Posts by djeggnog

posted

100
Latest Watchtower page 30... They have some nerve to put this!
by TimothyT in
1. watchtower
2. bible
one thing that i have always noticed even when i was a jw is that the jw org has lots and lots and lots of rules for allsorts of stupid petty rules which make no difference.

when you read the bible you see how they are clearly in the wrong here and are acting like the pharisees themselves, who imposed so much pressure on others to conform to the law.

am i missing something here!?!?
djeggnog

@TimothyT:
One thing that I have ALWAYS noticed even when I was a JW is that the JW org has LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of rules for allsorts of stupid petty rules which make NO difference.
The article, "Watch Out for the Leaven of the Pharisees" [w12 5/15 30], was written as counsel to those taking the lead in God's organization, the elders. Some of the elders have given evidence that suggests a feeling on their part of being superior as if they are not sinners as much so as the flock of God among whom they serve as shepherds. Those of you that have become stumbled by certain ones in the congregation may wish to know that this article gives attention to a problem, while pointing out how Jesus was able to serve God despite his receiving much criticism for what he taught from religious leaders, like the Pharisees. You say Jehovah's organization has "lots and lots and lots of rules," but what rules in particular do you mean? Could you provide one or two examples of these burdensome rules that were imposed by Jehovah's organization that you found to have been either stupid or petty or both?
When you read the bible you see how they are clearly in the wrong here and are acting like the pharisees themselves, who imposed so much pressure on others to conform to the law. Am i missing something here!?!?
Yes, I do believe you are "missing something here," @TimothyT. What was it in particular did you read in the Bible that makes you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses "act" or behave in a manner that resembles the way in which those religious leadersk like the Pharisees, behaved toward the Jews in pressuring them to conform to the Law of Moses? A citation or two that includes the book, chapter and verse(s) would be a great help toward me understanding what it is you are saying here.
3 The Pharisees’ rules and traditions made the application of the Law burdensome for the common people.
The Mosaic Law furnished the overall structure for Israel’s worship of Jehovah. However, minute details were not provided. For instance, the Law forbade work on the Sabbath, but it did not explicitly define what constituted work and what did not. (Ex. 20:10) The Pharisees sought to fill in such supposed gaps by means of their laws, definitions, and traditions. While Jesus ignored the arbitrary rules of the Pharisees, he did observe the Mosaic Law. (Matt. 5:17, 18; 23:23) He saw beyond the letter of the Law. Jesus discerned the spirit behind the Law and the need for mercy and compassion. He was reasonable, even when his followers failed him. For example, although he urged three of his apostles to stay awake and keep on the watch on the night of his arrest, they fell asleep repeatedly. Nevertheless, he sympathetically remarked: "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the flesh is weak."—Mark 14:34-42.
Errrr yeah... ok... I decided this wasnt reflective enough, so i decided to change it to a more modern day interpretation. See what you think!
3 The governing body’s rules and traditions make the application of the Jesus’ Laws burdensome for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Law of Christianity furnished the overall structure for all worship of Jehovah. However, minute details were not provided. The governing body seek to fill in such supposed gaps by means of their laws, definitions, and traditions. While Jesus ignores the arbitrary rules of the governing body, he does observe the Law of Christianity. (Matt. 22:36-40) He saw beyond the letter of the Law. Jesus discerned the spirit behind the Law and the need for mercy and compassion. He was reasonable, even when his followers failed him. For example, although he urged three of his apostles to stay awake and keep on the watch on the night of his arrest, they fell asleep repeatedly. Nevertheless, he sympathetically remarked: "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the flesh is weak."—Mark 14:34-42.
Questions for meditation: Does the governing body seek to lay down arbitrary, inflexible rules or to turn their personal opinions into law? Are they reasonable in what they expect of others?
Reflect on the contrast between Jesus’ teaching and that of the governing body. Do you see ways in which they could improve? If so, why do they not resolve to do so?
Just as you did, I have redrafted Point #3 in the hope that what follows will be help you to discern the purpose not only of this point, but of the article itself:
3 Of course, Christians have never been obliged to keep the Law of Moses, but they are obliged to adhere to the law of Christ, which law embodies many of the principles of the law.
Adherence to the law of Christ is based on loving one's neighbor from the heart, which is how Christians demonstrate their love for God and his commandments. (Luke 10:27; 1 John 5:2, 3) While not all, but some of the elders in God's organization today have imposed their own rules ad precepts upon Jehovah's people according to their own inclinations, Jehovah's Witnesses would ignore all such rules by strictly adhering to God's commandments despite what criticism some elders might heap upon them while being submissive to them. (Heb. 13:7, 17) The elders in the congregation are being led by God's spirit, and they endeavor to fulfill "the law of the Christ" as they "go on carrying the burdens of one another" by being merciful and compassionate to those placed in their care, especially when some in the congregation are slow to respond to counsel. (Gal. 6:2; 1 Tim. 1:16; Eph. 4:32) For example, when it becomes apparent that circumstances make it difficult for an elder to carry out his responsibilities toward the congregation because of the manner in which he treats the flock, the elders know that God does not want anyone to be made to carry more than he can bear since they acknowledge the principle that "they are many members, yet one body."--1 Cor. 10:13; 12:20.
