Posts by djeggnog

posted

48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

(Duplicate post)
48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
Buchanan believes Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream, because I can think of no other reason why he would have written in his book "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK," unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book.
@metatron:
Are those your words?
Yes, but what possible difference would it make to whom those words belong when you don't understand what they mean? I'm going to rephrase what I said in two way, but I don't know that my rephrasing them at all will solve what appears to me to be a reading comprehension problem on your part:
[1] You claimed in your post that Pat Buchanan had indicated "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior if OK," so unless this 12% number in your post is wrong, Buchanan must be of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream.
[2] You claimed in your post that Pat Buchanan had indicated "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior if OK," so assuming this 12% number in your post is correct, Buchanan must be of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream.
If you want to raise doubts about what I quoted or exactly what Buchanan meant....
No. The point I was making (again!) was that "Buchanan must be of the belief that 'Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream.'"
I don't believe you quoted Buchanan. If you did, where was it? You merely asserted that Buchanan "claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK." I quoted you and so it was to "this quote of @metatron's," or, changing one word since I'm now talking to you instead of about you, it was to "this quote of yours" that I was referred.
And my point about the ever deceptive Writing Staff that avoids giving readers quote sources, still stands.
I'm not so sure you can rightly blame the Writing Committee for your lack, @metatron. We write, but if you can only pronounce the words on the page and cannot understand what they mean or comprehend simple concepts like "unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book," you are pointing the finger of blame at the right person. Find a mirror and look at the person staring back at you. The person you should blame for your lack is you. You should have not only completed high school, but you should have gone to college and taken a course in Basic Comprehension and one in English Comprehension, like many folks other than you did. You read and write functional English, and you do this on a high school level, almost as if you were home-schooled. If you were home-schooled, that's fine, but I read and write English. (I don't intend to come off as mean here, but I'm pretty sure your quips have begun to annoy me.)
@djeggnog
48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

@metatron wrote:
I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.
@djeggnog wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that evidently is of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of mainstream Christianity, which is odd since Buchanan used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%....
I have no way of knowing if this figure of 12% was an accurate one, but I thought it suspect, and, if true, it could only have been based on a poll taken by folks identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses [since] Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in such polls....
Buchanan believes Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream, because I can think of no other reason why he would have written in his book "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK," unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book.
@metatron wrote:
You don't like my characterization of Pat Buchanan's comments?
I didn't say this. Go back and read what it was I wrote again. Either you read what I wrote too fast, or you're too stupid to understand what it was I wrote. This mischaracterization wouldn't be yours; it would be Buchanan's since you indicated that this 12% figure was the claim he made in his book. For the mentally challenged in the room -- hopefully not you, @metatron -- the words "this quote" refers to Pat Buchanan.
@OUTLAW wrote:
On this National Day of Prayer, a survey finds that Jehovah's Witnesses are the most likely Americans to pray daily, Catholics are just below average and 5 percent of atheists claim to pray daily.
Do you happen to know who it was that conducted this survey? Was it (a) Jehovah's Witnesses? (b) Roman Catholics? (c) Atheists? (d) None of the above?
Eighty-nine percent of Jehovah's Witnesses and 82 percent of Mormons say they pray daily.
Who conducted these polls? Was it (a) Jehovah's Witnesses? (b) Mormons? (C) None of the above?
Among members of historically black Protestant churches, 80 percent said they pray daily. [¶] Those are followed, in order, by white evangelicals, Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Christians and Catholics. Among those who pray the least, 53 percent of mainline Protestants, 45 percent of Buddhists, and 26 percent of Jews said they pray at least once a day.
If the survey that was taken here had to do with the number of times that various religious groups "pray at least once a day," it strikes me that Muslims -- there are 1.6 billion adherents of Islam in the world, more than 200 million of them living in Indonesia, and about 175 million each living in Pakistan and India, respectively -- may pray more than most, for they pray five times every day: Before dawn, at noon, in the afternoon, at sunset and in the evening (after sunset). There are some 2.1 billion people that identify themselves as Christians with 175 million of them each living in the United States and Brazil; 105 million living in Mexico; 100 million living in Russia; 90 million living in the Philippines; 75 million living in Nigeria. But my question is, who conducted the survey of these two major religious groups?
Was it (a) Jehovah's Witnesses? (b) Someone other than Jehovah's Witnesses?
The survey found that daily prayer increases with age, decreases with income and that women are more likely than men to pray daily.
Jehovah's Witnesses pray more because their faith teaches them to do everything with prayer, said J.R. Brown, director of public information for the Watchtower Society, an organization for Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Watchtower Society isn't an organization for Jehovah's Witnesses, is it? Anyway, I don't know who wrote this piece, but I know that J.R. Brown -- I like "J.R." -- didn't write it. I'd be curious to know what point you had in mind when you quoted th, for this statement you quoted isn't based on a poll that Jehovah's Witnesses conducted, and while we do keep meticulous records, we don't participate in political polls. If we did, do you think we should count 2.1 billion people as "Christians" or as "professed Christians"? I hardly respond to any of your posts, @OUTLAW, because I think you hide behind your silliness, which prevents me from learning what you really think or how you think. Maybe you'll consider having someone come here to tell us when you're gone so that someone might do a montage of your posts, the funnier ones.
I think you are a talent, with an interesting wit, overall, an entertaining guy, even if it should turn out that you were an entertaining gal.
@djeggnog
35
Your advice please on "Scriptual Divorce"
by karter in
1. jw
2. friends
my ex and i have a legal divorce.. she asked me to write a letter to the b.o.e so she can get a scriptual divorce.. she said she had spoken to the c.o.b.e ans they would take no action against me as i haven't been to a meeting in about 12 years.. my reply "ok get him to put that in writing".

so do you think they will put that in writing?.

and would they take action if i did write the letter giveing her a scriptual divorce?.
djeggnog

