Posts by djeggnog

posted

28
DISCUSSION re Lifton's Mind Control Techniques
by Lady Lee in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in another thread i mentioned my you tube video regarding lifton's mind control techniques.

this is a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000.

(i've been saying 2001 but that is wrong) anyways djeggnogg had some comments abotu what he saw on the clip and what he knows about lifton's mnd control terchniques.. i am taking that part of the discussion to a new thread.
djeggnog

@Lady Lee:
That addresses the part regarding Randy [Watters'] application of the book to religion. Randy didn't make this up. It was Lifton's idea and it is valid for any group as a way to determine if they have crossed the line into being a totalitarian group
It seems that you have become one of Watters' disciples. I won't ask you why it is you've become a disciple of Watters, but I thought that I would post something here without comment that presents each of Watters' "eight "marks" in such a way that makes it quite easy to discern which ideas are Lifton's based on Lifton's book (in blue) and which ideas are Watters' own ideas based on Watters' book (in red). I believe a fourth or fifth grader -- that is to say, a 9- or 10-year-old -- would be able to discern that Watters users ideas gleaned from Lifton's book, and although these ideas are not Lifton's, but are ideas exclusively "made ... up" by Watters, I'll leave it to you -- since you're an adult! -- to judge as you will, and will return to this thread in a day or so.
[1] Milieu Control
This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[1] Milieu Control
"Milieu" is a French word meaning "surroundings; environment." Cults are able to control the environment around their recruits in a number of ways, but almost always using a form of isolation. Recruits can be physically separated from society, or they can be warned under threat of punishment to stay away from the world's educational media, especially when it might provoke critical thinking. Any books, movies or testimonies of ex-members of the group, or even anyone critical of the group in any way are to be avoided.
Information is carefully kept on each recruit by the mother organization. All are watched, lest they fall behind or get too far ahead of the thinking of the organization. Because it appears that the organization knows so much about everything and everyone, they appear omniscient in the eyes of the recruits.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[2] Mystical Manipulation
There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[2] Mystical Manipulation
In religious cults, God is ever-present in the workings of the organization. If a person leaves for any reason, accidents or ill-will that may befall them are always attributed to God's punishment on them. For the faithful, the angels are always said to be working, and stories circulate about how God is truly doing marvelous things among them, because they are "the truth." The organization is therefore given a certain "mystique" that is quite alluring to the new recruit.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[3] Demand for Purity
The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[3] Demand for Purity
The world is depicted as black and white, with little room for making personal decisions based on a trained conscience. One's conduct is modeled after the ideology of the group, as taught in its literature. People and organizations are pictured as either good or evil, depending on their relationship to the cult.
Universal tendencies of guilt and shame are used to control individuals, even after they leave. There is great difficulty in understanding the complexities of human morality, since everything is polarized and oversimplified. All things classified as evil are to be avoided, and purity is attainable through immersion into the cult's ideology.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[4] Confession
Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[4] The Cult of Confession
Serious sins (as defined by the organization) are to be confessed immediately. The members are to be reported if found walking contrary to the rules.
There is often a tendency to derive pleasure from self-degradation through confession. This occurs when all must confess their sins before each other regularly, creating an intense kind of "oneness" within the group. It also allows leaders from within to exercise authority over the weaker ones, using their "sins" as a whip to lead them on.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[5] Sacred Science
The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[5] The "Sacred Science"
The cult's ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too "sacred" to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership. The cult's ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions. Such an attractive system offers security.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[6] Loading the Language
The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[6] Loading the Language
Lifton explains the prolific use of "thought-terminating cliches," expressions or words that are designed to end the conversation or controversy. We are all familiar with the use of the cliches "capitalist" and "imperialist," as used by antiwar demonstrators in the 60's. Such cliches are easily memorized and readily expressed. They are called the "language of non-thought," since the discussion is terminated, not allowing further consideration.
In the Watchtower, for instance, expressions such as "the truth", the "mother organization", the "new system", "apostates" and "worldly" carry with them a judgment on outsiders, leaving them unworthy of further consideration.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[7] Doctrine over person
Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[7] Doctrine Over Person
Human experience is subordinated to doctrine, no matter how profound or contradictory such experiences seem. The history of the cult is altered to fit their doctrinal logic. The person is only valuable insomuch as they conform to the role models of the cult. Commonsense perceptions are disregarded if they are hostile to the cult's ideology.
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
[8] Dispensing of existence
The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. (Lifton, 1989)
Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China
[8] Dispensing of Existence
The cult decides who has the "right" to exist and who does not. They decide who will perish in the final battle of good over evil. The leaders decide which history books are accurate and which are biased. Families can be cut off and outsiders can be deceived, for they are not fit to exist!
Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"
Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses
I have no control over who buys the interview. Therefore I have no idea who has bought a copy.
So you cannot get someone to make an audio copy of the VHS for you, @Lady Lee? Certainly there exists a computer savvy friend in your community that wouldn't mind doing this for you (or, better, showing you how to do this for yourself).
And just like I asked people not to post links to copyrighted WTS material on this site I am certainly not going to ask anyone to post links to other copyrighted material that quite frankly I consider to be far superior to WTS material. And since I have a VHS tape why do I need to pay for a digital version just to watch what I know I said.
My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I made that statement to you, @Lady Lee. I don't know if you would take offense were I to suggest that you relax, but, like I said, I think it to be "lame" to learn that you don't have an audio copy of your own interview. Maybe you know a kid that wouldn't mind creating one (using your VHS tape) and giving it back to you on a flash drive. My "frustration" over your telling me that you didn't have an audio copy of your own interview prompted me to say exactly I said to you, and I continue to think it lame that here we are in the 21st century and you're telling me you don't have a digital copy of your interview.
you know dj I have been more than willing to defend your right to post here but this attitude is really wearing thin. It comes across as sarcastic and condescending and I really thought you were above it.
I don't care how what I said came off quite frankly. I think you should already have a copy of your own interview. I don't want to have to buy a copy just to hear what you said, @Lady Lee. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, so sarcasm, condescending or however you wish to characterize my comments doesn't matter to me. I'm talking about communication and a bar to effective communication is someone not communicating with someone else during a discussion. Don't you have even a written transcript of your 85-minute long interview. @Lady Lee? If not, why not?
BTW, I don't care if you're upset with me that I said what I did about @Dogpatch's work; I regard it as being plagiarism even if you don't, ok? He took someone else's words -- and yes, he basically indicates that he had copied his remarks and made them his own, but they were not Randy's words, but Lifton's. This is discernible from just comparing what each man states in their respective books. I'd like to see him take any of J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books, and then go on and put together your own novel, give an attribution in to Rowling, and distribute his "Harry Potter" novel whether for free or for sale. I would anyone doing this as a plagiarist.
@Dogpatch:
What's the point?
What? Do you wish me to repeat what I've already said in this thread for your benefit. If so, the answer is no.
[Maybe] if you can give 4 or 5 main objections without all this effort to say that Lifton wasn't writing about modern day cults (duh!) I can answer them for you.
Why on earth would I do this? If I have objections to any opinion that someone might post here, I have no problem posting my own opinion here and any question(s) I think to be pertinent. Thanks for letting me know though.
Back then all the deprogrammers and exit-counselors knew each other. We met together regularly. How can you possibly know our real take on this unless you sat in and listened to these lectures for hours?... In 25 years [w]e have all gone on to gain a much better and more through understanding of such matters, and this is reflected in modern articles such as you will find at ICSAS's website. I have changed some of my thinking; we all have. But it doesn't make what we said wrong.
Why should I care about how "you guys" may have been spending your time over the past 25 years? I don't care, and I didn't say a thing to you or to anyone here to the effect that you, or any of the folks you mention in your post, were wrong, did I? If I disagree with you point of view, then in my mind you're wrong, but you are free to believe otherwise; I accept that folks that different points of view, that people may proffer different opinions on various matter with which I may or may not agree, ok?
You are also a coward hiding behind an icon - let's hear a little about you. Who are you? What experience have you had? Are you a JW? Or are you afraid that if you really expose your ignorance YOU will be vulnerable. Otherwise you have no case.
I'm the "clueless" one, the ignorant one here, but it is you that don't seem to have your own words. These are my own words, but I'm wondering whether these words I'm reading here in your post yours? So let me ask you this before I forget: Are these your words I'm now hearing or are they someone else's words you've pasted into this post so that I'm really speaking to someone else that isn't here to defend their original comments that you're here only embellishing? Send the person you're representing to this forum (if there is such a person!) so that this "coward" might converse with that person. I don't want to talk to someone that might just be this person's "proxy." Otherwise, to use your words (I'm assuming that these were your words), what's the point?
@djeggnog
28
DISCUSSION re Lifton's Mind Control Techniques
by Lady Lee in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in another thread i mentioned my you tube video regarding lifton's mind control techniques.