Questions for meditation: Do I seek to lay down arbitrary, inflexible rules or to turn my personal opinions into law? Am I reasonable in what I expect of others?
Reflect on the contrast between Jesus’ teaching and that of the Pharisees. Do you see ways in which you could improve? If so, why not resolve to do so?
Like Jesus, are you reasonable about what you expect of others?
Above, I do ask you a couple questions, @TimothyT, and maybe you won't mind answering them, but if you do, that's ok. However, if you should have any follow-up questions of your own, please feel free to ask them.
@Nobleheart:
Arbitrary or inflexible rules
How about parents shunning their own son/daughter...
There is no rule in place that requires a parent to shun his or her own son or daughter, but Jehovah's Witnesses are admonished to avoid the kind of spiritual fellowship that they may have had in the past with their children, although, as parents, the giving of counsel might become necessary. Of course, I must distinguish a point that is made in this same issue of the Watchtower on page 25-26 in the article entitled, "Are You Reflecting the Glory of Jehovah?" Paragraph 13 of this article reads as follows:
"Jehovah hates sin, and so should we. Indeed, we ought to move as far away from wrongdoing as possible and not see how close we can get to it without being overcome by sin. For instance, we need to guard against succumbing to apostasy, a sin that would make us unfit to glorify God. (Deut. 13:6-9) Let us therefore have nothing to do with apostates or anyone who claims to be a brother but who is dishonoring God. This should be the case even if he is a family member. (1 Cor. 5:11) We are not [benefitted] by trying to refute the arguments of apostates or those who are critical of Jehovah’s organization. In fact, it is spiritually dangerous and improper to peruse their information, whether it appears in written form or it is found on the Internet."
Notice that the "family member" mentioned here does not have to be a baptized brother, but would include associating with anyone that dishonors God or belittles God's word. If a family member should live in the same household as a servant of God, all spiritual association should cease, and if this family member should live elsewhere, then as long as he or she continues to treat God with contempt, his relatives, including his own parents, should have nothing to do with such a person.
Organ transplants, vaccines and presently blood transfusions being considered unacceptable? Is that reasonable to expect adherence to these rules if the person faces loss of life?
There is no rule in place that prevents anyone from accepting an organ transplant, a vaccine or one or more blood transfusions if this is what the individual should decide they want to do. Often when a person faces a medical emergency where loss of life is possible, one may cave in to the pressure brought upon them by physicians desirous of administering medical treatment that involves the use of blood, which, of course, is unacceptable to Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses believe blood to be sacred and that life is symbolized by blood, as we are ever mindful of how God only permitted the shedding of blood as substitutional sacrifices for a time, which sacrifices were replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus' life for the life of the world, by means of which we ourselves can be saved. If one's conscience should begin to accuse one of sin in this regard, the elders can help to bring the indisposed one back to health that he or she might be forgiven his or her sins. (James 5:15)
Every witness must preach...otherwise they're not real Christians
This is not an arbitrary or an inflexible rule. Like Paul said, "necessity is laid upon me" to proclaim the good news of the kingdom. (1 Corinthians 9:16)
Petty rules
Beards not okay
If one does not wish to cut their beard, whether it be a man or a woman, there is no requirement that he must do so. There has never been such a rule. In fact, some Jehovah's Witnesses, not living abroad, but living right here in the US that wear beards, in particular, black Jehovah's Witnesses, who cannot shave due to the unsightly bumps that become apparent.
Pants aren't okay for sisters at the KH
and couples shouldn't hold hands during prayers...whoever thought that was a stumbling for others
If someone does not wish to wear pants, he or she may wear a dress or a kilt for that matter. Likewise, if a sister does not wish to wear a dress or a skirt for any reason, she may choose to wear pants, and just as there is no rule that requires brothers to wear pants and sisters to wear dresses, whatever one wears should be clean and presentable, not dirty and wrinkled.
Jehovah's Witnesses regularly gather at the Kingdom Hall, in the grand courtyards of God's spiritual temple, God's house, a holy place, where God dwells in person, to render sacred service to Him, to render direct service to God, and if someone chooses to hold someone's hand when prayers are being said in the congregation or elsewhere, whether the hand holders should be a married couple, friends that are dating, or just siblings, what of it? I've never heard of such a rule being imposed on anyone, and there is no rule in place that prevents anyone from holding another's hand.
@djeggnog
24
Your recommendation for an economical, wireless home printer?
by juni in
1. jw
2. friends
it would be used primarily for text printing at home.

