Posts by rawe

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"Watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself. but: parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy. No THING has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge."

These issues are "origin of..." questions. One of the mistakes we made as Witnesses (under the influence of the publications of course) was intermixing origin of questions. Making the assumption that understanding the origin of one thing can be easily transferred to an understanding of the origin of something completely different.

Biological reproduction and subsequent evolution of living things is not the same as other origin of quetions.

Not the same as origin of the first cell.

Not the same as origin of planets.

Not the same as origin of stars, galaxies and of course the universe itself.

The worse case of these intermixing is confusing the origin of human output like computers, cameras, cars, etc, with the output of biological processes such as living things.

And, if one is unable to answer an origin of question, this not knowing, should never be confused with knowing. We just don't know might be the answer for the moment. Naturally the unknown draws us in an fuels our imagination, and it may be exceedingly difficult to be content with our ignorance, but it is what is.

Cheers,

-Randy

99

Survey: Who Here Believe In God/The Bible? Who Are Not Sure? Who Do Not Believe?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think there are many that still want to believe in a god but just aren't sure.. personally, do you believe in a god?.

are you a "spiritual" person?.

rawe

Hi Minimus,

"Personally, do YOU believe in a God?"

No

"Are you a "spiritual" person?"

I like reading the Bible, discussing religion and philosophy. Lately I've been attending a Unitarian Univeralist Congregation. So if that counts, then I am.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

First post

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

this is a very strange thing for me to do.

i have been an active witness for over 25 years.

i currently serve as an elder and i conduct the watchtower study.

rawe

Hi Thedog1,

"We are an English group sponsored by a local congregation which is not English speaking. . . .So I am the kingpin in the English group. . .everything. . .depends on me. Not complicated at all then if one is having doubts, eh?"

I can see what you mean. If you moved to serve where the need is great, can you make plans to return home? That might help. In the 1960s and 70s many in Western Canada moved to the province of Quebec to serve there, which of course included learning French. In a meeting setting the stories of "Jehovah blessing the work of these 'original pioneers'" would often be told. Yet, in a few cases, where I was able to talk more one-on-one with those who did this, you got a far different picture. Having an unshakable faith that you're doing Jehovah's will no doubt help one endure some of the challenges. Yet, as Jonh Cedars, of jwsurvey.org related in his life story, moving to an area where English was not spoken actually caused him to unplug from the constant stream of information one gets from the publications and meeting attendance.

In Quesnel, BC, Canada where I am originally from, a family moved to the Dominican Republic. The family spent one year there, then moved back. Again I got the feeling, although nothing too negative was ever said, that there were difficulties. Shortly after this, we made plans to move to Phoenix, AZ. But I made it clear to my friends, we were moving simply to give our girls a chance to see a wider world. We were Witnesses in Quesnel and we would be Witnesses in Phoenix. As things turned out we stayed and even eventually became USA citizens.

Ultimately though, the world of the Witnesses will continue on regardless of our level of involvement. And being part of something we don't fully believe is like trying to serve two masters. It just doesn't work, as even Jesus said.

Do take care. I hope you're able to find a resolution that works the best for you, knowing adjusting how we relate to this faith, is always a big change.

-Randy

97

First post

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

this is a very strange thing for me to do.

i have been an active witness for over 25 years.

i currently serve as an elder and i conduct the watchtower study.

rawe

Hi Thedog1,

I was baptized at age 16 in 1981 and left the faith in 2007 after a life-time of involvement. Although I did serve as an MS and later an elder, conducting the Watchtower study was only something I did twice. Once at the congregation and once as part of a circuit assembly. Living with concerns and doubts can be very difficult. After book study one evening I revealed more about my doubts than I should have to a young couple. After that I realized that I had to resign as an elder, which I did. Although I lost all my privledges, including being on the TMS and even saying public prayer, in general I felt the elders were kind and fairly considerate. Likely this had much to do with how non-confrontational I was about the issue, taking all of the blame for my doubts upon myself. This was in 2005.

