Listener

Joined

• started 199 topics
• posted 4,913 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Listener

• 
  19

  Psychological Changes in the Vocabulary of the WTS

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  psychological changes in the vocabulary of the wts.

  i have been reading the publications of the wts since i was 6, 60 years now.

  we were too poor to have more than one subscription for each magazine so i had to wait until my mother had read it (she let them pile up).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  As usual, so many good observations Blondie.
• 
  56

  Montana Supreme Court will hear the $35M case tomorrow

  by Corney in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  the montana case enters the home stretch.

  the state supreme court will hear oral arguments tomorrow, 13 september, at the northern hotel in billings during the state bar of montana’s annual meeting (announcement 1, announcement 2).

  an introduction to the argument will begin at 9:30 a.m., with the argument starting at 10 a.m. (4 p.m. utc, 9 a.m. sf time, 12 a.m. ny time, 5 p.m. london time, 2 a.m. saturday sydney time).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  It's 3.05 pm 12th September in Montana. The hearing starts on the 13th September
• 
  30

  one picture too far ( fetched)

  by waton in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  july 2019 wt mag.

  study article 27, to sept 8 (last weak) sic intended.

  page 5. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  What a loving suggestion from the Governing Body now that travel time to their Kingdom Halls has greatly increased.
• 
  29

  New Armageddon date?

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  looking at the most recent wt the study article focuses on the jubilees.

  the made a separate box in the article to highlight the math behind jubilees, and i'm wondering if they're trying to get people thinking and stir up the pot without actually making a false prophecy.

  for instance: jubilees happened every 7 times 7 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Neat Blue Dog - That calculation doesn't work.

  The Israelitites entered Canaan in 1473 BCE according to the Watchower. Their Acts Study Notes state

  "These 40 years run from 1513 B.C.E., the time of the Exodus, to 1473 B.C.E. when the Israelites entered the Promised Land."

  The first jubilee was 49 years later in 1424 BCE. This would mean that the 70th Jubilee would be 1974 (if using 365 day years). That is, 70 x 50 years = 3,500 years. 1473 BCE + 3,500 = 1974 CE

  I also wonder why the 70th Jubilee would have any signicance.

  
  
• 
  36

  Video-Man in Field Service asks to speak to a woman's 15-year old Daughter

  by TakeOffTheCrown in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone seen this video of a man out in field service asking a woman if he can speak to her 15 year old daughter by name?

  it is rather disturbing.. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/mom-confronts-stranger-asking-to-see-her-daughter/983338603.

  the link takes you directly to the news station.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Another possibility was that they received a bible study request via JW org and it was either genuine or a prank.
• 
  37

  highlights from Circuit Overseer Guidelines

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just finished looking through the circuit overseer manual, so here are some highlights.

  first up, regarding circuit assemblies:.

  if a brother is so extremely overweight that others would be distracted if he had a part on the program, good judgment would need to be used in deciding whether to give him an assignment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  I'm happy that they keep it in as it highlights the fact that fewer are getting baptised thes days.

  I am surprised that an Elder giving the talk would be embarrassed and if it was noticeable, I'd be more surprised if he was asked to give it again at another assembly.
• 
  37

  highlights from Circuit Overseer Guidelines

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just finished looking through the circuit overseer manual, so here are some highlights.

  first up, regarding circuit assemblies:.

  if a brother is so extremely overweight that others would be distracted if he had a part on the program, good judgment would need to be used in deciding whether to give him an assignment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Hoser, why did you feel sorry for the Brother giving the talk? Don't you think he felt it was a great privelage to be asked to do it at an assembly?
• 
  36

  Video-Man in Field Service asks to speak to a woman's 15-year old Daughter

  by TakeOffTheCrown in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone seen this video of a man out in field service asking a woman if he can speak to her 15 year old daughter by name?

  it is rather disturbing.. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/mom-confronts-stranger-asking-to-see-her-daughter/983338603.

  the link takes you directly to the news station.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  He was given ample opportunity to explain and chose not to.
• 
  8

  Dec 2019 Watchtower - Two Witness Rule

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the watchtower has attempted to address their two witness rule and the case of the raped woman in a field found at deuteronomy 22:25-27all the tireless work that so many ex jws and concerned worldly people have done by phone calls, cart crashes, demonstrating at assemblies, questioning jws and so on, is paying off.

  it's not the doting jws that have been questioning the two witness rule, it's apostates.this is a "question from reader" in the december, 2019 watchtower.

  the bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to establish a matter.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  To help make things clearer as to the Watchtower's stand on Deuteronomy 22 it helps to go back to the Letter that G Jackson signed and sent to the ARC, the Watchtower said
  
  

  3: Exp!anation of Deuteronomy 12:25-27 15. At TJ5970-15974, Counsel Assisting suggested that the requirement of at least two witnesses in relation to cases of sexual abuse had no proper Scriptural foundation, relying upon references to Deuteronomy 22:25-27 to support this proposition.
  
  16. While these verses might appear to be an exception to the Scriptural requirement that there be at least two witnesses to establish a matter, that is not a correct reading of the passages.
  