@NewChapter wrote:
The first husband was not a JW. He never told me what went on in his personal life after he left, and I really didn't want to stalk him. Even though I needed a scriptural divorce to move on with my life, it was not lost on me how inappropriate it would be to ask him about his sex life. I was pretty much stuck, unless I wanted to become the kind of person I despised. I could have followed him and sat outside his house and taken someone along to witness with me.
The first thing to notice here is that @NewChapter had indicated her desire not to become the persons that she despised by stalking her husband, and that she was definitely not how to be asking him about his sex life with others after he left the marriage. I agree with her that taking someone along to be a witness to the demise of a marriage -- I cannot think of anything more intrusive than someone probing the specifics as to someone's personal life or someone seeking intimate and personal details of a married couple's marriage -- is very inappropriate. The truth is I find it especially repugnant that an elder would be pressuring someone that may be in despair emotionally, apprehensive about the future and extremely vulnerable by seeking to learn the salacious details of a marriage on the brink of failure.
It doesn't matter how it is that the wife has come to know that her husband had moved on; she may have needed a couple of witnesses to marry the man, but she didn't need a second witness to decide to marry the man and she doesn't need a second witness to divorce the man so that she can move on with her life. The elders are not judges over other people's marriages. They should be giving comfort to those that need it and a marriage on the brink is when such comfort would be greatly appreciated, especially if there are one or more children. If the wife is not bearing up well and feels so depressed that she hasn't given any real thought to finding a job, if she is not working, or ensuring that her husband that has moved on will handle his financial responsibilities to his wife (spousal support), if she is not working, and to his children (child support), the elders can be of help here, but their making inquiries into the details of someone's marriage are, as @NewChapter said, "inappropriate."
Now were I @NewChapter's ex-husband, and I had learned from her that one of the elders had approached her and had sought to learn about my sexual prowess -- maybe making inquiries of her as to what things my wife felt she could have done differently that might have made me stay in the marriage or in what areas my ex-wife thought me to have been wanting, things like this -- I'd say the elder was driven by his own lustful thoughts and had abused his role in God's household to satisfy his own personal desires, and I'd seek him out and -- let me use the vernacular here -- "kick his ass" -- and then explain to him why he now must explain to his wife the bruises she sees on his torso.
I'm in excellent shape and I'm sure my delivering a good shot to one of his kidneys and the pain that goes along with taking such a shot would also get his wife's attention when he got home. (Some of us used to box before we became Witnesses and you never forget how to momentarily incapacitate another person.) Then I'd report what the elder had said to my ex-wife in writing to the local body of elders and to the Branch without implicating myself in anything that might be considered criminal by signing the letter, and leave what happens next in Jehovah's hands since I know he saw everything that went on from the beginning to the end. But now let me continue on with this so that I might respond to @ScenicViewer's question.
@djeggnog wrote:
Even if a married couple aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, a marriage is a marriage. It doesn't matter how someone, who is divorced from his or her former spouse, or who is separated from his or her spouse, comes to know that the other has moved on and become "one flesh" with someone else.
While the elders are not judges, they are adults and, as adults, they are expected to know the kinds of things that typically occur behind closed doors and they do not need anyone to have to spell out any of such things for them. If, in a courtroom, a wife has had occasion to observe the car of her spouse parked outside someone's home at, say, 6:00 a.m., and she testifies to this effect, the judge knows the husband has moved on, or if, in a courtroom, a husband has had occasion to observe the car of his spouse parked outside someone's home at, say, 10:00 p.m., and he testifies to this effect, the judge knows the wife has moved on. If one of them should be dealing treacherously with the other, that is not the business of the judge, and such would not be the business of the elders either.
@ScenicViewer wrote:
Whaaat? If elders are part of a judicial committee, they certainly are judges!
Right, but the elders are not judges over other people's marriages. Let me ask you something: Is this the kind of thing that you tend to do here on JWN? Someone says something, and you don't quite understand the reason it was said that way, and so you go after the person for what he said and criticize the person because they were ambiguous? If I were writing an article for the Watchtower, I might be a bit more careful about such ambiguity since while the context of what I wrote would be clear to most adults, not all adults have a high enough IQ in education and in life experience to know how an examination of the context of a certain statement can help flesh out the meaning of a particular statement, and I'd be especially concerned that nothing ambiguous or vague would be conveyed once the statements in my article were translated into other languages.
But I hadn't written a Watchtower article; I had posted a message on a website that include a statement that admittedly was ambiguous, so instead of the drama, instead of the criticism, what you could have done is asked me, "What did you mean, @djeggnog? Aren't the elders judges? I didn't understand what you meant." You coming back with something to this effect would also have worked, but your approach did work, I comprehended your question and you now have my answer to it.
I think many of the people here on JWN have been stumbled. I don't think the majority of the folks here are apostates, but when issues arose, you didn't know what to do, who to approach, and too many of you here tremble at men, have a morbid fear of the elders taking adverse actions that will separate you from other family members, from your own children, so that you don't speak up, you never voice complaints, except to one another in the congregation or here in cyberspace on websites like JWN, and if you haven't already physically left your congregation, your heart has left so that you're in fade and looking for a reason to leave God's organization, but worry about your life with your family once they begin to shun you.
Just as I understand that this inordinate fear of man exists, there are many elders that are more aware than you might think of how many of you are reeling and feeling "knotted up" over the way in which you are being treated in the congregation by the local elders, and know (now) how many of you have left and went on to disassociate yourselves from God's organization because you had had enough. I don't intend to be ambiguous, @ScenicViewer, but I'm human, and I'm probably going to ambiguous sometimes. You asked me, "Whaaat?" and I answered your question, did I not? If you want to know what I meant by something I've written on here, you can just ask me, "What did you mean?" and I might answer that one, too.
For those here with the lower IQs I mentioned in either education or in life experience, or both, I'm now going to digress here a bit, and explain what I had pointed out in another thread, that I've found many here on JWN to be "fleshly" in their viewpoints, and I regret that I didn't explain what I meant in that thread that was started by @megatron entitled "12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?" in which the discussion centered on the percentage of "Jehovah's Witnesses who think that gay is OK," and these were the exact words that @megatron used, but because @sizemik turned the discussion into one about how "the true gay [population] among JW's is likely close to 12%" and about how he felt that the "thread title infers incredulity at the thought of a significant portion of JW's 'being OK' with being gay," I had to quickly take my leave of that thread because @sizemik is clever, and I didn't want to engage in a battle of wits, because I also know how to be clever, but then I would then be like @sizemik in appealing to the flesh and seeking the plaudits of others for myself, which is not my calling, and I would not be advancing true worship, which is what I have been called to do.
I mention this only to point out how disingenuous some of the posters are on JWN, and so when I say some here have "fleshly" viewpoints, what I am saying is that spiritual viewpoints are lagging here. Many of you were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses and some of you are at present pretending to be Jehovah's Witnesses and really do not want to be Jehovah's Witnesses, and were it not for your fear of man, you'd be gone already, but I don't want you to go, and if you're "gone" at this time, I want you to come back to Jehovah's organization, but not cowering in fear of the elders over what you think they might do to you and your ties with your family.