For what it is worth here are few thoughts, considering of course, I do not know your circumstances. First, unless something is pressing the issue, there is usually time to think through the issues and do research. If you're uncomfortable with the idea of directly reading material critical of the Witness faith, I suggest either reading the Bible or a portion of it, outside of the TMS schedule. Doing this can really help one see the over all gist of what the various authors really wanted to communicate. Although it seems that "deep study" would imply diving into each verse and tearing it apart, there is much to be gained by reading the accounts at a quicker pace.

Another suggestion is to read an older publication. Reading Russell's Divine Plan of the Ages can really give one a sense of where the faith once was and how it developed into what we see today. Often through eBay or Amazon one can find copies of this book at a reasonable price.

As you know the organization stesses loyalty towards itself. Thus, most attempts to find a real true friend you can confide in, in regards to doubts, is near impossible. Even if the individual wants to be a friend, all we'll wind up doing is likely putting a burden on them. Although the faith presents itself as comitted to Bible truth, at the end of the day, it is run more like a business. Thus it tends to reward good managers, those who know the rules and are effective at organizing others around them and accomplishing things that fit the primary goal of the business. I eventually likened the organization to an out of control beast in the shape of printing presses -- a few fed blank rolls of paper in one end -- and the many had to run printed results out to the public. In many different ways we all sensed not all was right, but none of us knew had to make it stop.

For a short while, another way to cope is to rationalize your situation. Over the long haul I firmly believe this doesn't work and in my own case caused me to reach a breaking point, wherein I was out in service in the morning and left the faith that afternoon. But... while you're doing research and considering more deeply what you believe and where you want your life course to take you, rationalize... the faith is defined mostly by the Governing Body. It is those men who decide the format of meetings, what is published, etc. So while I was part of it, I always felt it wasn't my place to try and change it, but rather go along with the program. For me this relieved much of the stress and gave me a bit of room to breath -- eventually of course, I felt I had to leave.

Next, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask to be relieved of some of the burden of being an elder. This does not have to mean anything more than explaining that you're under some mental stess and need time to focus on yourself, your relationship with Jehovah and your family. I know in one case, an elder presented this case to the body -- he wanted to resign. We actually asked him to remain and not be deleted, but otherwise promised him that he would not have any assignments for awhile.

Just so you know. My doubts were centered around science and the theory of evolution in particular. My initial doubts about the existence of God eventually blossomed into accepting the fact that I was an atheist. Although some fellow atheists find it odd, I continue to be a Bible reader.

Take care,

-Randy

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"A translation is just taking the meaning of one document and changing it into a language that can be read by those who don't know the original."

Translation is of course exactly that. In the case of the Bible, the OT was written in Hebrew with a few small bits in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. However, translating the Bible is a very involved process, that starts with reconciling all available ancient manuscripts to come up with a refined text. As time has progressed knowledge about the ancient forms of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek have also increased. All of this goes into making a translation. The King James Version of 1611 took years and dozens of scholars to produce. According to a recent National Geographic I read, the KJV translators included an oral reading of their near-finished work so they could judge how the end results sounded.

One of the problems in discussing religious views is intermixing unverifiable claims with statements that are basic facts. For example, if we're religious we may get so use to saying "the word of God" or "when God spoke to Moses" that we forget such statements are not facts, but matters of faith. Yet, if we say, "the Bible is a collection of ancient books written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek." Such is just a basic fact, independent of religious views.

When discussing the Book of Mormon we run into this intermixing problem with the word "translation" itself. The idea the Book of Mormon is a translation of anything, is itself an unverifiable claim. Saying such a thing is nothing more than a statement of faith, of what you may believe is true. But outside the body of believers no one would seriously claim the Book of Mormon is a translation, as if such were a basic fact. The only portion of the Book of Mormon that involves any translation is the sections it borrows from the KJV -- but then the credit for the work of translating these bits goes to the KJV translators, not Joseph Smith.

"Finally, words like "Bible" and "hour" are not anachonisms. A bible is simply a collection of books, scrolls or codices, and an hour is simply a segment of time."

