It must be pretty bad when kids have to start selling their gifts and personal possessions. Maybe Lett sold his gold ring, he wasn't wearing it in the last video.
Listener
JoinedPosts by Listener
-
20
Have you got a cow that you could sell ?
by pepperheart inhave you got a cow that you could sell for the gb they really really need the money
-
-
-
13
What would you like to see the Watchtower Society implement that would give you a dignified way to leave/stop being a Jehovah's Witness?
by RULES & REGULATIONS injehovah's witnesses do not provide a dignified resignation process for members who wish to resign/quit being a jehovah's witnesses.you are not given any good choices.
you can either: disassociate yourself,fade,become inactive or move to another city/state/country where you won't be bothered or found out.. if you quit your job/employment, stop attending a book club or bowling league,or quit a lawn service company, newspaper delivery service,you wouldn't see your employer or friends sending out a written notice to anyone to stop all association with you or have little contact.you would sue them for slander.you have a right to quit any association or contract (when it expires or doesn't meet the terms any longer) whenever you wish.. what would you like to see the watchtower society implement that would give you a dignified way to leave/stop being a jehovah's witness?.
-
-
Listener
I've just written a post that could possibly provide an alternative but I want to hear what you guys think and improve on. It was prompted from a letter I read on another forum and from re-reading the comments made publicly in the WTBTS's submission.
It is here
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6281911886413824/dis-association-vs-inactivity
-
9
Dis-association Vs Inactivity
by Listener inis it just me or is this just really bad double talk?.
9.372 moreover, the suggested finding has no connection with preventing or responding to child sexual abuse and, furthermore, appears not to appreciate the difference between disassociation and inactivity.
as was explained, if someone decides to no longer associate with jehovahs witnesses that is a personal decision and no disciplinary action is taken against that person.
-
-
Listener
Is it just me or is this just really bad double talk?
9.372 Moreover, the suggested finding has no connection with preventing or responding to child sexual abuse and, furthermore, appears not to appreciate the difference between disassociation and inactivity. As was explained, if someone decides to no longer associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses that is a personal decision and no disciplinary action is taken against that person.
If a person chooses to no longer associate with JWs that is DISASSOCIATION.
This is the dictionary definition of disassociation "To remove from association; dissociate".
9.373 For example, Mr Geoffrey Jackson stated:283 “I thought I made it quite clear I don’t agree with that supposition”. We do not have a “so-called spiritual police force” to chase after ones who no longer want to be Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
9.374 For example, Mr O’Brien stated: 284 “They don’t have to disassociate themselves to stop associating. They don’t lose their spiritual or familial association by being inactive.”Again O'Brien's comment is nonsense. Disassociating is the same thing as not associating.
Is this what they really meant to say or are they just caught up with their own nonsensical procedures? Looking at the Shepherding the flock book makes it a little clearer.
1. Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against an unrepentant wrongdoer, disassociation is an action taken by an individual who no longer desires to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. (1 John 2:19) Actions that may indicate disassociation indude the following:
110
• Making known a firm decision to be known no longer as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If the individual is agreeable, the committee should first try to speak with him and provide spiritual assistance. (GaL 6:1) Does he really desire to disassociate himself, or does he simply no longer want to associate actively with the congregation? Is the desire to disassociate prompted by doubts or discouragement? If he is adamant in his position, he should be encouraged to put his request in writing and sign it. If he does not, then the witnesses to his request should prepare a statement for the confidential files and sign it.According to them there is a difference in not associating with the congregation (which they call being inactive) and disassociating. Their own definition of disassociating is no longer being known as a JW.
Although we know what they mean to say, what they do say is not correct. It comes down to the use of the word disassociation. It is not the correct terminology.
Firstly, is the misapplication of the word disassociating intentional? Absolutely, many JWs associate the word with being inactive according to it's true meaning - a person who is not associating. This results in many inactive JWs being treated the same as a disfellowshipped person.
Secondly, since the reality is that the term disassociation applies equeally to a person who no longer wants to be a JW and to a person who is inactive, what would be a more correct terminology to use in the first instance? I think 'resign' would be more accurate.
Had they been using this term then there would have no misunderstanding in the JC and no confusion about treating inactive ones differently.
This brings up another possibility for those wishing to disassociate without the severe repercussions that follow. A poster on another forum shared a letter that they wrote to their parents but I think it is just as appropriate to write it to the Elders.
This is where the original letter is and written by 'lightsgettingbetter'
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/3zrzrd/devout_mothers_response_to_a_letter_outlining_our/
It could be modified to read:
To the BOE,
Out of respect for your loving concern for our family, it is time that we share with you our current situation.
As of now, we are no longer active within the congregation.
The reason is a personal matter. We will not be discussing what the reasons are.
We are not disassociating ourselves.