Stop reacting to what things you have seen (that sense of sight) and have heard others say (that sense of hearing), and keeping to yourself the things that you feel that are bothering you (that sense of touch) and then telling everyone (the sense of speech) but the elders in your own congregation or if what you are telling involves the elders in your congregation, the elders outside of your congregation your complaints and your concerns.
These are the kinds of things that fleshly Christians do, but spiritual-minded Christians examine all things spiritually. I'm not going to quote the scriptures; you know them well and some here don't care what they say. Some people are what they are, and, frankly, @sizemik has a way of expressing things in a way that could very easily lead a fleshly Christian down the road to apostasy since he knows how Jehovah's Witnesses tick, and he is able to exploit that fear that many of you on JWN have of the elders quite well.
The elders do not all want to split up anyone's family. Please read my posts and at least try to see what I am saying to you all here. Hopefully, none of you find yourself in a hospital with the doctors poised to give you a few blood transfusions in an attempt to save your life, and you begin to think of self, and not wanting to die -- the doctors are telling you that you will die if you don't let them give you the emergency medical treatment you need -- you cave, or one of your children is hospitalized with the doctors are standing by waiting to give your child the emergency medical treatment he or she needs, and not wanting your child to die, you cave. Why you have just been through a trial like you've never experienced before, and the elders know this, and are not out to disfellowship you for caving, for many of us have never been there ourselves or with our own children, and so we can only imagine the ordeal and what it was you felt.
I've never experienced hunger like many children that have had to be content with eating bread sandwiches or cracker sandwiches as a meal, and it is only when the elders or others in the congregation visit the home and discover the squalor in which some have been forced to live that they are made to remember how important it is for us to invite those we don't know very well to our homes for a meal, for our family lives can be almost as private as our marriages. When someone says they're "fine," or claims "we're doing fine," you find discover later that what they meant was "I'm getting by," or "We're managing to stay alive." I can only imagine what someone that must go to bed hungry goes through. Do you respect God's view on blood? Yes or no? If you do, then you won't seek to hide your sins; you'll confess them, and you will be forgiven, not disfellowshipped. And btw, being hungry is not a sin; it's a condition that a meal can cure.
The elders are placed in the congregation to provide spiritual guidance and comfort to all of us, and disfellowshipping someone who in their despair and weakness gave in. The elders just want to know if you regret what you did and are still mindful of the need for all of us to live up to our dedication as best we can. If an elder is determined to disfellowship someone, especially someone that for whatever reason he doesn't like -- he's poor, he's black and rich, she's white and fat, they are so uncouth, they think that they are "all that" -- what can you do?
You can talk to another elder in the congregation about the problem, or you can keep it all inside and try not to let it bother you. You can speak to an elder outside of the congregation about the issue, or you can take it on the chin, as it were. You can write a letter to the branch and ask for assistance from the circuit overseer before the nonsense becomes too much for you to handle or you can wait until you combust. I read somewhere in the Bible that we must fear Jehovah, and so did many of you. I've read absolutely nothing in the Bible though that says we must cower in fear of men, so why do it?
@ProdigalSon:
Ananias and Sapphira held back a little of their own money from the church stealing it. Jehovah made them drop dead on the spot.
Is this how you understood what you read in the Bible in Acts chapter 5?
Read the passage at Acts 5:1-6 and I would ask you to pay particular notice to the words at verse three, where Peter tells Ananias that "Satan [had] emboldened [him] to play false to the holy spirit." Grieving the holy spirit is quite serious; it is not a little sin, but a grave one.
Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, had hatched a scheme to deceive Peter and the rest of the congregation into believing that they had sold one of the properties they owned, and had donated the entire proceeds of the sale to the church, when they had really withheld some of the proceeds of the sale for themselves. Ananias and Sapphira were seeking prestige for themselves in the congregation, so they decided to conjure up a story as to how they felt that they had to donate all of the proceeds from the sale due to the importance of the ministry, and Peter confronted them as to their desire to gain prominence for themselves by inflating the true value of their donation so as to exploit the love and naivete in the congregation.
Imagine some couple joining a congregation in search of someone with the financial wherewithal to invest in a business venture where these unscrupulous individuals -- Ananias and Sapphira -- make it known to the "mark" that a mere $20,000 investment could net them $12,000 (60%) is six months or as much as $25,000 (125%) in a year!
Now there are only ten slots or "points" left in the multimillion dollar project -- he has convincing new articles that he handed you from the web that provide impressive information about the project in which he and his wife had invested $40,000 in two points to which the impressive certificate with a goal seal attests -- so the mark doesn't consult a lawyer and upon signing an official-looking document goes on to fleece the mark out of $100,000 in exchange for five points of a pipedream, who was hoping to net a $125,000 return on the investment, as well as five other marks who came to learn about the opportunity from the mark, and who bought the other five points, so that in exchange for six worthless piece of paper -- one of them bearing the number "6" on it and each of the other five bearing the number "1" on them -- Ananias and Sapphira have fleeced these marks out of $200,000. A good month.
Well, Ananias and Sapphira had picked up the cost of all that schmoozing the mark and his wife had done with them, including those tickets for those great seats you had at Staples Center, and those dinners to which the mark and Ananias thought what a great gesture of Christian love it would be to invite some of the poorer Witnesses to join you, and Ananias and Sapphira wouldn't let the mark pick up the tab ever. Everyone in the congregation thought they liked Ananias and Sapphira and admired their generous spirit. The mark had come to know Ananias and Sapphira for only two months, and had even vouched for them to the other five marks, and they were all fleeced in less than three months of their association with the congregation. Using what things they knew about Jehovah's people, was this sin committed by Ananias and Sapphira a little sin? No one wants to be anyone's victim. Why not give all of this some thought, @ProdigalSon, and get back to me when thinking is done.
Paul can't make up his mind whether women should wear a head covering while teaching, if they should be praised for being congregational leaders, or if they should just keep their traps shut altogether.
Please explain this one to me, for when teaching a man, Paul taught that a woman's head should be covered as a sign of submission to God's arrangement, the principle of headship. A woman may have to take the lead sometimes; some are married to husbands that are not baptized, and they must cover their heads when praying or teaching when their head is present out of respect for him and in recognition of the divine principle. Or maybe a baptized male is present -- her son -- when she's conducting a Bible study with someone, and he is reluctant about praying (he has laryngitis).
Actually, I would say that most Christian women are bold Kingdom proclaimers and you cannot shut them up. Why should they? They very often know more than do the elders in the congregation, but God's arrangement does not permit them to serve as elders themselves. I have been known to be so full of myself that I'm only too happy to be checked by my wife and by other women, too, that aren't too timid or reticent about putting me in check on things I should know, but I've forgotten. There may be one or two things I know that my wife doesn't, and I rather like feeling artificially smarter than she. It happens. I tell them that they when they get to be my age, I'll be the one reminding them.
In fact, the Bible is filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, atrocities, ridiculous stories, failed prophecies and blatant lies.
I've heard this said before about all of the inconsistencies, the contradictions, the atrocities in the Bible. I would be interested in hearing what ridiculous stories you've read, what failed prophecies you've read, what blatant lies you've read in the Bible though. Whenever you have time to do it, I'd really like to hear those.
Why should it matter what's "Scriptural"?
That's a good question. Maybe, in a different thread, we can take up your question, but this is @karter's thread and I've already gone too far as it is.
@djeggnog
35
Your advice please on "Scriptual Divorce"
by karter in
1. jw
2. friends
my ex and i have a legal divorce.. she asked me to write a letter to the b.o.e so she can get a scriptual divorce.. she said she had spoken to the c.o.b.e ans they would take no action against me as i haven't been to a meeting in about 12 years.. my reply "ok get him to put that in writing".