When creating a story set in the past, authors always must be mindful of anachronisms. A character being read their Miranda rights in a 1950s setting is flawed, since it didn't become a law until 1966. The Book of Mormon contains many of these issues. Having more recent words like "Bible" (2 Nephi 29:6) appear in an ancient setting doesn't work. If you read through the Bible you'll never run across the word "hour" (1 Nephi 8:8) to refer to time, until the NT era. But these anachronisms are mild compared to having some in an ancient setting quote Paul's writings in the NT (Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Nephi 10:18) or as already mentioned a portion of the Lord's prayer, that itself, was a later addition to the Bible. This is not a question of what "Bible" or "hour" means, it is a question of when such words came into use along with the concepts they represent.

"If the text said "King James Version of the Bible," that would be one thing. But the prophets knew that a bible."

Yet, you don't see Jesus or other NT writers use the word "Bible", because of course neither the word nor concept existed in their day.

In reality I don't think these issues ever tell a full story in regards to our faith. Charles Russell of the International Bible Students movement and progenitor of Jehovah's Witnesses made a big deal out of the Greek work for "presence" (parousia) at Matthew 24:3. This was key to understanding Jesus had already returned and was invisibly present he claimed. Jehovah's Witnesses to this day make this claim. I was midly shocked when a friend of mine in the faith pointed out Mark 13 and Luke 21 parallel accounts do not even have this all important word. But this didn't cause me to lose faith in the organization. Because my life was so wrapped up in the faith, it would take a much bigger and more personal event to really move me.

Cheers,

-Randy

105

New Article on BEARDS and Attire of Jehovah's Witnesses

by jwfacts in

i have had requests to add an article about beards and jehovah's witnesses.

it is interesting that there is virtually no statement that says a witness cannot have a beard, yet universally they do not have beards.

i have scoured quotes from all the threads on jwn, all references to beard on the cd watchtower library, and copies of elders letters that i have.

rawe

Hi Jwfacts,

Many years ago in the 1980s one MS in Quesnel, BC, Canada grew a beard. He was deleted, but I recall talking with one of the elders on how they felt they basically had to find reasons in addition to the facial hair to recommend deletion. In the 80s I spent about a month in the hospital and at that time let my facial hair grew. Got several negative comments, but was so sick I didn't care. Now for "Movember" I am growing a beard again for the second time in my life.

In one of the publications there is a picture of the heavenly class, where Russell is pictured, but one notes that after his time the men are shown clean shaven. I do believe the primary motivation for the no-beard policy was two fold. Once Rutherford took over immitating him showed loyalty to his views in case their was any question of sympathy for Russell's older views. Showing Jesus as clean shaven seems to be part of the over-all anti-Christendom stances more fully expressed during the Rutheford era, especially after the 1925 failure.

I know of a couple cases where the 'student revolt' reference was appealed to, however since the 2002 directive came out, I'm sure it would be the one that would be considered the up to date directive.

Nice article!

Cheers,

-Randy

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"The answer is not complicated. The Book of Mormon is a translation into English. “Christ” is understood in English to be “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” If Smith had used the word “Messiah,” it would have been a Hebrew term, not Greek."

But is there an even less complicated answer? Searching for the most economical answer is a great way to uncover the underlying truth. Of course there are always ways to "explain" things that sort of sound right. What I've been told (please object and correct as needed) is Joseph Smith claimed he translated much of the work by peering to a hat and letters one at a time would appear to float in the air. If he thus saw C, h, r, i, s and t, what else was he to do? Disobey the spirit? Likewise when Sun Myung Moon received the Divine Principal there little a critic could say to convince a member it has issues -- because their arguments would go back to unverifiable claims of the faith.

The Book of Mormon is not a translation of anything. There is just no evidence of this outside the claims made by Joseph Smith. The first Book of Mormon that appeared was in faux 17th century English in the 1830s. Thus the most economical way to explain "Christ" and "Timothy" is Smith, being young and unschooled in ancient language, would not have known the source language, but wanted his work to sound like the Bible, which he likely equated with the KJV itself. When the Book of Mormon uses the word "Bible" and "hour" how is Smith to know he is creating an anachronisms with setting? When he includes the Lord's Prayer (3 Nephi 13:13) how is Smith to know in his day, the words "For thine is the kingdom , and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen" was never originally in the Bible, but a later addtion? He doesn't, so just adds them from the KJV source he believed was correct.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. I'm not sure what you're point is about "Messiah" vs "Christ." I was pretty sure both words appear in the Book of Mormon. So I checked, they do, see 2 Nephi 25:16, where both words appear in the verse.