  17. Five chapters earlier, at Deuteronomy 17:6, the Mosaic Law clearly states without exception: "On the testimony of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die should be put to death. He must not be put to death on the testimony of one witness." And in Deuteronomy chapter 19, verse 15, it says: "No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. "
  
  18. It is important to note that the two contrasting situations in verses 23 to 27 of Deuteronomy chapter 22 do not deal with proving whether the man is guilty in either situation. His guilt is assumed in both instances. In saying that he: "happened to meet her in the city and lay down with her" or he: "happened to meet the engaged girl in the.field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her ". in both instances, the man had already been proved guilty and worthy of death, this being determined by proper procedure earlier in the judges' inquiry. But the question at this point before the judges (having established that improper sexual relations had occurred between the man and the woman) was whether the engaged woman had been guilty of immorality or was a victim of rape. This is a different issue, although related, to establishing the man 's guilt.
  19. The elders had guidance in determining if any guilt should be charged to her. In the second instance (verse 27), the woman would not die, "for he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her". Such a cry for help might be admitted by her assailant, which would confirm her claimed innocence. On the other hand, if the assailant denied that the woman had screamed for help, the judges would not have a basis for refusing her claim, since, in effect, it would be her word against his and there was no one nearby either to rescue her or to serve as a witness one way or the other as to her scream for help. Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent. In that case (verses 25 and 26), "the man who lay down with her is to die by himself. and you must do nothing to the girl. " This is because (verses 26 and 27): "{t}he girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his f ellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. "
  20. So it is not as though the woman at this point in the inquiry is seeking to prove the man's guilt and finds herself as the only witness against him. However, it is of interest that the raping of a woman is said to be "the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him." (Deuteronomy 22:26) Thus, the crime of rape is made parallel to murder, equated not only as to reprehensibility but also evidently as to being established by the same Scriptural rules of evidence, which included having the testimony of two witnesses (Numbers 35:30).
  
  21. Understandably, there is concern in child abuse situations because there is seldom an additional eyewitness to such a crime. Even in those circumstances, the Christian congregation does not ignore the accusation. I refer the Royal Commission to the testimony of Mr Rodney Spinks of the Service Department in which he set out the further protective steps which are taken following an allegation. In addition, in those jurisdictions with mandatory reporting, elders would be required to report accusations regardless of the number of eyewitnesses.

  
  Here again, the Watchtower says
  
  

  Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent. In that case (verses 25 and 26),

  
  But apparently, the mans guilt could be established even though there was a definite lack of two or more witnesses.
  
  
  
• 
  8

  Dec 2019 Watchtower - Two Witness Rule

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the watchtower has attempted to address their two witness rule and the case of the raped woman in a field found at deuteronomy 22:25-27all the tireless work that so many ex jws and concerned worldly people have done by phone calls, cart crashes, demonstrating at assemblies, questioning jws and so on, is paying off.

  it's not the doting jws that have been questioning the two witness rule, it's apostates.this is a "question from reader" in the december, 2019 watchtower.

  the bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to establish a matter.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  The Watchtower has attempted to address their two witness rule and the case of the raped woman in a field found at Deuteronomy 22:25-27
  
  All the tireless work that so many ex JWs and concerned worldly people have done by phone calls, cart crashes, demonstrating at assemblies, questioning JWs and so on, is paying off. It's not the doting JWs that have been questioning the two witness rule, it's apostates.
  
  This is a "Question from Reader" in the December, 2019 Watchtower
  
  

  The Bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to establish a matter. (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19) But under the Law, if a man raped an engaged girl “in the field” and she screamed, she was innocent of adultery and he was not. Given that others did not witness the rape, why was she innocent while he was guilty?

  
  We all know that these aren't actual questions from readers and the Watchtower phrases these as they wish.
  
  Note the 'but' used. It signifies an acceptance that there appears to be an exception to the two witness rule. This is concreted by the next statement which says specifically "that others did not witness the rape"
  
  There were not two witnesses to the rape which occurred in the field and both the male and female were judged.

  The account at Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is not primarily about proving the man’s guilt, because that was acknowledged. This law focused on establishing the woman’s innocence. Note the context.

  
  Is that really the case? The laws establish either the punishment where the male or female were guilty or not and on what basis they would be either guilty or not. Yet the Watchtower manages to turn this fact around and focus on the female.
  
  I wonder why they are doing that? I think it is to divert the readers attention from what is really the issue - that there were not two witnesses.

  The preceding verses speak of a man who had sex with an engaged woman “in the city.” In doing that, he was guilty of adultery, since the engaged woman was viewed as married. What about the woman? “She did not scream in the city.” If she had done so, others would certainly have heard her and would have defended her. But she did not scream. Thus, she was sharing in the adultery, so both were judged guilty.​—Deut. 22:23, 24.

  
  So immediately the Watchtower has contradicted itself by demonstrating how in this scenario the primary focus of the law was to find someone either guilty or innocent.

  The Law next outlined a different situation: “If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.”​—Deut. 22:25-27.
  In that case, the woman was given the benefit of the doubt. In what sense? It was assumed that she “screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.” So she was not committing adultery. The man, however, was guilty of rape and adultery because he “overpowered her and lay down with her,” the engaged woman.

  Hence, even though this law focused on the woman’s innocence, the account rightly described the man as guilty of rape and adultery. We can be confident that the judges would “investigate the matter thoroughly” and render a decision in line with the standard that God had set out plainly and repeatedly.​—Deut. 13:14; 17:4; Ex. 20:14.

  
  Here again, we see the Watchtower claiming that these versus focus on the woman's innocence but it's not the case.
  
  They state that the Judges thoroughly investigated matters. They would have JWs believe that Elders do so today but they are ill equipped and in no position to be able to do so today. That is why accusations need to be handled by the higher authorities in order to be able to claim that matters have been investigated as thoroughly as they can be.
  
  I find the whole article to be dishonest and contradictory and doesn't address the question asked.
  
  All I can make of it is that they are attempting to leave an impression in the minds of JWs that Deuteronomy 22 has nothing to do with 'two witnesses' and that Elders thoroughly investigate matters regardless.