this letter was sent to all congregations in ecuador (south america).. the translation into english of the letter:.
to body ofelders.
subject: publisher who did not report field service time in the second semester of service year.. dear brothers:.
This ambition led to a fanatic policy of counting, making lists and conducting censuses."
Hmmm...this reminds of someone else who was eager to do a census of the people.
1 Chron 21:
21 Then Satan* stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel.+ 2 So David said to Jo′ab+ and the chiefs of the people: “Go, count Israel from Be′er-she′ba to Dan;+ then report to me so that I may know their number.
this letter was sent to all congregations in ecuador (south america).. the translation into english of the letter:.
to body ofelders.
subject: publisher who did not report field service time in the second semester of service year.. dear brothers:.
Back on topic, what a weird letter. If they've had 5 consecutive peaks, why are they so convinced that there are so many "missing" reports?
I was wondering the same thing.
No matter what, this letter and the similar letter sent to Polish congregations are downright scary.
i have heard that phrase several times on the jw broadcast, uttered by gb members!
"the governing body has asked me to bring to your attention (whatever)".
aren't you the governing body?
I've read more direct info on the subject than what I linked to below, but basically the theory is that when a person want to claim credit, they're much more likely to use words like "I", whereas someone who wants to deflect responsibility is much more likely to use a pronoun like "we", or third party pronouns.
I heard a story on NPR where a professor listed to recordings of CFO's quarterly investor calls. When the CFO used "I" when discussing his/her views of the company's performance, the performance tended to be positive; when he/she used "we" or "the company thinks", the performance tended to be negative.
Here's a broader discussion from a Harvard Business School article:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7234.html
i just had a meeting with a client and we both paused to watch a group outside of the conference room present a cake to a group of colleagues.
i made the comment that it seemed to be a pretty frequent event in their offices.
his response: "yeah, it happens all the time here, but not in our group.
I just had a meeting with a client and we both paused to watch a group outside of the conference room present a cake to a group of colleagues. I made the comment that it seemed to be a pretty frequent event in their offices. His response: "Yeah, it happens all the time here, but not in our group. Our group is basically the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' of the floor. We don't celebrate anything."
Since he's never mentioned his religion, I've never mentioned mine. It gave me a good laugh, though. Just to be safe, I did ask him if that was because there were Jehovah's Witnesses in the group. He didn't think so. Better to know now if there were!
i read on another thread (on another forum) where someone mentioned a truly guilt-inducing, cringe-worthy, "bad association" video that was played at this summers rc's.
here is how that person described it:.
"the video about "bad association" was really weird.
@wifibandit - somewhat off-topic: do you also have a link to the Sunday session? Tried to find it, but couldn't.
some jws will be on the list?
would you bring it up if you saw someone you know in there?
in the meantime, i'll be back... got to see if my credit card has been opened longer than i've been married to say it was back when i was single.
a gb helper was at the rc.
this guy was decked out.
fancy expensive suit and cuff-linked shirt, super fancy cuff-links.
He was just following the teachings of Jesus:
Matthew 6:1-3:
6 “Take care not to practice your righteousness in front of men to be noticed by them;+ otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. 2 So when you make gifts of mercy,* do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3 But you, when making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing
Oh, wait....never mind.
i can't believe this crap, jackson is giving a witness to stewart......oh please no...........
I starting laughing when he almost immediately took on the demeanor of giving a talk from the stage, or at certain points trying to use the scriptures to argue points with a skeptical householder.
I also wonder if part of his attitude/demeanor was for the benefit of any active JWs that were watching. Knowing that any JW with Internet access could potentially watch every word, he may be trying to protect and perpetuate his "stage face". After all, I guarantee that almost every person watching it online was either a current or former JW. Can't break character too much!!!
i believe this shows how the org.
doesn't want to be held accountable to secular legal authorities.. in the 1991 green elders handbook (used between 1991 and 2010) there is a blank page (page 143) and at one elders school we were instructed to write six expressions that "should not be used on s77 + s79 forms (df and da forms)".. 1) anything alluding to or naming one of the society's legal advisers.. 2) any mention of the legal desk.. 3) any comments referring to direction from the society.. 4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached.. 5) any comment that might suggest someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but instead somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party.. 6) any comments indicating the elders mishandled the case or committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.. i have in my possession two elders handbooks with these exact words written in each in different handwriting.
.
Based on their level of preparedness, I'd be surprised if they're not at least generally aware.
It would be interesting to see the RC ask Jackson about that practice.
"What was the organization's intent on not documenting:
1) Anything alluding to or naming one of the Society's legal advisers.
2) Any mention of the legal desk.
3) Any comments referring to direction from the Society"
"Why would elders ever need to consult the legal desk, the Society's legal advisers or direction for the Society during a judicial case?" (Assuming its messy matters)
"If the matter is of such an important nature where the elders require guidance, why would they be specifically directed to exclude such a material fact in their records that they were in fact influenced by others outside the committee?"
"Does the Governing Body approve either the printed version of the book, or the additional word-for-word statements the elders are directed to write in their own hand?"
"Were the elders told to hand write these entries word-for-word?"
"If it was so critical to have these entries word-for-word, were those statements ever included in future printed versions of the book"? No? Why not? Isn't it true that the intent was to provide legal separation, legal protection, a 'legal firewall' to the Society...plausible deniability, if you will, with regard to those handwritten words. In other words, if the Society didn't print it, a court can't prove that it came from the Society."
Sorry, I can go on and on with this "handwritten word-for-word" stuff they continue down to this day.