so do you think they will put that in writing?.

and would they take action if i did write the letter giveing her a scriptual divorce?.
djeggnog

@NewChapter:
LOL to Eggnoggg. Cuz that had to be a joke.
Alright.
The first husband was not a JW. He never told me what went on in his personal life after he left, and I really didn't want to stalk him. Even though I needed a scriptural divorce to move on with my life, it was not lost on me how inappropriate it would be to ask him about his sex life. I was pretty much stuck, unless I wanted to become the kind of person I despised. I could have followed him and sat outside his house and taken someone along to witness with me.
Even if a married couple aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, a marriage is a marriage. It doesn't matter how someone, who is divorced from his or her former spouse, or who is separated from his or her spouse, comes to know that the other has moved on and become "one flesh" with someone else.
While the elders are not judges, they are adults and, as adults, they are expected to know the kinds of things that typically occur behind closed doors and they do not need anyone to have to spell out any of such things for them. If, in a courtroom, a wife has had occasion to observe the car of her spouse parked outside someone's home at, say, 6:00 a.m., and she testifies to this effect, the judge knows the husband has moved on, or if, in a courtroom, a husband has had occasion to observe the car of his spouse parked outside someone's home at, say, 10:00 p.m., and he testifies to this effect, the judge knows the wife has moved on. If one of them should be dealing treacherously with the other, that is not the business of the judge, and such would not be the business of the elders either.
The only reason the testimony of a spouse isn't sufficient is where a petitioner is seeking to defend against a contested divorce against the respondent, who is seeking to divorce according to the terms of a signed prenuptial agreement where, if proved, the infidelity of the respondent would constitute a breach. In such cases, a private detective is hired, or a friend of the spouse or a neighbor is requested or subpoenaed to come into court to testify under oath to his or her having observed the car of the respondent in the lawsuit parked at a particular place at a certain time. In the majority of cases though (where prenups aren't involved), the testimony of the spouse that the divorce is being sought due to "irreconcilable differences" is sufficient for a judge to grant the petition for dissolution of marriage.
As far as I can tell, elders aren't authorized to divorce anyone, so their only interest in the marital status of anyone in the congregation is to ensure that the congregation is kept clean. Informing one of the elders of the fact that one's former spouse has left the marriage is sufficient so that should someone make inquiry as to it seems to them that such-and-such is pursing a romantically interest in someone other than his or her spouse, they can assuage the concern of anyone genuinely interested.
And how inappropriate and forward for anyone to walk up to someone that has secretly divorced his or her spouse to ask, "Why are you carrying on with this person as if you aren't already married?" While I'm sure this kind of thing happens in some congregations and I'm also certain that there are elders that would take it upon themselves to stalk someone else, no elder is called upon to engage in stalking activities nor is this something they ought to be doing.
My second husband got baptized after we married, so he was a JW at the time of our divorce. This is what the elders told me at THAT time (and remember, everything is subject to change with these loons). They said is he was not a witness, then his admission to me alone was enough to give me the scriptural divorce. No second witness needed, no letter. They explained it would be between me and Jah at that point.
A confession made to one's spouse that he or she has moved on is a sufficient basis for the innocent mate to believe that he or she has grounds for a scriptural divorce if the innocent mate has no wish to forgive the guilty mate his or her adultery. The innocent mate needs no second witness to the confession. If one of them should be dealing treacherously with the other, that would not be the business of the elders.
But if he was a JW (new cong. they didn't know the guy) then I needed the two witnesses.
Why? Obviously you didn't ask why, for had you asked the elders to explain to you the scripturally reason for investigating the veracity of your declaration -- you went to them! -- as if what you told them wasn't sufficient (btw in courts of law no witnesses are required), you would have forced them to contact the Branch, and this "morals investigation" of theirs would not even have been launched.
So I had to get him to admit to adultery (we were still legally married, but had been separated for a long time) in front of another witness. He actually did that. They tracked him down, and he admitted it to them too. From my understanding though, they never df'd him, and he never went back. I don't know why they didn't DF him, but I wouldn't trust that to be universal.
I'm sorry, but these particular elders you describe here were engaged in something akin to what the Pharisees in Jesus' day would do, and such "morals investigations" still go on in many Jewish and Mormon communities today. Why didn't they disfellowship him? Didn't you say that ex-husband was associated with a new congregation? If any action were to be taken against him, it would normally have been undertaken by the elders in your ex-husband's new congregation.
So it's a problem. Your ex may not feel like she can move on (as I felt for 5 years) and this will distress her. Yes we know it's a cult, we know it isn't right, but we also know we have all been there at one time. On the other hand, if you have family still in, you don't want to take any chance you will be shunned. So you making it possible for her to move on, would really hurt you in your personal life. That is the corner they have backed you and your ex into.
I don't see any of what you see, @NewChapter. I think I understand what things happened in your case, but the elders are human beings, they make mistakes, they often overstep their authority; I don't think what I'm saying to you here is surprising to you, but you went along with this nonsense, no doubt, because of an inordinate fear of the elders in you. The elders are to be respected for the work they do, but a "morals investigation"? There was no justifiable reason for such.
Further, this pejorative you use here -- "cult" -- is how you have explained in your mind this inordinate fear of the elders you have in your not asking any of these elders to explain to you the scriptural reasons for their questioning the veracity of your declaration to them, the basis for their needing to launch a "morals investigation," and their ensuing stalking activity, for had you done this, I don't believe this "morals investigation" would have ever have gotten off the ground.
Perhaps a cult-mentality has taken over some of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I don't want to believe that such exists here in California. I don't know what goes on in every congregation in this state or in any other state, let alone outside of the US, but this doesn't mean that those desirous to doing God's will have been stumbled by such nonsense and this inordinate fear of the elders has led many to submit letters of disassociation or otherwise become inactive and leave our ranks due to the invasion of the family's personal affairs.
But as I recently stated in another thread, the word "cult" would aptly describe all Christian denominations since they are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, with each of them having their own religious beliefs and practices. Personally, I'm fine with being referred to as being a member of a cult, which word is synonymically the same as the word "denomination," but not when this word is used as a pejorative. I take issue with this characterization of God's organization though; just because this cult-mentality might exist in some congregations, it really exists primarily because of an inordinate fear that some or everyone in a particular congregation have of the elders, and if anyone should put up with such nonsense in the congregation without reporting it to someone outside of the local congregation where such things are occurring -- say, to a circuit overseer or by writing a letter to the Branch -- due to an inordinate fear of the elders finding out that one of you have "snitched" on them, then why should the rest of God's organization be painted with this same brush with which you have painted your own congregation where such a cult-mentality may have thrived for several years because no one has dared to report such goings-on to anyone outside of their congregation?
I've actually learned much from reading this and many other threads here on JWN, and while many of you on here, who have read my posts, have often asked me why am I here on JWN, I'm really not at liberty to say, but I can tell you that I do have an agenda, and what things I learn here are reported and analyzed by others.
[It] doesn't sound like she's ready to see this is a cult. Perhaps after some more enforced nun-hood she will start to open her eyes. Or maybe she'll do what I did, and end up with a non-JW (even though he became one afterward). She could even commit fornication herself, be repentant, get reproved, and then you could inform the elders you don't intend to forgive her and that she is free to remarry.
This is crazy talk; no one should have to live their lives in this way, least-wise Jehovah's Witnesses.
These things happen all the time. People feel pressured to have sex to change the situation they have been boxed into. Disgusting isn't it?
Well, the question that they really should be asking is, if the congregation that they attend engages in cult-like activity or the elders in their congregation seem to have a cult-mentality, why is no one reporting what things are going on in their congregation to someone outside of the congregation? No one should be 'feeling pressured' to commit fornication; such conduct dishonors Jehovah. If you believe Jehovah exists, then folks need to stop cowering in fear of the local elders. Report what things are going on in your local congregation to someone outside of your congregation, and preferably in writing. If you cannot muster up the courage to sign your name to a letter, send it unsigned, but report.
Some here on JWN may choose to believe that Jehovah's organization is a cult, but I'd like to think that some of you here know that this is not true of all congregations, but this fear of man -- an inordinate fear, a fear beyond normal limits -- has to be conquered by those in whom such dwells.
@djeggnog
35
Your advice please on "Scriptual Divorce"
by karter in
1. jw
2. friends
my ex and i have a legal divorce.. she asked me to write a letter to the b.o.e so she can get a scriptual divorce.. she said she had spoken to the c.o.b.e ans they would take no action against me as i haven't been to a meeting in about 12 years.. my reply "ok get him to put that in writing".

so do you think they will put that in writing?.

and would they take action if i did write the letter giveing her a scriptual divorce?.
djeggnog

@karter:
My EX and i have a legal divorce.
She asked me to write a letter to the B.O.E so she can get a [Scriptural] divorce.
She said she had spoken to the C.O.B.E [and] they would take no action against me as i haven't been to a meeting in about 12 years.
My reply "OK Get him to put that in writing"
You have a legal divorce, so what need would there be for a letter from you to this effect? Your ex-wife has no need to report to the BOEs of the change in your legal marital status. It's evident that your wife wants to be scripturally free to remarry, but she believes that absent her providing to the elders proof of your infidelity to her, she is not scripturally free to remarry. It seems you want to help your wife by writing a letter, but that you don't want to out yourself as an adulterer, because it seems to her that you incriminating yourself to be the only way she would be obtain a scriptural divorce, except that the elders should not expect the divorcer to incriminate himself, either in person or by his writing to them a letter to this effect, and, as I understand it, you have already obtained a legal divorce. The unscriptural legal divorce obtained by the divorcer is, in effect, a legal separation for all intents and purposes, which means that the divorcer and the divorcee could remarry and resume their marriage at any time since the divorce wasn't obtained on scriptural grounds, but you and your wife are both wrong here.
While it's true that absent proof of your infidelity, your wife would not be scripturally free to remarry, information provided by your wife to the elders of your infidelity to her after your legal divorce -- e.g., that you're living with another woman -- is proof and effectively establishes her freedom to remarry, for adultery on the part of the divorcer (you) validates the divorce already obtained, thus freeing the divorcee (your wife) to remarry.
The elders aren't authorized to be tracking down evidence supplied to them by a husband or a wife that would validate a report made by the innocent party of the guilty party's adultery by arranging with the innocent party to stand vigil over night for the emergence of the guilty party from the third party's home the following morning, and it would be overkill for the innocent party to be asked by the elders to present to them pictures taken of the guilty party with the third party.
If the elders should be inclined to silence whisperers in the congregation over their concern that your wife, thought by them to be married, is perhaps engaging in something immoral by dating someone else, they might simply put all such concerns to rest by saying, "I believe she's scripturally divorced, but you can ask her 'what's up' if for some reason you want to be sure."
So do you think they will put that in writing?
No, and what good would this do anyway? First, your wife asked you to write a letter to the body of elders, but such a letter would only implicate you for it would constitute an admission of intentional wrongdoing on your part sans repentance. As I indicated above, the Bible doesn't give the power of absolution to the elders nor does it give to them the power to give a pass to anyone called a "brother" that admits to being a fornicator by way of a letter so as to make his wife scripturally free to remarry. Perhaps if we were talking about the Pharisees, who are described at Luke 16:14 as being "money lovers," something along the lines suggested by your question here might be worked out, but such a letter would be reprehensible and make these elders complicit in wrongdoing. In fact, they would all of them have to be deleted and replaced at the earliest opportunity since overseers must be irreprehensible.
And would they take action if i did write the letter [giving] her a [scriptural] divorce?
Against you? You should expect to be disfellowshipped were you to write such a letter. There is already in place a legal divorce on unscriptural grounds, so a scriptural divorce isn't even possible. Armed with such a letter, I know that I'd vote to disfellowship, but if no one on the judicial committee seconded my vote, you would then not be disfellowshipped, but such an outcome would be called in some circles a Hail Mary. Why in the world are you living in fear of the elders? You must work out your own salvation; the elders cannot vouch for you and their lives can redeem no one.
Many of the people here on JWN quake in fear of men and that is why I would opine that very few people on here have ever known Jehovah. The Pharaoh of Egypt refused to obey Jehovah's voice, because, as he said, "I do not know Jehovah at all." An apostate is someone that has come to know Jehovah, but has abandoned true worship, but like the Pharaoh, if one does not know Jehovah, it isn't possible to rebel against God. Fear Jehovah God and give him glory, and do not tremble at mere men. Consider doing this post-haste, so that you will not be among those swept away in the error of those law-defying people that "do not know God." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
Take a moment to read all of the responses that you received in this thread and then, when you compare the "advice" you received against this response, you should quickly realize that most of the advice you received here was rooted in FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) and exacerbated by statements like, "If your EX wants a [scriptural] divorce the burden of proof should be on her...," when she not only can't get one of those, but she doesn't need one with a legal divorce already in place. Since what your wife wants is to be scripturally free to remarry, she need only inform the elders of your infidelity today as of whenever it was that it occurred since the elders play an important role in protecting the congregation and keeping it clean, after which she would then be free to remarry today. As to whether you should "write the letter," I concur with @palmtree67's response: "Don't do it."
@djeggnog
48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