also, what are your thoughts on the advantages of laser vs. inkjet?

thank you for your help.. juni .
djeggnog

@juni:
It would be used primarily for text printing at home. Also, what are your thoughts on the advantages of laser vs. inkjet?
You question is quite broad, and because I don't know if you live in the US or not, I am going to just assume that you do and inform you, first of all, that you could buy a good inkjet printer from a Frys Electronics store, if you happen to live near one, or, in the alternative, you could order a printer online from frys.com. Maybe there is a Best Buy near you, but I like the prices at Frys and the "insurance" they offer for the inkjet printers they sell.
Now I mention the inkjet here, because you said "at home," and laser printers provide better quality printing and are more dependable for business use. I have a color laser printer that I use for business (and the cartridges I buy from Staples for my color printer are expensive [Black: $94.49; Cyan/Yellow/Magenta: $79.99/135.99). The downside of inkjet printers is that they are typically very inexpensive printers that use lots of ink (but the cartridges I buy from Staples for my wireless printer are much cheaper (Cyan/Light Cyan/Yellow/Magenta/Light Magenta: $11.59 each/$79.49 (set); Black: $18.49). (In addition, using FingerPrint, I am able to print to both of my laser printer and my wireless printer from my iTouch, my iPhone and my iPad, but I don't know if you are at all interested in printing from one or more wireless devices.
The other downside, too, is inkjet printers do malfunction and may become completely unusable in less than a year so having a form of insurance on the one you buy is important. This makes buying a two- or three-year Frys' performance service contract ("insurance") an important consideration when purchasing a printer, since you get a brand new printer upon returning the malfunctioning one at no additional cost. Without it, you would have to buy another printer.
I recommend the Epson Artisan 837 All-in-One printer, which is a wireless fax/scanner/copier/photo/cd printer that sells for $299.99, and the Epson Artisan 810 printer, which is also a fax/scanner/copier/photo/cd printer that sells for $169.99. If you do not need a fax, then there is the Epson Artisan 730 printer, which is a wireless scanner/copier/photo printer that sells for around $100 at Best Buy.
@StopTheTears:
I'd be wary of wireless things. When the man came to install my internet, he tried to set me up with a wireless telling me I could move my computer anywhere. But I had seen an investigation on TV that others can hack it and use your internet. I insisted on a [wired] connection. It might be inconvenient to have a [wired] printer but do you want your neighbors using your printer too?
This last sentence of yours bought me to tears. However, perhaps if you had asked the man, the one that set up your internet connection at your home, about that tv investigation, he may have informed you that such wireless connections are secured using encryption keys, WEP being, well, ok when compared to offering free internet access to everyone within range of your wireless router with any encryption whatsoever, but WPA2 is a better encryption solution. While any experienced hacker could hack into your network using your wireless connection, how many of them are within range of your PC (or Mac)? And let's say they manage to bypass your network security: What would be the "payoff" for their hacking efforts? Hacker aren't really interested in hacking into just anyone's computer, so unless you have account numbers, passwords and maybe credit card numbers for hundreds or thousands of folks or you are maintaining classified documents on your computer, or a script for a movie blockbuster that shouldn't be made public, hackers should be the least of your worries. I suppose that al-Qaeda operatives -- terrorists -- could drive by your home in order to use the wireless signal from the wireless router of your neighbor and steal a little bandwidth to send a message to other operatives in the al-Qaeda network, but this, too, may be a bit farfetched.
You thought it would be unwise to allow this man to set up wireless connectivity, and maybe he didn't, but if your internet uses a modem like a 2-Wire modem, this device is also a wireless router, which means you may already have wireless connectivity that just isn't set up with an encryption key of any sort (except the default key), so you might want to check the kind of wired connection that was set up, because you're vulnerable if you happen to be using such a router. And if someone were to hack into your network and gain access to your wireless printer, would you willing hand over to such an unscrupulous individual the pages of the documents that they wirelessly printed on your wireless printers? Probably not so this shouldn't be a real concern.
@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