this is a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000.

(i've been saying 2001 but that is wrong) anyways djeggnogg had some comments abotu what he saw on the clip and what he knows about lifton's mnd control terchniques.. i am taking that part of the discussion to a new thread.
djeggnog

COPIED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD:
@djeggnog wrote:
To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.
@Lady Lee wrote:
Well whether you believe it or not all I have is a VHS tape that was given to me shortly after the tape was done. Other than the person who owns the interview and the VHS tape (and who has made them into digital copies only available recently on the internet) I don't know anyone who has the digital copy. I was never sent one to replace the VHS tape. And I have never figured out how to copy VHS tapes to a CD.
Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe your statement to the effect that you do not have a digital copy of your interview, it's not that I don't believe that the only copy you have of your interview is on VHS tape, but what you have sought to communicate to me (or so it seems) is that you have no line to any of your friends here that has actually purchased a copy of the video containing your interview from whom you can ask to send you a digital copy, whether in .MP3 or .WMA, or .MP4, .WMV or .AVI format.
You indicate that it's "a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000," so why it is you want me to believe that you know no one on this forum that would be kind enough to send you just the compressed audio joint stereo portion of your interview (e.g., 11025/16 kbps [sample frequency/bit rate]) suggests you have no friends here that would be willing to do this for you is just lame. (I really just want to listen to the interview!)
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.
@Lady Lee wrote:
Well whether you believe it or not all I have is a VHS tape that was given to me shortly after the tape was done. Other than the person who owns the interview and the VHS tape (and who has made them into digital copies only available recently on the internet) I don't know anyone who has the digital copy. I was never sent one to replace the VHS tape. And I have never figured out how to copy VHS tapes to a CD.
Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe your statement to the effect that you do not have a digital copy of your interview, it's not that I don't believe that the only copy you have of your interview is on VHS tape, but what you have sought to communicate to me (or so it seems) is that you have no line to any of your friends here that has actually purchased a copy of the video containing your interview from whom you can ask to send you a digital copy, whether in .MP3 or .WMA, or .MP4, .WMV or .AVI format.
You indicate that it's "a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000," so why it is you want me to believe that you know no one on this forum that would be kind enough to send you just the compressed audio joint stereo portion of your interview (e.g., 11025/16 kbps [sample frequency/bit rate]) suggests you have no friends here that would be willing to do this for you is just lame. (I really just want to listen to the interview!)
If you don't mind I will take the comments about the interview to a new thread.
Ok.
@Curtains:
Plagiarism is when the source material is not referenced. Randy Watters clearly tells us where he got his material and he tells us how he is going to use the material. Adapting the paragraph headings to suit his purposes is not plagiarism because he has already told us he is going to do this.
This is not all the man does. First of all, do you have a copy of Lifton's book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China"? Yes or no? Secondly, do you have a copy of Watters' book, "Understanding Mind Control of Jehovah's Witnesses"? Yes or no? If you cannot answer "yes" to both of these questions, then I'm curious how it is you can come back here and tell me how you compared the contents of Lifton's book with Watters' book and didn't find Lifton's "thought-reform procedure" to not essentially be what Watters has renamed "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults."
We're hijacking @yknot's thread, which isn't right. If you want, we can pick this up in the new thread that @Lady Lee started reference above.
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@Curtains:
how do you expect your arguments to stand when you contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next. How can you accuse Watters of plagiarization when you admit that he does say where he got his information[?]
It's so very easy to do since this is what the man does. He takes Lifton's words, adds to them and makes them his own words. Watters doesn't quote Lifton and associate himself with Lifton's statements, but he plagiarizes Lifton by taking his words, his ideas, as if they were his own words and ideas.
Do you really expect us to accept your very incorrect definition of plagiarization?
"Incorrect?" I speak the English language, and I use the US English lexicon, so when I used the word "plagiarize" or "plagiarizing" in what I wrote, what I had in mind were the following definitions:
1. To take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech; of intellectual property; 2. The act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.
By way of example, I'm now going to demonstrate what it means to plagiarize someone's words, and I'll do this by using a few of @Mary's words:
There are three elders that get to act as judge and jury and executioner in every case, and despite the repercussions that can be horrific if the same were doled out for one's perceived "sin" (like, for example, one not being permitted to speak with their own family members unless those family members and the disfellowshipped person were to be all living under the same roof), you don't get to bring an attorney with you to the Judicial Committee, nor will you be allowed the record anything that takes place during those proceedings, although some have reportedly been able to secretly record the proceedings. It's possible, too, that you may not even get to find out who it was that even brought against you the accusations you're facing. It's all so hush-hush.
What I've done here in the previous paragraph with @Mary's words is exactly what Watters has done in connection with Lifton's words, I've plagiarized them, since the thought is the same, the idea is the same, only the words are re-arranged. Notice, too, that my telling you that they were @Mary's words doesn't change the fact that the words I was plagiarizing in my post were @Mary's, not my own words. By my using @Mary's words, someone that should late come upon @Mary's words could reasonably conclude that @Mary and I are on the same page when we are not on the same page at all.
Note that I do not quote @Mary like this:
As @Mary indicated in her post, "[t]he 3 elders assigned to whatever your sin is, gets to act as judge, jury and executioner in every, single case. And despite the horrific repercussions that can be doled out for your perceived 'sin' (such as not being able to talk to family members that are not living under your roof), you are not allowed any legal representation ... [and] you are not allowed to record the proceedings and chances are." As a matter of fact, she points out that "you won't even know who it was that brought the accusations against you in the first place." Some of the posters here, @Mary also mentions in her post, "have managed to secretly tape record their Judicial Committees...."
Maybe this will help you to understand the difference between giving an attribution to someone you're quoting and taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own. Or, maybe you won't get it and will insist that you're right when you're not right.
@djeggnog
443
Generation Teaching - Everyone is speechless?
by Red Piller in
1. jw
2. friends
maybe the effect of this change is bigger than realized?

in 1995, it was discussed (positively) by everybody, during the week we studied the wt.