@sizemik:
Out of all the drivel comes two facts worth noting.
Ok.
JW's cannot be grouped in with mainstream.
I don't know if you read my initial response to the OP's message, but in order to keep you from having to go back to page 1, here's what @metatron said and just a portion of what I said by way of response:
(@metatron:)
I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.
(@djeggnog:)
Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that evidently is of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of mainstream Christianity, which is odd since Buchanan used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%. Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point....
Notice that you and I seem to agree that Buchanan believes Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream, because I can think of no other reason why he would have written in his book "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK," unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book.
They are a high control, new-age fundamentalist group with roots in Adventism (a doomsday cult in streetspeak).
Even if this were the case, what do you have against Adventism?
The current expression of the religion displays higher than ever levels of mind-control techniques. Any survey would have to be exclusive.
You say here that "the current expression of the religion displays higher than ever levels of mind-control techniques," but I'm not clear on something: What does "higher than ever" mean? Higher than what exactly?
It doesn't matter whether Buchanan said or whoever . . . the true gay [population] among JW's is likely close to 12%.
Hold on, @sizemik. I'd like you to go back and review what it was I wrote to see if you really want to go in another direction than I was addressing or than what the OP was addressing in the initial post. The OP indicated how Buchanan claimed "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK." What @metatron did not say a thing about there being a gay population among Jehovah's Witnesses, let alone that this population is "close to 12%." I don't say that you intentionally re-wrote what it was the OP wrote or what it was I wrote, but your comment is reckless and puts a spin on this thread, which is unwarranted. This is the first instance of spin to which I object.
There's something else you wrote in your post that caught my attention. You wrote:
Active JW's who are gay need to overcome a massive personal cognitive dissonance which has to be dealt with.... You can condemn them any which way you desire . . . just don't ask them to condemn themselves.
Anyone reading this statement of yours might conclude -- and wrongly so -- that I had written something specifically in condemnation of homosexual. I suppose this statement of yours might compel the reader of it to go back to Page 1 to read my posts with the goal in mind of finding this statement to which you referred when I made no such statement.
Also, in response to @EmptyInside's post, I did tell him that I didn't believe his "being gay to have involved a choice on [his] part," but that the decision to "have sexual relations with someone to whom [he isn't] ... married" to be a choice. Go back to read my remarks, but I wrote nothing in condemnation of anyone that might be gay for reasons that they cannot either explain or understand. This is the second instance of spin to which I also object.
I'm going to ask you, @sizemik, to read my words and try to get to sense of them, for my words are always measured to have the greatest impact, and my writing style is intentionally verbose so that it is less likely that something I might write here on JWN will be misunderstood or misconstrued. I cannot stop you from spinning my words or someone else's, but please read them so that you get the sense of them and do not your best not to spin my words.
I don't believe you to be a stupid person, but neither am I, so if you should decide to disregard my request and do this again, I won't ask you again; I'll then have to ignore you, so my hope is that you and I now have an understanding about your use of spin as a way to disguise the inflammatory nature of comments according to your own agenda that you wish to inject into a thread, which comments distort the thread and take it way off-topic.
ED: Hello djeggnog . . . I was worried something had happened to you. Nice to have you back.
Hey, thanks, @sizemik. I (sorta) missed you, too, but this stunt of yours in particular reminds me that I didn't miss you all that much. <:-J>
@djeggnog
48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