I apologize for the little typo which wasn't a part of what I originally dictated (where indicated in red).
@metatron:
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 meothers.)
ED: I'm never mean, but I do think it to be annoying to others that come to a thread to see if anything of substance has been added to it only to discover that someone, who doesn't realize how incomprehensible his objection is to those that read, write and speak English, is arguing how the words "unless this quote" in a sentence that he writes on here should be understood.
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't believe you quoted Buchanan. If you did, where was it?
@metatron wrote:
One more time: Read the f**king book yourself! Buy a vowel, genius! Go to the original source and decide without all this contentious and foolish commentary.
Why? Reading Buchanan's book won't solve your problem. You have a reading comprehension problem, and hopefully, this time, you will find a little humility, and listen and learn from me.
Here's what you are failing to understand, @metatron: The words "quote," "quotes," "quoted," "quoting," "quotation" and "quotations" all have a definite meanings, and I'm being a bit technical here because I believe it to be necessary since you clearly don't understand when something you are reading is a direct quote and when something you are reading is not a direct quote, but an indirect quote (i.e., a paraphrase).
In a recent exchange I had here with someone on JWN, I had pointed out to the person how insensitive Jesus wasn't of the Samaritan woman at John 4:5-26, who Jesus could just as well have dismissed as immoral and misguided, someone that considered herself to be a religious person, but whose worship wasn't totally unacceptable to Jehovah. Of course, this would have been true, but what reason would there have been for Jesus to have come down on the woman in such an insensitive fashion? Like all of the Samaritans, she believed in the Torah and claimed to believe in God, but she really didn't know God. The following is an assertion of something that Jesus did not say to the woman (which means you will not find these words in the Bible):
"The man with whom you are now living isn't your husband and yet despite knowing what Jehovah commanded in the Samaritan Pentateuch, knowing that as long as your first husband is living, you aren't free to remarry, you've disregarded God's word and given yourself to how many is it? Counting the one you're living with now, six men, and yet you stand here boasting in your flesh, asserting yourself to be on the same footing with other Jews like myself, who trace our lineage back to Jacob just because you also trace your lineage back to Jacob?
Believe me, woman, you may be religious, but you're just a whore that worships self, which makes you no different than the Gentiles that don't know Jehovah either, who through fornication, make sacrifices at the altar of their god. They are just as delusional about their worship as you are. What your 'religion' is, woman, is a farce, because the truth is that you cannot be a worshipper of God since you clearly don't even know him!"
What I posted above is just a paraphrase and isn't a quotation from anything that Jesus had actually said to the Samaritan woman. I'm now going to quote just one portion of what Jesus actually did say to the woman (which means you will find these words in the Bible at John 4:17, 18, 21-24):
"You said well, 'A husband I do not have.' For you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. This you have said truthfully.
"Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth."
Now I could say that Jesus told the Samaritan woman that she was a whore, and that she didn't know God. But I'd only be paraphrasing Jesus' words by asserting that this is essentially what Jesus said. This is exactly what you did in your initial post to this thread when you wrote how you had read on page 71 of Pat Buchanan's book that "[h]e claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK." This statement wasn't something that you quoted from Buchanan's book, just as I cannot quote Jesus as specifically saying to the Samaritan woman that "she was a whore and that she didn't know God."
To quote Jesus, he said to the woman: "For you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband." He also said to her: "You worship what you do not know." Both of these are quotations taken from the Bible, which means that I am quoting what Jesus said from the Bible.
@djeggnog wrote:
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls
@OUTLAW wrote:
The WBT$ acknowledges JW`s "DO"participate in Polls/Surveys..
More than 50% of the people that are frequent contributors to the threads here on JWN are only willing to believe the things that they choose to believe, even when the facts don't quite match up with their beliefs. Now I didn't do a poll, I didn't conduct a survey, but this is what I believe to be true. Would you say that this "50%" number is fairly representative of you, @OUTLAW?
@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

(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