one elder stepped down and was looked down upon.
djeggnog

@Red Piller:
Maybe the effect of this change is bigger than realized? in 1995, it was discussed (positively) by everybody, during the week we studied the WT.... For this change I have had only one person in the hall talking about it to me. (Ironically, the one person who discussed it with me was upset at the way it was explained by a talk. Actually, the talk stayed to script and explained the current teaching.) I have not heard or overhead any conversations besides that one time. No buzz at all - like the other 2 times.
Well, here's a bit of "buzz" for you that may help you appreciate that not everyone is "speechless," even if some of the folks you know are, in fact, speechless at this time, for not all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are alike:
If you were a Catholic before 1970, then you would be expected to adhere to the teaching of the Eucharist, which is that portion of the Mass when the Catholic priest says a blessing over the Host, that is to say, the bread ("the wafers") and the wine, and then invites the church to receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, where the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine are said to be miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. If you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses before 1995, then you would be expected to adhere to the teaching that the "generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 had to do with those of Jesus' anointed brothers that saw the events that unfolded in 1914.
Now someone that is a non-Catholic might think the notion of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to its doctrine of transubstantiation to be a lie, that the bread and wine do not miraculously become transformed into Christ's literal body and blood, which would be your view, but this would not be view of Catholics that adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. However, it was in 1970, that Pope Paul VI stepped in and effected a change in the Eucharist, so that the Roman Catholic Church has now done away with the restriction that had been placed upon the priests inviting the church to partake of the wine that the priests alone had before 1970 been the only ones allowed to partake.
So now, in addition to the wafers, this change permits the offering of both the bread and wine to congregants as a regular part of Communion. I might add here that in 1987, some of the Lutheran Churches and the United Churches of Christ elected to offer grape juice as an alternative to wine for those attending the Eucharist ceremony to accommodate those in the church that wished to abstain from drinking alcohol.
It was after 1995 that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses discerned that "the generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 seemed to not have been with reference to Jesus' anointed brothers, but, rather, should be applied to the unbelieving Jewish contemporaries of Jesus Christ to whom he was speaking, and thereby, by extension, to the world that saw the events that unfolded in 1914. However, 13 years later, in 2008, an adjustment to our understanding of Matthew 24:34 rescinded the 1995 explanation, restoring the pre-1995 explanation until 2010, when the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses discerned that anointed would be contemporaries of the generation whose lives would overlap the lives of those that would see the beginning of the composite sign and those that would see the end, including the great tribulation.
What Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus meant by his reference to "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 is not a lie, but a doctrinal viewpoint held by Jehovah's Witnesses, and the definition of a "generation" as a period of time and not limited to an average of 20-23 years is based on a Bible generation being described as a period of years, such as is the case with Joseph's generation, which covered a period of 110 years, which is the current viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise, what the Roman Catholic Church believes with respect to the transubstantiation is a doctrinal viewpoint held by Catholics, and even though in this day and age hardly anyone is willing to go on record in saying that they believe such a miraculous transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus' literal flesh and blood occurs every day at Mass, this is the current viewpoint of Catholics.
More to the point, the following is the response that was given in a QfR article back in 1952 to the question: "Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?" [w52 9/1 QFR]
[T]he Bible ... gives no number of years for a generation.... [I]n the texts mentioning the generation [Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32]..., we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather... "the average lifetime of man." Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping....
[W]e could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation.
Since the separation of sheep from goats doesn't begin until "immediately after" the great tribulation (Matthew 24:29), and Jesus specifically stated at Matthew 24:34 'this generation would not pass away until all these things [that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 and 25] have occurred,' including the tribulation, then it would seem that just as Joseph's contemporaries were still living when Joseph died, then some of Jesus spiritual brothers would still be alive after the tribulation.
The fact that our current year of 2010 is 96 years removed from the year 1914 does not help one do any more than speculate as to the year when the end will come, for we arrive at the year 2024 when counting 110 years forward from 1914, for Joseph's siblings, Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (who were born in Egypt) as well as Joseph's nephews and nieces lived during Joseph's lifetime, making all of them contemporaries of Joseph.
Firstly, "the term 'generation' as used by Jesus [at Matthew 24:34] refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics." (wt95 11/1, p. 17, ¶6) Secondly, Jesus compared the generation in his day to the one in Noah's day at [Matthew 24:37-39], it seems clear that the people in Noah's generation paralleled the people in "this generation" which began when the sign of Jesus' second coming became manifest in the year 1914. (I would take note the use of the word "this generation" as they are used at Genesis 7:1.] Thirdly, even if though we are able to determine when "this generation" began, we would still be unable to calculate when "this generation" would come to an end since no one knows the "day and hour."
Having said this, should we give consideration to what Exodus 1:6 says regarding the death of Joseph, Jacob's/Israel's son, "and also all his brothers and all that generation," then based on how old Joseph was when he died -- 110 -- then his contemporaries would have been "all [of] his brothers" and Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were both living when their father died.
In an article that appeared in the Watchtower, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," indicates that "[t]he word "generation" usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event." (w08 2/15, p. 25 [box]) Now we've got an example of that: Exodus 1, and verse 6. "Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers, and all that generation." In this same article, we also read: "As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day 'generation' of contemporaries that will not pass away 'until all these things occur.'" ( w08 2/15, p. 24, ¶15)
Just think about what's written there--it refers to Joseph and all his brothers as "that generation." Now ten of Joseph's brothers witnessed events before Joseph's birth and at least two of those brothers lived after his death. So while Joseph's contemporaries were of various ages, they were viewed as being a part of Joseph's "generation."
Now looking at the dates, Jacob at age 84 marries both Leah and Rachel in 1774 BC (after his uncle Laban does a bait and switch) so that his 11th son, Joseph, is finally born to Rachel in 1767 BC. (Rachel dies when Benjamin, Jacob's most beloved son, is born some six years later in 1761 BC.) Joseph dies in 1657 BC at the age of 110. Those of Jesus' spiritual "brothers" that were alive contemporaneous with the "sign" that became manifest (or "born") in 1914 would correspond to those that became contemporaries of Joseph at his birth, which would include not only Joseph's 11 brothers, but to Joseph's two sons and to his nephews and nieces that were alive when Joseph died, all of these being "that generation" (Exodus 1:6). Thus, these contemporaries of Joseph's generation would correspond to Jesus' anointed brothers, who from 1914 until now were all contemporaries of the sign, they all of them bearing witness to the composite sign.
The latest article that appeared in the Watchtower, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," stated, in pertinent part, the following:
[Jesus] evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end. [w10 4/15, p. 10, ¶14]
There is but one generation of the sign with the anointed that saw the beginning of this sign and the anointed that will not pass away when the great tribulation comes toward the end of the sign. There is no reason for anyone to be attempting to force two [generations] into becoming a single generation since Jesus specifically spoke of "this generation," which is not two generations, but only one.
The only significant change here between the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1952 Question from Readers [w52 9/1, pp. 542, 543] and the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses today [w10 4/15, p. 10, ¶14] is that we have come to realize in 2010 that the "generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 referred to the period of time that spanned the length of the sign of Christ's presence, which generation began in 1914 and will eventually come to an end, during which generation the lives of Jesus' anointed brothers as a group overlap.
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