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"So what was, or is, your take? Any chance people could graduate from being physical beings to being spiritual beings? What do the GP members say about Life After Armageddon?"

As far as I can determine Latter-day Saint theology is fairly unbounded. As some have pointed out to me, many aspects of LDS theology was developed even after the Book of Mormon was published. However, both faiths are attempts at restoration of some imagined original form of Christianity. The progenitor of Jehovah's Witnesses was Charles Russell who focused on Bible study and largely saw himself and his followers as not that far apart of the rest of Christendom. Yet, key parts of his views were things like no hell fire, no immortal soul, etc. But it would be his views on end-of-days that would really inspire the group. In his day Egyptian Hieroglyphs were still a facinating, yet unknown language. Thus Russell co-mingled Bible study with Pyramidology. From the Bible Russell calculated that 2520 years of Daniel ran from 607 BCE[1] would end in 1914. But this was also supported by measurements from the Pyramids.

Not too surpisingly, all Russell's predictions for 1914 failed. Lessor known among the Witnesses is the 607 BCE start date is a miscalculation as well.

In what language did Joseph Smith claim the golden plates were written? Well the claim is Reformed Egyptian, thus you see deference to spooky Egyptian things. Smith went even further, claiming he was able to actually translate a real Egyptian Hieroglyphs, with the results he called the Book of Abraham.

Your descriptions about possible musings of the Witnesses in the new world don't reflect much of the Witness mindset. The ideas, other than reflecting a garden of Eden restored, remain mostly vague and not commented upon that often. Your use of the word "graduate" sounds more Mormon-esq to me than Witness. Elevation of mankind to pefection is within the Witness mindset. But elevation to Godhood as per LDS theology, would be something the Witnesses would say only reflect the original lie of the serpent to Eve.

Practical matters of how the new world would actual work are mostly left unconsidered. Most Witnesses assume how Bethel homes and branch offices are organized would probably be extended in the new system. Logical flaws in their outlook, such as lions being adapted as predators that would need yet further adaptation to "lie down with the lamb" are left to Jehovah to sort out. Likewise, original sin of Adam and Eve is the cause of death (Rom 5:12) to the Witnesses, yet the fact dogs die from the same biological causes as humans is just not considered.

I hope this gives you some insight into their views. You of course, can comment with much more authority on LDS views -- I've only ever been in the Witness faith.

Cheers,

-Randy

[1] Witness publications prefer BCE, which is actually a more neutral designation. 607 BCE is the date modern Witnesses use as the start point based on their unfounded calculation of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. The actual historical date is 587 BCE. I believe Russell originally calculated 606 BCE, not knowing he should subtract one because there is no "zero" year. But another 1 year error cancelled out the problem. There are several other dates in this early era such as 1799, 1874, 1915, 1918 and 1925 said to have some prophetic significance.

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

rawe

Hi Cold Steel,

"At the time the Book of Mormon came forth, no gold, brass or other metal records had been discovered."

There simply is no physical evidence the Book of Mormon is any older than when it appeared in the 1830s. Do you know of any? The existence of the KJV text in the Book of Mormon is not easily dismissed either. The production of the KJV in 1611 was a non-trivial exercise. I'm sure if the King James translators could see several consectutive chapters of their translation of Isaiah plagerized into Nephi they would rightly complain.

A further irony between the two faiths orbits around the divine name "Jehovah."

The KJV translators translated most Hebrew words into the equivalent 17th century English words. But in one special case, they decided to substitute rather than translate and that was... you guessed it... the divine name YHWH came out as LORD in English, rather than Jehovah. And since the divine name appears so many times in the OT, the KJV translators effectively signed nearly every page of their work. However, in one case in Isaiah faced with a double form of the divine name they translated Jah Jehovah as LORD Jehovah. See 2 Nephi 22:2 compared to Isaiah 12:2.