@metatron:
djeggnog, your lengthy post appears full of confused , rambling thought.
Ok.
First, I see no evidence that Pat Buchanan sees Witnesses as a mainstream group since he seems to mention the organization as a more extreme example, along with Mormons and their higher admitted acceptance. It would be good if you read the book.
Let me quote here what you said in your first paragraph on page 1, and then tell what it was that prompted me to post a response, ok?
(@metatron:)
I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.
I have no way of knowing if this figure of 12% was an accurate one, but I thought it suspect, and, if true, it could only have been based on a poll taken by folks identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses when Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in such polls. This figure could mean that out of 1,000 people polled, 120 of those people -- or 12% -- told the pollster that they as Jehovah's Witnesses thought homosexuality -- "gay behavior" -- to be ok with them. This poll may have been based on a smaller sampling, where 12 out of 100 people polled indicated how they thought "gay behavior" to be ok. It could also be that as few as 49 people were polled, and 6 out of 49 -- 12% -- indicated to the pollster that they, as Jehovah's Witnesses, considered gay behavior to be acceptable to them.
Now statistics are interesting creatures, since one could extrapolate using such a number that out of 7.3 million Witnesses in the world, 876,000 of them didn't agree with the Bible's view on fornication, that is to say, homosexuality, for what the Bible specifically condemns is fornication. Even if it were true that 6 people out of 49, 12 people out of 100, or 120 people out of 1,000, were to have provided such an opinion, I cannot imagine some 876,000 people out of 7.3 million being of such an opinion as to the Bible's position on fornication.
Second, "He" didn't conduct a poll. He was quoting someone else who conducted the poll - whose answers evidently contradict the Watchtower's command not to cooperate with surveys, as contained in a BOE letter and KM instruction.
Why would it matter if the poll was conducted by Pat Buchanan or by his baby brother? What I understood from your post was that on page 71 of Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower," he claimed -- and I'm quoting you here -- "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior if OK."
I don't know anything at all about who conducted the poll from which this 12% figure came, or on what this 12% figure is based, but based on what you wrote in your message, I decided to post a comment challenging the veracity of the statement you indicated was made in Buchanan's book.
You have no proof of any assertion that Witnesses would or would not answer such a survey, especially given that large numbers of Witnesses ignore MANY commands from the GB currently ( such as 'Please contribute' or 'Don't save seats' or 'Stay off Facebook' or 'Attend Meetings')
I feel as if I am speaking to a child here -- I hope I'm not! -- and I don't care if you feel insulted by my having just said this to you, but the fact that you posted a message to challenge my "assertion" that Witnesses would not answer such a survey is quite telling. The only thing I challenged was the 12% figure that you wrote in your message was given in Buchanan's book. Jehovah God didn't make human beings either animals or robots that we should be trained to respond obediently to every command we are given. No, but man was made in God's image and likeness, made with the ability to think, to reason, to decide whether we are going to do something or not to do that something, since we were all made with something called "free will."
Do you really consider it to be a sin to save seats when you are told by someone not to do so? Do you really consider it to be a sin to visit a web site like JWN, where both active and inactive Witnesses -- some of them apostates and some of them "conscious" and in fade, some of them alone or confused or angry with an elder or with the way in which the representative body of elders handled an issue, some of them angry because an elder told them that they would be there for them to handle a matter related to the use of blood following an accident and because the elder was a no-show, they now fear God's retribution because the doctors "forced" a blood transfusion on their child, and some other angry that the representative body of elders took sides against them when investigating a matter, and some of them who have never been Witnesses at all, but who may have studied the Bible with one of them -- also visit quite frequently?
If you don't want to do what the elders might ask you to do, if you don't wish to follow the guidelines provided in our literature with respect to social networking sites like this one or Facebook, if you would rather save seats for your family when you are attending a convention or other large gathering, whatever the reason, in Christ you are free to do whatever it is you decide to do. You may not be an elder or you may never be an elder, but in Christ you are just as free to make your own choices as any elder, who are provided as gifts to provide spiritual help to those in the flock that need or request their help, and are just as equal to you and to those in the congregation that may have only just gotten baptized.
Now let me quote here what you said in your second paragraph on page 1, and then tell what it was that prompted me to post a response, ok?
(@metatron:)
Really? And where are these self identified Jehovah's Witnesses who think that gay is OK? Is the Governing Body worried about this ? California congregations, I'll bet.
I wanted to disabuse you of the notion that this 12% of the "self identified Jehovah's Witnesses" you mentioned that thought fornication ("gay behavior") to be ok were "California congregations," since I'm in California and I think this number to be bogus, inaccurate, perhaps spun by Buchanan to meet his agenda. You said you thought I was "confused, rambling" in what I wrote, and you are entitled to think what you like, but hopefully you'll realize at some point that I wasn't just speaking to you, @metatron, but what I posted was for the reading consumption of everyone that should come upon and read your thread on JWN, including the lurkers, and not those that should read this thread today, but those who should read this thread months or years from now. In closing, I'm going to wax something here in the next four (4) paragraphs:
Let's just say that I've grown accustomed to speaking to large groups of people on the 'net, and unlike you and many others here on JWN, I don't view admonitions or even the suggestions that someone might give me as commands that would constitute sins were I to decide to ignore one or more of them as you seem to view all such. If you prefer to argue with me, that's fine, but I'm smarter than that and I won't do it. I may have had one or two vigorous debates on JWN, but I believe everyone on JWN deserves respect even if we should disagree and I give it to everyone. But read what things I've written and you'll see I'm firm; I will never "sugarcoat" that which does not merit such.
Many of the folks here have been benched or are voluntarily sitting on the bench, but you have a "leg-up" on everyone else in the world in having heard the truth, so you're in the game. We're teammates really, but some of you have sustained an injury, so you are not able to play at present. Some of you were fleshly Christians when you were "in" and many of you continue to be "fleshly" in your viewpoints, but maybe you know that it is not possible to reinstate someone that wasn't in the game. Only those that were actually in the game can be removed from the injured list if their injury heals satisfactorily and get off that bench. Note that I don't say, "Don't save seats" or "Stay off Facebook," but what I do say is, "Get Back into the Game."
I don't know what brought you to JWN; maybe you came here to vent about the governing body (who soon will not be there for anyone, just the elders, and maybe only you will be there for you and your family as the great tribulation approaches), maybe you came here hoping to find others that would commiserate with you in some way. I'm here to speak to the many lurkers that read the threads here on JWN, who may be on the proverbial fence and having doubts about their faith. Ask around: I don't have a secret agenda, and I speak to you now as an adult, and not as a child:
You see, as a mature adult, I have learned not only how to make decisions, but, as a mature adult in Christ, I have learned a long time ago that I have the freedom to do all things despite what things someone else's conscience won't permit them to do. Some elders can be bullies at times, but you give to them the power to impose their own will on you, since you have a Bible the same as they, don't you? and if you've both read and studied the Bible, you know that these were not placed in any of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses to bully anyone, do you not?
@EmptyInside:
When I was still an active [Witness, I] realized it wasn't a choice. I used to cringe when other Witnesses made derogatory remarks.
But if you're gay, why did you cringe? I don't think being gay to have involved a choice on your part to be such; I don't think being a alcoholic involved a choice made by someone to be such either. But everyone that comes to Christ must choose to put away those things that he does not accept, and if you're not ready to do this, you cannot be compelled by someone else to come to Christ, but you must come to him voluntarily, willingly.
I guess my liberal views finally opened my eyes about the religion.
Now Witnesses are human beings though, and just like there are some things that people do that might make you cringe -- maybe you observe someone using one of the tables across from where you are sitting at McDonald's as they change a baby's diaper and the sight of this causes you to cringe when you are trying to eat -- some Witnesses have biases that have made them bigots when it comes to homosexuality, and you will just have to accept that we all have things on which we need to work. Those derogatory remarks come from bigotry and they indicate a lack of 'neighbor love' on the part of those making them. But you know what?
There are those who are gay that attend many of the meetings at our Kingdom Halls and even the bigoted wonders we have in our midst have learned how to greet by name these gay men and lesbians. I don't what your "liberal views" have to do with Christianity, but I do know that it's hard enough trying to change our own behavior, so why concern yourself with trying to change the behavior of other people. Being gay may not be a choice, but deciding that you will have sexual relations with someone to whom you're not married is a choice. I would like to 'open your eyes' as to this, @EmptyInside: You can attend our meetings and you don't have to offer up an explanation as to any of the things you might do in your personal life to anyone; let those Witnesses sneer, but it's up to you to keep growing in knowledge of God and Christ as you work out your own salvation.
@djeggnog
48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