The reason I wanted to see the entire video is because the "sample" provided on the website to which your link pointed was about seven minutes in length, and doesn't discuss these eight criteria that you mention in the video, although you mention two of them and Robert J. Lifton. I am familiar with the article posted on February 8, 2009, on Freeminds.org, entitled "Eight Marks of a Mind-Control Cult," by Randall Watters, where he refers to the book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China," written back in 1961 by Lifton, but this book has nothing at all to do with cults. Not a thing. And, I might add here that contrary to what you and others have been persuaded to believe about Jehovah's Witnesses, our organization is not a cult nor are those associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, whether baptized or not, members of a cult.
The following are the eight (8) criteria that Lifton uses: (1) Milieu Control, (2) Mystical Manipulation, (3) Demand for Purity, (4) Confession, (5) Sacred Science, (6) Loading the Language (7) Doctrine Over Person, and (8) Dispensing of Existence. However, Watters changes (4) "Confession" to (4) "The Cult of Confession," and (5) "Sacred Science" becomes (5) "The 'Sacred Science'"; he also inserts the word "cult" in his definition of six of these eight items. Maybe Watters thought that no one would know that he had plagiarized Lifton's eight concepts to use in his own work. If you choose to ignore the fact that the man has piggybacked Lifton's work, and that Watters' ideas are no more valid than Lifton's, then you will have yourself become IMO a victim of mind control by Watters.
But Watters uses these eight criteria you mention in your video in his Freeminds.org article as if Lifton had endorsed Watters' remarks about the use of religion to cults, when the focus of Lifton's work was on totalism and the brainwashing of POWs in war. This is called "piggybacking" to make it appear that someone else has vouched for your work. Anyway, @Lady Lee, the following is a transcript of what you stated in your video, which I'd like to discuss with you at length if you don't mind:
[TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
There were eight major techniques or criteria that were used to control people's minds and get them to change, and it's really interesting to see how these eight criteria can be used to take a look at how cults control and manipulate their own members. What I'll do is I'll go through each one so that you get a better idea of what it is, as Lifton defined it, and I'll see what I can do about applying it to how cults use it, and specifically how the cult I was in -- the Jehovah's Witnesses -- use it.
Now a lot of groups will use one or two of these on occasion, of the eight criteria. Unfortunately groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses use all eight, and they use them all the time so that people do not have free will. Two of the things that are required for consent: The first is that person must know, have full information of what is involved in the cult, and second is that they have to have the real freedom to say "yes" and "no," and the reality is most cults do not fully disclose all of the rules to prospective members. They wouldn't say to somebody, 'Well, if you join as Jehovah's Witnesses, you'll never be able to celebrate holidays again, and if a family member leaves the group, you'll never be able to talk to them again.' The fact that there isn't that full disclosure, a lot of people are basically manipulated into thinking they're joining something different than what they actually get. And the other thing is, with all of the guilt and the rules, and the idea that all of this information comes from God, then the person's not really free to say "yes" or "no."
The Witnesses will say they're not a cult, but any cult will say they're not a cult, and one of the things that a lot of groups say, 'Well, we're not a cult, because we don't follow people around, you know, people are free to come and go as they please. They've got jobs, they've got lives, they live in their own homes. But the very nature of mind control is that they don't need somebody following you around to monitor whether you're following the rules or not. They teach you to monitor your own behavior and your own thoughts, so you become afraid of doing things because somebody else might see you, but also afraid of your conscience. Then the only way to relieve that guilt is to tell somebody, and the people that you often tell are the elders and the leaders of the cult, or the elders in case of Jehovah's Witnesses, so your membership is no longer about love of God or a love of doing what it right. It becomes about fear of breaking rules. They lose their individuality.
They also lose their ability to think. You don't say, 'Well, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense.' You just accept that that's the way of things. I'd say about 80-90% of my friends had been abused before they became Witnesses, and so, and this sets up a particular dynamic with the love bonding (?). People who have been abused and, you know, suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, well, people who come out of cults experience what has been defined as post cult trauma syndrome, basically the same thing with a spirituality element that -- and this is why women stay in abusive relationships.
It's also why people stay in abusive cults, because there's this constant kind of dangling the carrot, that if you're good enough you will get everything that you've promised. And there's nobody to talk to, and even if you go for therapy, very few people are going to understand it. I went to a therapist; I was able to talk to her. But I knew it was way over her head. She didn't have a clue what I was talking about, really heavy-duty fears planted in there. I know as an adult I didn't allow myself to think about those issues, but, you know, here I am, reading it to my children.
Despite the denials of the organization that abuse doesn't exist within the organization, I'd say it's probably rampant because, you know, who do you go to, if you're, you know, it's all old boys' gang, even, you know, within the congregations. They're only going to report what doesn't reflect badly on the organization. Let's face it: If an elder is or any brother in the congregation is abusing his family, it's not going to appear too great if it hits the media. My one time mistake, which turned out to be a rape, wound up being, you know, reason for disfellowshipping, and his 15 years like doesn't, there's not even a note in his files about it.
And this whole issue of bloodguilt that they instill in people, that if a wife does not fulfill her sexual obligation to her husband, if he commits adultery, then she's responsible, and people would say, 'Oh, you have such a wonderful family. When I get married, I want a family just like yours.' And I want to be sick, but I'm just like know, 'Oh, well. Thank you very much.' And, again, you know, that pretense in not showing people what was really inside of me, 'cause that would have been totally inappropriate and not allowed to show that I was having problems, severe problems.
I think it's really important for people to get counseling, and sadly it's really hard to find. Very, very few people understand the dynamics of abuse, never mind the dynamics of spiritual abuse. There needs to be crossover there, where the two, you can being to see the psychological impact of something that comes from religion. Spiritual abuse can be emotional, physical, psychological, sexual -- it can be any of those -- but there's an added element of using a higher power, higher authority, god, however that is defined by a group. Whether it's the individual saying, 'I am god,' or, you know, like the Witnesses, the governing body is the mediator between people and god. So there's this added element of spirituality or higher power that is used to control and manipulate people, and in doing so, it robs people ultimately of their spirituality because if somebody's controlling it, then you don't have your spirituality any more; someone else has it.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
Watters explains in his article on Freeminds.org that Lifton's book was a treatise on "the effects of mind control on American prisoners of war under the Communist Chinese." Watters uses Lifton's work in this book in making a connection of it to Jehovah's Witnesses, by asserting how Lifton had outlined eight major factors that can be used to identify whether a group is a destructive cult or not, but Lifton work focused on effect of war on prisoners, like those Iraqi prisoners held in Abu Gharib prison, and not on whether or not "a group is a destructive cult or not." Lifton also wrote the books, "Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima" (1967), "Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans-Neither Victims nor Executioners" (1973), and "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" (1986), and notice the theme in each of Lifton's books are about psychological behavior or brainwashing used in wartime environments.
I wanted to point out to you that the fact that Lifton was used by the Hearst family, along with Dr. Martin Theodore Orne as defense witnesses back in 1976 to help explain Patty Hearst's psychological behavior -- the mind control used on her during her association with the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army) -- serves to illustrate that Lifton's eight points weren't the focus of Lifton's work on the methodology of brainwashing. The fact that Watters uses these eight points in his Freemind's article to push an anti-Jehovah's Witness agenda is telling, since, were you to actually read Lifton's book, you would see for yourself that Lifton wasn't talking about how religion might be used to brainwash anyone (unless Watters would be willing to make the argument that Lifton had argued in court on the witness stand that religion was used by the SLA to brainwash Hearst). You have to be able to see Watters' agenda at work here; it's nonsense.
Despite the above, Watters goes on to write in his article that "[a]ny authoritarian religion should be held up to the light in order to determine just how destructive their influence is on their members," as he then goes on to plug his book, "Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses." Quite frankly, there is no connection between Watters' book and Lifton's many books, and it was disingenuous on his part to piggyback his own ideas about cults to Lifton's work, including the use of Lifton's own phrase, "thought-terminating cliches," in applying this phrase to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Watters' plagiarization of Lifton's "thought-reform procedure," which Watters calls "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults," and he urges you to read his Understanding Mind Control book instead of Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China." There is no connection whatsoever between the two books, but you would find this out for yourself by comparing the contents of Watters' book with the contents of Lifton's book.