This of course is only the start of the problems. Surely one is left to wonder why a Greek word like "Christ" appears in a text that should have no Greek influence. The name Timothy also has this problem (3 Nephi 19:4).

When I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses I often would go online and discuss the LDS faith on Usenet a.r.m group. It was sort of like a safe proxy to explore my own faith. At the time I concluded we Witnesses had a more solid basis for our faith. At least the Bible is an authentically old collection of books with many aspects of verifiable historical settings. Since leaving the Witnesses and realizing how foolish some of my ideas were, such accepting Genesis creation and flood accounts as real history, my views on this have shifed. I would now argue that so much more is involved in a life-emcompassing faith like Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-day Saints, that problems with faith claims wind up being easily dismissed at the first bit of apologetics we read, because the alternative would be world-shattering.

Cheers,

-Randy

102

Since leaving the truth, do you celebrate holidays, and does your participation in such bring you happiness?

by Stand for Pure Worship in

jw
friends

i ask this respectfully, and do so after watching a favorite show of mine's season opener which had a new years storyline.

hollywood tends to make movies and television show episodes centered around holiday themes appear warm and blissful.

while i'm thankful to have never participated in such holidays, i can't deny my curiosity about ex-jws that do celebrate.

rawe

Hi Stand For Pure Worship,

"Since leaving the truth, do you celebrate holidays, and does your participation in such bring you happiness?"

I would use the word "faith" when you say "truth", however, yes and yes.

When we left in October 2007 I was determined to live my life basically just as I did when in the faith minus going to meetings and out in service. Since I am an atheist I felt no particular draw to any of the holidays. I never felt that either as a child or when raising my own children that was I was missing a great deal by not participating.

Since I had fond memories of looking through the Sears Christmas Wishbook as a kid, I did the following while in the faith... I told my girls that when the Wishbook came out, we would give each girl an amount of money to spend and they could order something. Thus getting the Christmas Wishbook was always a big event in our household. I also enjoyed going to visit my in-laws (very nice folks!) during the Christmas break, where we would enjoy time together and a meal, often including a turkey. Most of us were Witnesses so other than the turkey dinner there was nothing else that reflected Christmas.

After leaving in 2007, in 2009 I decided to go ahead and celebrate Christmas. My change of heart came about in a couple different ways. First, I had to consider if it made sense to ask my children to live as Witnesses while we did not otherwise participate in the faith.

Then I thought about what not celebrating meant. Basically it would be an outward show of respect for a faith I was no longer part of. It also inevitably means a mild form of condemnation for the majority in our neighborhood who do. In particular, could I say, I continued to have respect for the basic reasons Rutherford chose to distance himself and his followers from nominal Christianity? Although one cannot be dogmatic on the point, it seems clear to me the failure of 1925 predictions may have lead to superstitions about being tainted by "Christendom", Rutherford may have also had a lingering anomosity towards "Christendom" thinking they were behind his being put in jail. Thus, nixing this taint seems like what happened, no cross, Jesus shown as clean shaven, no Christmas all speak to this.

Then there is the boogeyman of "pagan", with "here a pagan", "there a pagan", "everywhere a pagan, pagan" So... do I really have such wonderfully moral high-ground that I can look down upon the pagan influences of Christmas and condemn them? Actually, I think it is the opposite. Surviving the cold and deprivations of winter has been a challenge to our survival for eons. Welcoming back the warmth of the sun, does, in fact, seem like a pretty good reason to celebrate!

Thus we went ahead and the rest, as they say, is history.

"Do the holidays do anything for you?"

Not only is it a general time to be together as a family and to the extent I can afford it shower my wife and children with gifts, it connects me to the community. What you're doing here is similar and I applaud you for it. Namely, you appear to be asking questions truly out of curiosity and a desire to understand. So much of our lives as Witnesses involved staging questions, only as a means to preach the Kingdom message. While the motivations may be fine, in the process we lost out on discovering what really made folks outside our faith tic.

Cheers,

-Randy