@metatron wrote:
I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK.
@djeggnog wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that ... used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%.
@Anony Mous wrote:
WTF are you smoking DJ, you contradicted yourself here first but you should understand that Pat has a lot more knowledge about these things than a random person off the street....
This was my point; he should know that Jehovah's Witnesses could not have participated in such a poll since we are politically neutral. @metatron had quoted something from Buchanan's book, so I was merely making an observation.
Voting is not a way of knowing anything because [voting] does not include religion.
Actually, I referred to both voting and polling, and the Catholic women I mentioned were polled by some organization and apparently "some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception,"
One of the ways is to have a population of a couple of thousand random people polled about a bunch of things that include but are not limited to their self-identified religion, sexual orientation.
The truth is I know how the world works, especially how the polls are done here in the US. You mention of computers made me smile, because I knew you weren't talking about mainframes, keypunch cards or dumb terminals that were used at one time to process such data. I don't know for sure, but from reading your response, it's possible that I may be much older than you are and perhaps more experienced in life than you are. This doesn't mean I am wiser than you, but it's possible I could be that, too.
@djeggnog wrote:
Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point....
@Anony Mous wrote:
That is the whole point. It shows that the GB is losing control over their general population of JW's and there are a heck of a lot more doubters and fakers than we think in the org.
Jehovah's Witnesses are organized under a rubric just as are those associated with the Catholic faith, Buchanan's faith. Out of 7.3 million Witnesses in the world, there may, in fact, be only about one third that are really Jehovah's Witnesses. Bible Students. Kingdom Proclaimers that are sincerely interested in the salvation of themselves and other people. I'm not about to preach to you, @Anony Mous; I mean, what would be the point of trying to engage you on a spiritual level? But many people responded favorably to the things that Jesus said and taught, but since the days of the apostles until now, many more people have responded favorably to the things that they heard Jesus say and taught by sharing what they learned with others.
I know you know all of this already, but I'm just seeking to make one small point here. Days are coming when the remaining two-thirds may fall away, many of whom will be family members, will go back to the things that they had left behind and it will become rough for that one third. The organized preaching work will end and we are now preparing ourselves for a time when the governing body and the organization we knew will be no more as the great tribulation approaches.
You don't think about such things, but I imagine that things will become worse during the great tribulation for Jehovah's Witnesses than they had ever been just as they were in the days leading up to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in 70 AD. This one third will all recognize where we are in the stream of time and not one of these will doubt nor fake their dismay as we become gripped with anxiety as our trials begin, when the governments of the world seek to make us break faith with our God and in Christ our savior. Most of those within this same one-third will be numbered among the survivors of Armageddon.
As for the two-thirds, they never came to understand the seriousness of preparing for the tribulation that is coming, but the one third understood that as soon as the nations began to declare "Peace and security!" our deliverance would immediately follow along with our regrets that the two-thirds became naysayers or made a promise to return upon their achievement of a particular goal, only to discover that the proverbial door had been shut to them and no formal organized arrangement to which they can return. This is one of the things I think about most and so I give no thought at all to "the "doubters and fakers," but I say to them the only thing I can say: Ciao.
@djeggnog wrote:
[S]ome 58% of [Catholic women] support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Catholics don't get shunned for taking birth control.
No one likes to be ignored, so being shunned is going to be unpleasant, especially if a close family member is doing the shunning when they join unrelated Witnesses in shunning the disfellowshipped family member even though they are often in the best position to (maybe) help the errant one to see the need to repent. But I wasn't suggesting here that Catholics are ever excommunicated for taking birth control pills.
@djeggnog wrote:
[This] is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose.
@Anony Mous wrote:
What rock have you been living under for the last 30 years? I learned that in high school and that was about 20 years ago. You could also ask doctors or look it up on the internet (or encyclopedia) before making your conclusions
I am, first, a man, and second, a father, and with me being a man, I didn't become interested in birth control until my teenager daughter needed birth control pills and not because she was sexually active. You are a woman and perhaps a mother as well, and you learned about these things when you were attending high school "about 20 years ago." Again, it's obvious that you're younger than me; you had the internet, but there was no internet when I attended high school, but despite this handicap, I managed to crawl out from under my rock with the help of my wife and the courage of my daughter in telling me that she needed birth control pills.
@djeggnog wrote:
Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family.
@Anony Mous wrote:
That only happens among high-control cults. Those are not well-meaning elders if they prompt for speculation and witch hunts based on what someone takes as medicine.
Assuming you're right about my being a member of a cult, what's so tough for you to accept about my being in a cult? A cult is an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, which would indict every Christian denomination that exists in the world. Some of these cults employ many rituals in their religious practices as well. While you would use the word "cult" as a pejorative, the point I want to make here is that the word "cult" would aptly describe every Christian denomination on the planet since all Christian denominations are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, with each having their own religious beliefs and practices, and the "high-control cults" are particularly interesting, especially the ones that regularly dole out the kool-aid to its members. I'm fine with being referred to as being a member of a cult, which word is synonymically the same as the word "denomination."
As far as the elders are concerned, they are imperfect and many of them don't know a whole lot about birth control pills. We will likely publish an article on the many other uses of the birth control pill, since, in our literature, our articles have only discussed the use of birth control pills for contraception, but never for the myriads of reasons women, young and old, use them today. I wouldn't ever blame someone for not knowing things that they just didn't know.
Perhaps you had in the past expected the elders in your congregation to be more spiritual-minded than you, but I have very often found this to not be the case. Some of them have misused their authority over some in the congregation as well as over their wives and children, and were deleted as such after several years of such misuse. Waiting on Jehovah, which means to wait until one of the elders inside or outside the congregation should step in to correct the situation, has come to be viewed as a "Hail Mary" because the needed changes never seem to come, but it may take up to five years, even ten years, but change eventually does come.
No one's perfect, no even you, and no one can live up anyone's ideal as to how a spiritually mature man -- an elder -- ought to conduct himself. How often have you been disappointed in yourself, or in other's imperfections? Why exempt the elders when they are more likely to reveal the many imperfections they have to so many in the congregation, due to the fact that they deal with so many more people in the congregation than you do? Put any elder under a microscope, and if they aren't the kind that do most things in stealth, but more openly, you will have much to gossip about for many years, and if you are admonished to put all such gossip away from you and you persist, discipline is warranted even if you should want a slap on the wrist for making a fuss and don't want to be shunned for awhile.
Why does there need to be such control in the first place? This only goes to show something is not normal and morally wrong among JW's in general.
Every school I've attended is controlled by a school board of some kind. A single school board might control 20 or more schools in a particular district or city for which it provides organization and oversight. Each school governed by this school board is staffed by teachers and administrative staff, as well as other employees (e.g., janitors, cafeteria workers, and so forth). Grades are recorded and sent from each of these schools to the school board itself, and matters involving the students and faculty are typically handled by the school board.
With over 105,000 congregations for which the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses provides oversight though 118 branch offices, each congregation needs to be organized for the preaching work we do since we must produce and distribute literature in 236 lands and islands of the sea to help each congregation serve the territories to which they have been assigned. Without such control, without such organization, we would be less efficient and there would be much chaos with everyone doing their own thing.
@djeggnog wrote:
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls
@Anony Mous wrote:
Obviously they do. They just don't tell people like you.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
they ... have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Why the high pressure and control to account for someone's actions? Can't you see there is something going wrong that you have to account for your hours to a religious organization, organizations that are supposed to better someone and make them feel good?
Jehovah's organization isn't set up to make anyone feel good. It is set up to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God that was preached by Jesus and his apostles during the first century AD, as well as to proclaim the good news of the established kingdom of God as well as to warn others as to the coming "day of vengeance on the part of our God" so that they will be prepared spiritually for what's coming. The field service reports help certain departments to know what literature needs to be printed and how best to use what resources we have to address the local needs of the people to whom we preach anywhere in the world.
@djeggnog wrote:
We mark these off as publishers, which, of course, decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones to become better ministers to all....
@Anony Mous wrote:
That's the new attitude towards those that are weak in the faith? Where do you follow Jesus' command to leave behind the 99 sheep to go look for 1? That is the most callous comment I've ever heard an elder make
You here refer to Jesus' words at Luke 15:4-7. We have always endeavored to make assessment of those with whom we are studying the Bible after about six months, because we do not wish to waste time with anyone that doesn't appreciate the seriousness of the message we preach. If any baptized brother or sister in the congregation should be weak in their faith, they know that they should reach out to a mature brother or sister in the congregation or reach out to one of the elders so that someone may be assigned to study with them as to those matters that may be adversely affecting their faith. We should not be intruding into anyone's personal life, since it is our endeavor to build others up spiritually.
While elders are there to give special attention to those in the congregation that need it, they are not mind-readers, and if we should learn that one of the sheep should stray by making questionable decisions that has impacted them spiritually or if one should become infirm so that they may not be able to attend meetings for several months, we would do what we can to help the person stay abreast of the spiritual things being discussed at the meetings. But if anyone should decide that they are no longer interested in serving Jehovah by their conduct, we cannot help someone that doesn't want to be helped, and so, in that case, we will use our time to concentrate on the spiritual needs of the "99."
@djeggnog wrote:
If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters, or should have his or her own "gospel," where he or she bashes or treats anyone either disrespectfully or with contempt because someone is "gay," such persons would be disqualified from recognition as Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what the percentage, and no such person can be counted as a publisher as long as such a person demonstrates a bias against those for whom Christ died on the basis of someone's race, sexual preference, etc.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Again, why the control over someone's personal ideas and attitudes? The matter is also not political, it's biological. Being gay or accepting someone for who they are is normal behavior. Something's seriously wrong with you if you think otherwise.
You cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and not be politically neutral. To engage in spiritual adultery would constitute unfaithfulness to God and dishonor to our king, the Lord Jesus Christ, and contrary to what you believe, gay marriage -- the issue to which I was referring -- is a political issue. What I was saying is that because Jehovah's Witnesses have no opinion on the issue of whether gay marriage should be approved or disapproved, we would not bash or treat anyone disrespectfully or with contempt because they were "gay." You cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or an unbaptized publisher of the kingdom of God and a bigot. I am neither qualified nor prepared to discuss with you what is normal behavior and what isn't normal behavior for anyone, and, in Christ, I don't need to know such things to fully accomplish my ministry.
@djeggnog wrote:
but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral.
@Anony Mous wrote:
Everyone does take a position regardless of what they might think. To deny yourself this is called cognitive dissonance. JW's are not 100% neutral as has become very clear from these and other polls (such as those from the Pew forum). I was a JW for almost 30 years and was never 100% politically neutral and there was none that was ever neutral. But then again, this is not a political issue as much as it is an issue to accept someone who is different from you.
Accepting someone that might behave differently from me is rather easy for me; I love talking to people, no matter what their background, ancestry or race or sexual orientation. As I told you, I do not take a position on any of the world's political affairs. This might be hard for some to do, but not hard at all for me to do. I take positions on many things on a variety of topics, but, like I said, when it comes to political issues, I'm 100% neutral.
@djeggnog wrote:
Buchanan claims Jehovah's Witnesses are 12% "ok" with gay behavior, but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down the gay-marriage ban in California called "Proposition 8, "ruling that the Prop 8 ban against same-sex couples marrying to be unconstitutional, thus removing the ban, but electing not to touch the larger question of whether gay marriage is legal under the California Constitution. But this development is not our business; we have no opinion.
@Anony Mous wrote:
You don't have to be politically active to be polled in a sociological study. The question about accepting others for who they are is not political in nature, it's a natural socialogical question and we should wonder why anyone does NOT accept someone who is gay into their midst. Where did Jesus say to shun the gays? Or shun anyone at all?
@metatron made reference to something in Buchanan's book about "growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions," but I wasn't addressing that issue at all. I merely point out that he could not have gotten that 12% number by polling Jehovah's Witnesses, since we don not participate in anything of a political nature, like polls. Also, I should point out that I don't care what you think to be true: I'm telling you that I don't shun gays and neither do Jehovah's Witnesses
Again, bullshit, cognitive dissonance. Everybody has an opinion on everything.
As far as the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't have an opinion since we don't have anything at all to do with voting or ballot propositions. It is what it is.
Most JW's don't have their OWN opinions, they have the opinion of the 7 blind men that lead them in darkness, which you could be quite accurate by saying the JW's have no opinions, they are blinded slaves.
Jehovah's Witnesses have opined that because they are like Christ in being no part of world that we would not lend our opinion to whatever any of the governments of the world might be doing, except where what these governments are doing might impact our brothers and sisters living under such governments and affect the work that we, as Christians, are obliged to do.
@djeggnog wrote:
[I]f nothing at all were to happen after two weeks, California would then be able to resume the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples desirous of solemnizing their coupleship/partnership through marriage.... Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either.
@Anony Mous wrote:
If they have no opinion then they will allow gay marriages in their kingdom halls I suppose? You are full of it DJ, you have no idea what you just wrote. You are spewing the GB propaganda that JW's have no opinions and are strictly neutral which has been disproven over time (see the UN [debacle, their repeated involvement with the courts etc.)
Jehovah's Witnesses do not perform gay marriages in any of our Kingdom Halls. The idea of presiding over such an event in God's spiritual temple is repugnant to me and would be repugnant to all Jehovah's Witnesses. I was merely saying that you would find that none of Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, including our Governing Body, would have an opinion as to whether the government should marry same-sex couples. Unbelievers can do what they wish outside of God's congregation.
As far as NGOs are concerned, Jehovah's Witnesses need to make certain compromises from time to time about which you might hear, but not really understand the reasons why these compromises are made, but our registering with the UN gives us the right to appeal to the UN when need be should the human rights of our brothers and sisters be denied in any UN member state over which the UN holds sway and does not violate our Christian neutrality or alter our neutral stance.
Just as we would not want to consign any of our brothers and sisters to many years of incarceration or even a premature death, draft age young men here in the US would register for selective service, but they were conscientious objectors and resolved to remain neutral. We do not wish to consign any of our brothers and sisters to criminal penalties for failing to register with the Selective Service, for their registration does not violate their Christian neutrality nor does such a compromise alter their neutral stance.
Obviously you have formed an opinion because you are compelled to answer on the subject. Your opinions may be formed by the GB which say "no gays" like they said "no blacks" in the past. They'll come around in a couple of decades. But to say they are neutral on the subject (which means they would accept gays or leave it up as a "[conscience] matter") is false.
Ok.
@djeggnog
48
12% of JWs Think Gay Is OK? Really?
by metatron in
1. jw
2. friends
i was reading pat buchanan's book, "suicide of a superpower".