BTW, I am posting this here, not to hijack @yknot's thread, but just to explain my reason I had asked you for a link to your video, and to let you know that I read the three articles you posted (which answers some questions and raises more of them). I have not asked you any specific questions in this post, because I suspect you would think it more prudent to start a new thread.
To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.
@djeggnog
169
Rich Man and Lazarus
by Ding in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9) You are in the same position as was that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:22, when he told her that "You worship what you do not know." Jesus goes on to say at John 4:23, that "the true worshippers" of God would be those that be worshipping "the Father with spirit and truth," for God is "looking for suchlike ones to worship him." Contrary to what you may believe to be the case, your faith is not in God and His word.
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
I cannot accept your misappropriation of [Galatians] 4:9. I take it that you consider your knowledge of God complete and that you therefore know (ginosko) Him. I must ask you to define your terms and support your assertions. Firstly, what constitutes complete knowledge of God? Secondly, what proof do you have that you have this complete knowledge? Thirdly, what scripture/s demonstrate that complete knowledge is the bases of knowing and being known of Him? And further please substantiate your assertion that I do not know God and that God does not know me.
I didn't "misappropriate" anything, but I'll answer you this: To "know" [Greek _ginosko_] means to "come to know," "to recognize" or "to understand completely. To know God means to come into His acquaintance and to continually take in knowledge of Him so as to come to know or understand God's ways; it means to essentially love those things that God loves and hate those things that He hates. (John 17:3; Romans 12:9) To know God, too, one has "through use have [come to have] their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Hebrews 5:14) As a part of his prayer to God, Jesus told his heavenly Father at John 17:25 that "the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth."
You seem to want to turn this thread from one as to the meaning of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus into one in which we explore the meanings of certain Greek words, but I have no such interest. The Bible indicates that those of you that refuse to accept God's word and yet desire to discuss the meanings of certain words are "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4) Consequently, I'm going to withdraw from this thread.
Will the Sodomites be resurrected?
Since I haven't withdrawn from this thread yet, I decided to make a few remarks regarding this off-topic bash-JW-every-chance-you-get digression of yours:
1.Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8
2.No…..Watchtower June/1/1952 p.338
3.Yes….Watchtower August/1/1965 p.479
5.Yes.....Watchtower October/15/1974 p. 20
4.No…..Watchtower June/1/1988 p.31
6.No......Watchtower June/1/1988 p. 30
7.Yes….Live Forever (first edition) p. 179
8.No…..Live Forever (later edition) p. 179
I see you tried to get a cute "Yes-No" thing going, but, assuming your dates are correct, your recitation of these dates was a bit out of order, so, as you can see, I reordered them. In this case, it seems you could have omitted #4 and #5, and doing this would have shortened your "Yes-No" thing.
This illustrates the fact that the primary faith of JWs is in men, not the Bible. Doctrinal modifications made by the GB always act as a corrective to change what JWs believe the Bible teaches.
How so? This question as to whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected is not a primary doctrine of the Christ, and so it is not a primary doctrine of the faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses. It represents one of many questions that Christians discuss in connection with their study of the Bible. It may not be a topic in which you have an interest, and the only reason you might pursue this question is because one of your Bible students has asked you the question.
The answer to any Bible question depends upon when it is asked, for what things Jehovah's Witnesses came to understand by the early 60s, Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 30s simply may not have understood in the same way. Our answer to any Bible question is based on our then-current understanding of the Bible. These modifications to which you refer here are decided upon by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but, to the contrary, they are made by Jehovah's Witnesses, many of whom have submitted these Bible questions for consideration, along with the scriptures that led them to a conclusion different than what had previously been understood, so that their might be a correct response given to them based on the information that is known at that time.
Just because a particular issue of the Watchtower may include an article in it that provides our latest understanding of a matter does not mean that that matter is not still being discussed after that Watchtower has been published, for we cannot know whether what is determined to be the correct explanation at one time will prove to an incorrect one, rendering the discussion of it in a particular Watchtower article to be premature and an interim response to that question when a subsequent issue of the Watchtower should include in it a different response to that question than had previously been given in a previous issue of our periodical.
For some Bible-related questions, it has taken many years of studying the Bible to discover the answers to them, for as you point out in your post, until 1988, this question regarding the Sodomites had been in flux since 1879, and that's ok since we are confident that whether or not we and others will gain everlasting life isn't going to be determined by a pop quiz on whether the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal account, or how do we reckon that the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy ended in 1914, or whether or not the Sodomites will receive a resurrection after Armageddon. Everlasting life is based our taking in knowledge of Jehovah and his Christ (and, of course, our acting in harmony with that knowledge), nothing more.
However, the Bible can never legitimately act as a corrective to change a JW's beliefs contrary to the organization's teachings.
The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible. Doctrinal changes or refinements in our doctrinal understanding of matters are often made to our beliefs when appropriate to do so, such as when, prior to 1979, we believed that Jesus had only given the apostle Peter two keys, so that a couple of study articles appeared in the October 1, 1979 Watchtower in which we all came to learn that there were three keys given to Peter by Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses left our ranks, believing that this information should have been brought forward much earlier than it was since behind the scenes it was being discussed among Jehovah's Witnesses, so when these Watchtower article finally did appear, it didn't benefit those that had moved on in a disgruntled state.
Thankfully, some of these disgruntled ones have since returned, but they learned, as should we, that there is no need for anyone to be running ahead of God's organization. Sure, the ones that left our ranks were right; the Sodomites will not be resurrected. There were three keys given to Peter by Jesus, not two. They were right. But arguments over doctrines aren't usually resolved overnight and can sometimes take a bit of time, since all of the information that bears on a particular topic must be given due consideration before the governing body can make a decision. In this way, we are able to all speak in agreement, teaching the same things, and "be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Various creeds developed as doctrinal changes were made in the Universal or Roman Catholic Church during the fourth century AD. For example, in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicea, at which the Trinity doctrine was formally adopted, the statement that the Son was "of one substance" with the Father was added to an earlier creed, and at the Council of Constantinople, the statement that the holy spirit is "adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son" was added, so doctrinal changes are not anything new. Didn't Pope Paul VI, back in 1966, modify the abstinence requirement imposing a dietary restriction for Catholics against eating meat on Fridays, so that eating meat on Fridays was no longer to be viewed as being a mortal sin (that is, except on Good Friday)?
Now this doctrinal change isn't a scriptural one, but my point here is that Jehovah's Witnesses isn't the only Christian denomination in existence today to make them. Maybe you also accuse the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as putting its faith in men and not the Bible, and that's ok. In this case, you're being consistent. In the same way as you expressed it here, @Vanderhoven7, doctrinal modifications made by the Roman Catholic Church always act as a corrective to change what Catholics believe as well, and this despite, in their case, what the Bible actually does teach. But so what? If you do not wish to accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, go join another religion. If you do not wish to accept the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, go join another religion. What you should decide to do would be your choice to make.
After all...it's the organizations' book; it wasn't written for the other sheep. Only the priesthood understands it. Ultimately then, their faith is in men who claim to speak for God.
You're wrong; the Bible is was written for the benefit of all mankind. I don't follow your conclusion here.
Effectively the Holy Spirit, is replaced by a group of self-acclaimed Bible scholars who can give any spin on doctrine they decide is the truth for the moment. Their interpretations must be considered right...because they were invisibly selected in April of 1919 to act as His sole channel of communication to mankind. Can't argue facts.
Again, your view here is wrong. The Bible was written by means of God's holy spirit and the Bible cannot be replaced by anyone or anything; it is God's word.
No matter how many [times] "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn. But you know all this...so I'm just rambling. :^)
Yes, you are. Stop it. <g>
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@Lady Lee:
I'm not going to re-post all that I had written earlier, but just the following:
@Lady Lee wrote:
DJ for a JW man who has unhealthy ideas about sex that is unfortunately exactly the attitude he pushed on me.
@djeggnog wrote:
Before I continue with my remarks, as I parsed this portion of what you wrote in your post, it could be understood as your suggesting that I have "unhealthy ideas about sex." Is that what you're saying about me? If so, on what basis do you say this about me? If I am mistaken here and your sentence (quoted above) was just badly phrased, then please ignore my questions, @Lady Lee.
Here's what I'm trying to understand this first portion: Who is the "JW man who has unhealthy ideas about sex..."? Were you referring to me or to your ex-husband? That was the question I asked. This is the question I'm asking you to answer.
I read the three articles to which the links in your post on Page 2 pointed, and after reading them, these articles raised questions that I would normally be asking you now, except that I also listened to your YouTube Video sample, and this also left questions in my mind that I cannot ask you until I have heard the rest of that video. You said many things in your video with which I do not agree, and I feel I need to listen to the entire video where you talk about your experiences when you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I don't want to pay to see it, because I do not wish to support the cause of the folks hosting this video. If possible and convenient for you, please PM me a link so that I can see the entire video or download it. Thanks in advance.
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@miseryloveselders wrote:
Captain, I didn't know you were also a Spiritual Psychiatrist. Thank you for diagnosing my problem. However, I think I'll seek a second opinion.
@djeggnog wrote:
I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of).
@miseryloveselders wrote:
C'mon Eggnogg, you did not just call yourself a spiritual physician?!!??!
Yes.
Don't think adding the "sort of" softens the arrogance of that statement.
I'm a genius and I just don't think like this. Here's what I do think though: I think that you are either lacking in education or that you are somewhat dimwitted, one of the two, so let me help you here: I didn't write "I am a spiritual physician (sort of), since you asked," but "I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of)," which, when parsed. would be understood by an educated person as an abbreviated way of saying "Well, I am a spiritual physician, since you were, in effect, asking me if I considered myself to be a spiritual physician."
There's nothing arrogant about my statement. If you were sitting down in Christian meetings not understanding a thing that was going on in them, you should talk to me so we can discuss what things were going on in those congregation meetings you once attended, because if you didn't occur to you to ask questions of anyone as to the meaning of the very scriptures that I have used in this post during those meetings, then you completely missed the purpose of meeting attendance.
For a fact, I know that many of the schools today in the US are continuing to graduate kids that are stupid, totally ignorant about the world in which we live. Many of them hardly know how to spell. My hope is that you aren't one of these kids all grown up, because this is a rather long message that would be lost on someone that should be too stupid to being able to comprehend what it is I have to say to you in this post and have been saying to you in this thread.
I'm hoping in consideration of that segment of our discussion, you're joking and being cynical. If you really believe that, well....well I don't know what to say to you LOL!! I'll get to the rest of your nonsense later, but I just couldn't resist that. Spiritual Physician, my, my, my, SMH.
This reminds me (sort of) of Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell (Delaware-R), who thought she had won a point in her debate with her opponent, Senatorial candidate Chris Coons (Delaware-D) after asking Coons whether the doctrine of separation of church and state was contained in the Constitution, and after being told by Coons in response that such a separation has been interpreted by the SCOTUS, she continued to beat her drum, even laughing (like you are) about this along with the audience, not realizing though that the audience was laughing at her!
First of all, I never stutter. Secondly, it'll be obvious when I'm joking; I wasn't joking. Thirdly, what I said to you in my previous post about my being a spiritual physician wasn't nonsense at all, but was a scripturally sound statement. I included scriptural references below, so that you can look up the scriptures in the event you should think that I'm anything like you in misusing the Bible, claiming as many do here that you are a Christian while making sport of God's word (as you did, for example, when you told me in a previous post that "the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners, whether it be in thought, word or action"), something that I would never do, Sport. (And you weren't joking, but was serious!)
Look! When the Jews were freed from captivity in Babylon back in 539 BC and had returned to the Promised Land by 537 BC, God's prophecy by Isaiah was fulfilled: "And no resident will say: 'I am sick.' The people that are dwelling in the land will be those pardoned for their error." And fulfilled also was God's prophecy by Jeremiah: "I will heal them and reveal to them an abundance of peace and truth." (Isaiah 33:24; Jeremiah 33:6) Notice the association that is made here in these two scriptures between the sins of those returnees being pardoned and their being healed from their sickness. Since there were no physical healing of anyone's infirmities, no miraculous cures at all were performed by Jehovah on the Jews back in 537 BC, the healing they received was spiritual healing.
Further illustrating why none of the Jews were saying, "I am sick," Isaiah's prophecy went on to say: "At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness." (Isaiah 35:5, 6) The fulfillment of this prophecy following the return from Babylon must have been So, in a spiritual sense, the spiritually blind, the spiritually deaf, the spiritually lame and the spiritually dumb were healed upon their release from bondage in Babylon by Jehovah.
Having been restored to their homeland, true worship was reestablished in Jerusalem when the temple was rebuilt, where they were cleansed of their former sins against Jehovah. Eyes that had once been blind could now see the way forward and ears that had once been deaf could now hear Jehovah's commands and obey them. Legs that had formerly been lame and tongues that had formerly been dumb could now leap up joyfully in Jehovah's service and sings praises to their God.
Fast forward six centuries later, the Lord Jesus Christ presented himself to the Jews also performing spiritual healing for them; he also effected many physical cures: "The blind are seeing again, and the lame are walking about, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, and the dead are being raised up, and the poor are having the good news declared to them. (Matthew 11:5) But for all of his works of physical healing, Jesus brought to the Jews works of spiritual healing as had been foretold to occur at Isaiah 61:1, 2:
"Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year." (Luke 4:18, 19)
Jesus opening the eyes of the formerly blind to Jehovah’s purposes, unstopped the ears of the formerly deaf to His commands, trained tongues formerly dumb to speak the truth of God and energized formerly lame to declare the good news, and he even bought spiritual life and activity to those who had been "dead in [their] trespasses and sins." (Ephesians 2:1)
The only way that those that are dead in their trespasses and sins today can be made spiritually healthy is by means of God's word of truth, and then by holding fast to "the pattern of health words." (2 Timothy 1:13) Those who refuse to accept these healthful words of truth and teaches false doctrine instead are "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4)
Christians today that wish to follow Jesus should likewise not spare themselves, but ought to be spending of their time and energies in the work of spiritual healing, feeling the same compassion as he for those who have been kept in spiritual darkness and so are dead in their trespasses, seeing those for whom Christ died as being "skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd." (Matthew 9:36)
If anyone spiritually blind, deaf, dumb or lame refuses the healing "eyesalve" of God's word, "the pattern of healthful words," we will certainly move on as we search out those who do want spiritual hearing. (Revelation 3:18)
In the first century, Christians were preaching "the good news of Jesus and the resurrection" was being preached, but now, the Lord Jesus Christ has ordained that Christians should be proclaiming the good news of the establishing kingdom of God, and "to live by means of the good news." (Acts 17:18; Matthew 24:14; 1 Corinthians 9:14) Since Christians know that people are spiritually ill, most of them spiritually dead, we are energized by God's spirit to help as many people as we can to feel better about the eternal future that God holds in store for all those worshipping Him "with spirit and truth." (John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 2:9)
Christian cannot and will not hold back these healthful words from the nations to whom Jesus gave us the commission to preach since we know that God's patience will not wait indefinitely, and that, with each day that passes, we are one day closer to "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels," plus, were we not to share the good news with others, we would have bloodguilt on our hands, since our own salvation is tied to our "[living] by means of the good news. (2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Ezekiel 33:8; 1 Corinthians 9:14, 16)
Through his ministry, Jesus taught us that the greatest expression of loving our neighbor as ourselves is when we are sharing the good news with our neighbors, for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20) Next to loving God, there is no other commandment greater than loving our neighbor as ourselves, and Christians are commanded to do both, and by our so doing, we thereby reaffirm our love for God. (Mark 12:31; 1 John 5:2)
While physical healing offers temporary benefits, the spiritual healing that Christians provide others regarding "the good news of peace" with God -- "the word of the reconciliation" that I am publishing to others -- offers permanent benefits, such as a perfect life in perfect health in a new world of righteousness under God's heavenly kingdom. (2 Corinthians 5:19, 20; Ephesians 2:17) That is why Christians endeavor to 'pay constant attention to ourselves and to our teaching, for by doing this we know that we will save, not only ourselves, but those that listen to us.' (1 Timothy 4:16)
@djeggnog
96
Marital Due and the KS
by yknot in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i just did a 'quick' search and 'marital due' doesn't appear to have made the 'list' of issues addressed in the ks!.

