/practices that gave them pause. No one seems to know anything more because everyone is being told by elders to not ask them their reasons, or listen to them if they reach out to you. Our close friends who gave us this update are "intelligent", but their response is: "we don't want to know; we CAN'T know what it was" (ignorance is bliss).
As a couple we discussed how, not that every "intelligent" JW is leaving, it's that those that are leaving are the "intelligent" ones and that the remaining intelligent ones are coping by sticking their collective heads in the sand/fingers in their ears. My other half who is not (yet?) in exactly the same place as my mind, expressed quite a bit of concern over what that meant for those of us who are still "in".
is it wrong to change religions?w59 5/15 305-307 (bold mine):.
chances are you did not choose the religion you profess but you inherited it from your parents.
comparatively few persons actually make their own choice of a form of worship.
Awake 1970 April 22, Page 8: (note the irony for witnesses and "New Light")
Wow. First time I've seen that quote. That would be an interesting one to put on a billboard (albeit a bit too long) near every RC site.
okay team,.
some family friends who are engaged are getting some flack around the particulars of their wedding ceremony (surprise!
"strain out the gnat, gulp down the camel", and all that).
"In our State, anyone designated by the church can perform legal weddings. WTS says that it must be an Elder."
Any ideas where the WTS says it must be an Elder? WT, QFR, BOE letter or otherwise?
any elder has never asked me that question so far but i want to be prepared to answer that question if any of them ask me that question in the future.
i hope that they will never ask me that question.
any suggestions on how to answer that question would be very much appreciated.
Maybe just combine Geoff Jackson's ARC response with the now famous Feb 2017 WT quote (obviously without citing either at first):
"Exclusively? That's a great question. It would be presumptuous to think that. After all, if the GB is not inspired or infallible, it can err in doctrine and direction of the organization. Do you agree, Br. Inquisition?"
Only cite your sources after they challenge your response.
okay team,.
some family friends who are engaged are getting some flack around the particulars of their wedding ceremony (surprise!
"strain out the gnat, gulp down the camel", and all that).
"I was told that there are written instructions to the BOE on this."
In my search of historical posts, I saw reference to this as well. However, I've not yet been able to find the letter in question...lost of searching on JWleaks, JWArchive, etc., but to no avail.
okay team,.
some family friends who are engaged are getting some flack around the particulars of their wedding ceremony (surprise!
"strain out the gnat, gulp down the camel", and all that).
Thanks for all the feedback everyone.
Thankfully for the couple, they live in a state where there is little or no requirement for the offiiciant, so no worries from a legal perspective. I suspect whoever they choose will simply have to run the same JW-elder gaunlet verbal beating afterward that Tech49 was just subjected to. One of the good things about the speaker not being an elder or MS is there's no real sanction some self-righteous elder body can impose on him afterward.