on page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions.

he claims that 12% of jw's think gay behavior is ok.. really?
djeggnog

metatron:

I was reading Pat Buchanan's book, "Suicide of a Superpower". On page 71, he speaks about the growing acceptance of homosexuality amidst religions. He claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK. Pat Buchanan is a Catholic that evidently is of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of mainstream Christianity, which is odd since Buchanan used to know that Jehovah's Witnesses didn't vote or participate in political polls, which is the only sure way that he could possibly have been able to come up with such as figure as 12%. Whether the number should be 2% or 50% of those identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses that thought gay behavior to be ok is really not the point, for of all of the Catholic women polled, some 58% of them support a requirement that health insurance plans should provide preventive services, including contraception, which includes birth control, despite the resolute teachings against the use of contraception by church leaders, and some 98% of Catholic women polled have admitted using birth control. Speaking of birth control, I might digress here a bit to point out that women with polycystic ovarian syndrome have an increased risk of endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and cysts, as well as an increased risk of strokes and heart attacks, which is why younger women that are not sexually active (unmarried Jehovah's Witnesses, for example) use birth control pills every month. They also use them as a way to regulate their periods, which is something that fathers, like myself, didn't know and needed to learn like everyone else that were of the belief that birth control pills only served one purpose. Menstrual cramps, menstrual bleeding, mood swings (PMS), estrogen production, acne are relieved by those that are able to use birth control pills (although not all women can). Unreasonable suspicions, malicious gossip and, yes, the occasional witch hunts prompted by unwarranted speculation and ignorance by well-meaning elders are fewer in congregations having informed elders with one or more teenage daughters in the family. At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls, but they would be the ones that are actively engaged in the work of Kingdom preaching; they are not the ones that claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, but who have to be "reminded" to turn in their field service reports every month. We mark these off as publishers, which, of course, decreases the number of Kingdom proclaimers, but allows us to focus on helping new ones to become better ministers to all, regardless of someone's sexual orientation, regardless of what the law might be for same-sex couples living in Massachusetts, DC, Washington or California. If anyone claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses should not be politically neutral in such matters, or should have his or her own "gospel," where he or she bashes or treats anyone either disrespectfully or with contempt because someone is "gay," such persons would be disqualified from recognition as Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what the percentage, and no such person can be counted as a publisher as long as such a person demonstrates a bias against those for whom Christ died on the basis of someone's race, sexual preference, etc. Jehovah's Witnesses do need to stay abreast of what things are going on in the world if we want to be more effective as ministers, but we take no position on any of the world's political affairs, because Jehovah's Witnesses are still 100% neutral. Really? And where are these self identified Jehovah's Witnesses who think that gay is OK? Is the Governing Body worried about this ? California congregations, I'll bet. That's a good question you just posed. Buchanan claims Jehovah's Witnesses are 12% "ok" with gay behavior, but what politically active Witness did Buchanan poll? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit struck down the gay-marriage ban in California called "Proposition 8, " ruling that the Prop 8 ban against same-sex couples marrying to be unconstitutional, thus removing the ban, but electing not to touch the larger question of whether gay marriage is legal under the California Constitution. But this development is not our business; we have no opinion. Of course, it follows that there will be at least two weeks before same-sex marriages can resume in California, in order to give the losing side time to seek a rehearing in the Ninth Circuit, which is likely, or to file an appeal in the US Supreme Court, which the SCOTUS might refuse to hear, which is also likely. Since the California Supreme Court cannot make laws -- only the California Legislature can do that -- before Prop 8 was passed, the Court had ruled that you cannot treat gay couples as if they were second-class citizens, which is what gave rise to Prop 8 in the first place, so that a provision was added to the California Constitution making it unconstitutional for anyone but a man and a woman to marry in the state of California. The effect of this ruling by the Ninth Circuit this past Tuesday (February 7, 2012) now that this provision added to the California Constitution is now gone is that if nothing at all were to happen after two weeks, California would then be able to resume the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples desirous of solemnizing their coupleship/partnership through marriage, but why pick on the Witnesses in California? Like all Jehovah's Witnesses in the world, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no opinion either. @djeggnog [posted from my iPad using Atomic Web with "Browser Identified As" setting of "Internet Explorer 8," and not "Default - Mobile Safari"]