did i miss something?????

shouldn't the blantant repeated refusal (not justifiable under illness, ability, or discernable reason) be an issue addressed?.
djeggnog

@Scully:
Please try to keep on topic.
Ok. Please let me know in my future posts as well whenever it is you notice I've diverted from the topic started by @yknot as to why it is that a discussion of the marital due didn't make the cut, so to speak, in the new textbook. I do appreciate that you're willing to do this for me.
@sd-7:
Um...I'm not sure if my post was misunderstood. I should probably clear it up, then. My concern was that my wife claimed illness, but was never clear on what sort of illness, and she doesn't have any diseases or anything, and we were very sexually active for several months, then she suddenly stopped for awhile. I was confused and trying to figure out, well, is this something new, or was it always there? I would be very wrong to condemn her or blame her if she was legitimately sick or if it legitimately made her uncomfortable. I would never want her to feel guilty about that, because if it's a health reason why she can't do it, I totally understand and would never, ever justify adultery on that basis or any basis.
I believe most of the people here may have understood your post just fine. But what I did understand is what I stated I didn't comprehend. You wrote:
My wife saw [that QfR article] on my computer screen and went pretty ballistic, thought I was suggesting that I should have the green light for adultery because she'd been holding out for awhile, apparently due to a months-long illness that she never sought treatment for.
Where exactly in this particular QfR article [w73 6/1, p. 352] does it suggest that adultery is permissible under any circumstance? Not only did you take such an idea away from your having read this article, but you specifically indicated that this is also what your wife concluded from seeing this article on your computer screen, so my question is what you did read in this QfR article that led to you and your wife forming this conclusion? I don't see place for such reasoning in this article.
In @Scully's post, the following was quoted from this article:
"The innocent mate may even have contributed toward the unfaithfulness of his or her marriage partner. If, for example, the wife has deliberately deprived her husband of the marital due, she bears a certain responsibility for what has happened. She is not altogether without blame from God’s standpoint," and a reference to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 was also cited.
If this is the particular quote that you and your wife read that caused both of "you guys" to conclude that this somehow gives short shrift to God's command forbidding adultery, I don't see where this quote provides a single excuse to anyone. Please respond.
I believe adultery to be wrong. Withholding does not give someone the right to cheat, in my opinion, but I don't judge anyone who makes that choice, because we're none of us free from sin.
Well, that's where you and I differ, let's forget about adultery, since, not in the Middle East, but here in the Western world, only some religious folks believe fornication and adultery to be serious sins (Catholics often seek absolution from their priests during the week before hooking up that weekend!), and let me ask you what your opinion is of armed robbery.
Now because "none of us [are] free from sin" that even though you believe stealing to be wrong, and murder to be wrong -- note I'm assuming in my long question here that you are against theft and murder -- would you judge those people that would walk into a liquor store or a bank and steal money at gunpoint, maybe killing one or two scared people in the process, who should make this choice? I'm not telling you how to answer my question, but a "yes" or "no" would be fine.
I saved that '73 WT quote, and we agreed on this, because it points out how serious these matters can be.
Again, you and your wife agreed on what now? That this QfR article gives short shrift to God's command forbidding adultery, or what?
I think maybe therapy might be a good way for couples to talk about issues like this if they can't be open with each other. But I don't think the elders are equipped to help with that, nor do I think they should be entitled to information about someone's medical information.
I think therapy might be a way that might help some couples with many of the issues that arise during their marriage, since some couples have had to get past sexual abuse that they thought was no big deal and forgotten until they got married, only to learn that the reason why their wives do not enjoy sex is due to vaginal cuts (tears) on or near the perineum, and some have opined (I cannot prove this though) that the discovery of lichens sclerosis in damaged or scarred skin on or near the vagina can be traced back to either toying with sex during one's youth or untreated vaginal tearing as the result of rape or incest during one's childhood.
While uncircumcised males affected by lichens sclerosis are often cured by the removal of the foreskin, surgery doesn't cure these patches in women, and often the result is that husbands wrongly conclude that their wives are deliberately refusing to have sex with them. Ruptures and cuts in the flesh due to anal fissures (sphincter tears) after a hard stool may also make intercourse undesirable for woman.
However, I do agree with you that the reasons for a wife's lack of sexual desire are not going to be something that a congregation elder will be equipped to handle as most are neither gynecologists (OB/GYNs) nor are they therapists, but what they should be doing is referring such matters out to trained medical professionals. An elder's wife could be brought in to help since if she doesn't have personal knowledge, she might have had some experience helping other women with similar issues. Hopefully, with this, I've strayed too far off topic again.
If they won't inform people in the congregation about child molesters, then it serves no purpose for them to know any other sensitive information, since it's never about protecting the flock.
What do you mean? From where are you getting this? It's hardly the case that brothers that are known to have been guilty of child molestation are even found attending meetings in the local congregation, but whenever any of them are known to be in attendance, the elders watch them the entire time, and I mean those brothers "in good standing" are constantly being monitored by the elders. It is about protecting the flock since these brothers are marked for life, that is, until the new system arrives.
@miseryloveselders:
No, you're mistaken. One doesn't necessarily grieve the holy spirit when he or she commits a sin. Recall that at 1 John 2:1, 2, the apostle John wrote:
I think you missed you missed the word "practice" in my post. Had you noticed that, you would see that I'm right, and that you actually posted points that agree with my post. It would have saved you from doing all that typing anyways.
I don't believe I missed the word "practice" in any of your posts, because this word wasn't used in any of them. Don't think there to be any need on your part to save me from what things I might type, ok? I'd rather you do what things the Bible indicates you need to do to save your life.
@djeggnog wrote:
Do you know why you have such disdain for the "brotha"?You sound to me like a "sistah" rolling over the "brotha" because of envy. I say because I cannot remember whites speaking this way, so, to use the vernacular, why are you hatin' on the brotha like this? Why do you zero in like this on the "brotha" and not on one of the whites? What exactly did the brotha do to you? Maybe I'm asking the wrong question here: Do you hate these "old men" that comprise the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses with a special hatred for this "fake" brotha because you think he's perpetuatin' and not a real brotha, because a real brotha would never be a member of the Governing Body?
@miseryloveselders wrote:
Now this interesting. A real gem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had a feeling you have a tan.
I have "a tan"? The difference between your worldview and mine is that you see things in black, brown and white, but, as I see it, first, there is no black-brown divide, only Latino envy, and second, brown is the new white so better get used to it, ese. Actually, I didn't know you knew his name because, before, you called Herd a "token brotha" and, homegirl, I can feel you, but is this thread about your racial views? Is it?
Recently, I read something that is pertinent here: "Hay Gonzalez blanco, Hay Gonzalez negro, cada quien tiene, tiene del otro su poquitico." This means that "there are white Gonzalezes, there are black Gonzalezes, and everyone has a bit of the other. Now that's real.
My instincts were going off. What really has my interest [piqued] though is that you seem to have caught offense over me dissing Brotha Herd. You know him personally or something? Because for someone concerned about me "sounding like a sistah rolling over the brotha because of envy", you sure come off like one of those fellas that grab their wife or girlfriend real close when guys like me step in the room.
No, sistah girl. It's not like that. I was flossing over your concern with tokenism, which I think is code for racism. I think you're confusing your bigotry regarding folks as black as you with instincts, and these aren't the same thing, believe me. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you have to like the man, 'cause you don't have to, but you did a complete 180° from our talking about "the very foundation of Christianity is acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action" to anti-black rhetoric. You came out nowhere with this, and I really couldn't tell if you were thinking the man was a cabron or what since we're talking about adultery in this thread.
Since your one of my own, you're probably familiar with the phrase, "handcuffing em." I'm sure glad you're concerned enough about Brotha Herd to protect his reputation from brothas like me on the internet. What would he do without guys like you? The same thing he was doing before you decided to handcuff him, Captain Save-Em. Now Captain Save-Em, if you can't see the irony of that picture, well there's not much you and I can discuss....brotha. To be fair, maybe I'm being overly harsh on Brotha Herd. Maybe he's more of Jackie Robinson, as opposed to a JC Watts.
Wow! Jackie Robinson and JC Watts are also black. You don't mind putting it out there what you are, and I think I like you for that. I think "closet" racists are dangerous people, you know what I mean? I think they should not be in there, but should come out and proud of who and what they are.
@djeggnog wrote:
Who are you? You are a spiritual sister of mine that has lost her way, someone that I'm trying to encourage that you might get back on the Way. (John 14:6) My words here could be the ones that you will recall my saying to you by the time that the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ begins, and my hope is that you will have gotten past your anger against Jehovah and that you will also have gotten past what seems to me to be self-hatred and will have come back to Jehovah when that revelation begins. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
@miseryloveselders wrote:
Captain, I didn't know you were also a Spiritual Psychiatrist. Thank you for diagnosing my problem. However, I think I'll seek a second opinion.
I am a spiritual physician, since you asked (sort of).
Since you felt so obligated to psychoanalyze me, allow me to scratch your back! You state you are an old man that happens to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that you've been proclaiming and teaching others about the Kingdom. I tip my hat to ya fella. However I'm not so sure of what you claim sir. The reason is, if you truly are a no-blood card carrying Jehovah's Witness, who truly believes this is God's organization, and also truly believes the GB are God's chosen representatives on this mudball of a planet, then let me ask you a question. Why are you here?
Excuse me while I lose my Puerto Rican accent here. (BTW, "sistah," I'm not Puerto Rican either.) I am interested in helping folks that have severed their relationship with God's organization to return to Jehovah. I know the reasons for their leaving are many, but if anyone here wants to talk to me about their doing that, I can help them. Not you, mind you, but the lurkers. Apparently you think you know more about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe than I do, but maybe after reading the article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473], you'll discover that you're ignorant about a few things that we believe. I would invite you to read the article. BTW, you're off-topic.
You've painstakingly taken the time to show myself and others on this forum the error of our ways. By you doing that, you brazenly go against the directives of God's chosen representatives. (Heb 13:17) Or do you get a pass from this directive for some reason unbeknownst to us?
I need no such "pass." It is you that have read articles in WTS publications and thought you understood what they were saying, just as I pointed out to you about the QfR article that you totally misunderstood. What you need is to have a Bible study with me. Probably won't happen, but while you think you know more about what things the Bible teaches, you're wrong.
So again I have to ask you Mr.Envoy of the Kingdom of God, why are you brazenly going against the directives of God's [anointed] representatives that you hold in such high esteem? You by being here, demonstrate a lack of faith by being here and posting. Your unsteady in your ways. (James 1:8) You can only be here for a few reasons. One of which is you have a beef with this organization. Another possibility is you doubt the validity of this organization's claims, and you're here testing what you've believed all these years by debating with us. There's other possibilities. Make no mistake though, by you being here and posting, you don't do a service for the WT. If anything, you actually further the apostate cause. Me personally I'm glad you're here allowing two sides of the coin to be exposed, but don't kid yourself by believing you're nobel in the WT eyes.
First, you're repeating yourself here. (Scroll up.) Second, you're wrong on both counts. I have an agenda, but I've made it no secret. (Ask @Lady Lee.)
This might get you a clap at the convention or assembly where the audience is looking for anything to liven that borefest up. Here on this forum, I smell your nonsense. Don't think because you're on Medicare and have went out in field service for a few years that I'm to believe your a cute little old man. No, your a man lacking faith in the organization you outwardly hold in high esteem. Secretly you post here, trying desperately to prove to yourself its "the truth." Or your one of the "unwanteds" at the Kingdom Hall, and this is how you tell yourself they still value you. Or maybe being one of the unwanteds, this is the closest you get to associating with JWs, damned if they're undercover apostate, or in bad standing. Stop fooling yourself Eggnogg. By the way, stop posting a bunch of paragraphs. It takes away from the good points you've made.
You're not just angry and bitter about choices that you yourself made in the past, but you have no idea how dumb you come off here saying these things when even you were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Should I now be your disciple? I mean, how weak-minded would that be?
I will post whatever it is I want to post, and if it turns out that my "posting a bunch of paragraphs" becomes necessary to make my point, I will. You can always skips my posts and not read them. Mine would be the ones with "djeggnog" superimposed over the avator. But I don't expect you to be able to control yourself from reading my posts (since it seems I really have a lot to say).
I apologize for playing a part in hijacking this thread.
Too late.
@sd-7:
Oh. So djeggnog is some sort of...JW? Uh...yeah. This is not a place JWs should be visiting. So...I'm just going to let my words stand as they were and not bother saying anything further in response. Any JW who comes here to debate people is in clear violation of the instructions the "slave" class has given about this. So if you're here to debate with 'apostates', you should not be. But it's all...hey, I could probably write verbatim everything you could (or should) possibly say myself, so...why would I bother?
Whether you post any further responses to my posts is your choice to make. I'm not going to cry about it. You're mistaken to think that you know what I can or cannot do. These "instructions" to which you refer are written thusly because it is much easier to advise against engaging in some activity that could affect your spirituality than it is to say nothing. But only someone more mature that you apparently are would be able to comprehend what it is I'm saying here to you now. I thought things were laid out quite well in the article to which I referred @miseryloveselders (above),entitled "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones" [w74 8/1 paragraphs 24-26, pp. 472, 473]. I invite you to read this article, too. BTW, you're off-topic, too.
And by the way, Hebrews 6:1, 2 talks about repentance from dead works. In order to display repentance, you have to first recognize that you're a sinner, which I believe was the point someone was making. So...recognizing you're a sinner is the foundation of Christianity, it's an integral part of the path to becoming a Christian. I think that's something every Christian can agree on. Why would there be a debate about that? You can't repent if you don't see yourself as a sinner. And then Hebrews 6:1, 2 has a lot less meaning, because you're not taking the basic steps to Christian faith.
I had only in my last post to you pointed out how retarded your understanding of what you had earlier told me you understood to be "the foundation of Christianity," and I cited Hebrews 6:1, 2, which, true, does speak of "repentance from dead works," one of the six (6) things that the apostle Paul lists in this passage, but Paul was there talking about repentance from the dead works of the Law of Moses, for there were those that were thinking that they could earn God's forgiveness by their practicing the works that had been required of the Jews under the Law and thus prove themselves righteous before God, but Paul stated that "a man is declared righteous, not due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus," and "a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law." (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28)
I just had to throw that out there, but that's all I can say. I'm done.
Well, I'm glad you gave me a chance to tell you a second time what I told you first time you made this zany statement about the foundation of Christianity being our "acknowledging that we're sinners whether it be in thought, word, or action," which is just wrong.
@djeggnog