We have not caused any problems within the congregation. There is no one in the congregation that we have problems with. We have done no wrong doing within the congregation.
The Awake, July 2009, it clearly states “No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family” and goes on to say: “God allows each person the freedom to choose how they will respond”.
It is clear from this that our choice to be inactive is our own.
Furthermore, these statements were included in a submission made by the WTBTS at the recent Australian Royal Commission into child abuse.
9.372 .... As was explained, if someone decides to no longer associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses that is a personal decision and no disciplinary action is taken against that person...
9.374 For example, Mr O’Brien stated: “They don’t have to disassociate themselves to stop associating. They don’t lose their spiritual or familial association by being inactive.”
Therefore, there is no doctrinal or scriptural reason for you to indicate to the congregation, our family members and our friends that there should be no communication with us, we are simply exercising the freedom granted to each human.
In fact, in instances where the Bro's or Sisters who would otherwise shun us or approach you for advice, that you make clear to them that inactive ones should not be treated as either disfellowshipped or disassociated ones and that there is no scriptural backing for them in doing so. We feel assured that as you are loving individuals who are taking the lead that you would encourage good christian behaviour.
At this same Royal Commission hearing, Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson gave testimony to the following -
We do not have a “so-called spiritual police force” to chase after ones who no longer want to be Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As this courtesy is extended to disassociated ones we would request that the same be extended to us as inactive ones.
In a peaceful spirit, we request that you do not contact us to either discuss this or provide us with any form of 'sherpherding'.
Yours sincerely ....
This is by no means a foolproof option for those that want to disassociate and hopefully avoid shunning, particularly from family but feel that they need to stop the elders from annoying them. However, if it backfires the individual/family will have some strong basis for comeback.
What do you guys think? Is it worth suggesting to some who feel they need to do something and helps to clarify their position? After all, is it really necessary to state that you no longer want to be known as a JW when a true christian baptism was not to an organization, to be known as a JW regardless of what the organization would like people to think?
-
37
Are Bethelites Buying and Preparing their own Food?
by TakeOffTheCrown insamuel herd made the following statement at the 2015 annual meeting regarding the reduction of services at bethel.. we will be reducing personnel at bethel.
some bethel family members will be invited to serve in the field.
in addition to their regular work, bethel family members will be caring for many of the services that were previously provided by fellow bethelites.. .
-
-
Listener
I can understand your curiosity TakeofTheCrown.
I expect in the future we will hear some funny stories. Like the amount of policing they will need to do. I wonder if they've updated their Bethel manual already.
-
39
Hello, I'm new here too!
by redpilltwice inhi everybody, 1st post here.
20 years jw, elder for 6 years, regular pioneer for 3 years, have always been following the 2012 candace conti abuse case with much interest, especially since the case suddenly disappeared from www.watchtower.com's news section (thanks brother j. r. brown, office of public information, because it led me to "worldly" websites for more info), leading to more and more dissatisfaction , leading to jwfacts, jwsurvey, ad1914, wtdocuments etc., leading to my awakening about 4 months ago, now fading faster and faster to zero meetings and zero field service...and you know what?
it feels good!.
-
-
Listener
Welcome RedPillTwice.
Good to hear that the guys who have spent so much time maintaining their websites are proving to be a good source of information.
-
41
If JWs were to change their name what would they change it to?
by slimboyfat inwas it 1931 when they adopted jehovah's witnesses?
(at the time with lower case w) isn't it about time now they changed name again?
i mean everything else is changing why not the name!
-
-
Listener
Jehovah's Workers.
However FDS Workers might be more appropriate. It goes better with their new look commercial Kingdom Halls.
-
21
WTBTS Submissions to Royal Commission on abuse: The response document in FULL
by JWchange init is not obvious if someone has already put the responses and excuses to the findings of the royal commission, by watchtower on this forum somewhere, sorry if it is already posted.
click on the link below, and scroll down to 'submissions' near bottom of page and you can download the full document.
if this link doesn't work.
-
-
Listener
Just re-reading the WTBTS response to the RC submission and wanted to add these thoughts.
There appears to be no Term of Reference that requires the Commission to investigate the “shunning” of adults.
In the submission the RC does not limit 'shunning' to adults, yet the WTBTS limits it's discussion to adult shunning and concludes that it has no bearing on the matter. Children are baptized from a very young age.
Like organisations in the secular arena, the procedures and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been improved and changed over the last 27 years in an endeavour to better respond to and alleviate the impact of child sexual abuse.
They need to explain how their procedures and practices have improved and proof of this. They won't because they will first need to admit how their practices were wrong. They are not being helpful to the Commission by avoiding this.
If the Commission’s views are to be respected around the world, as they undoubtedly will and should be, it is of the utmost importance that those reading the Commission’s report and recommendations understand that its approach to the universal problem of child sexual abuse is free of any perception that the findings and recommendations it makes are antithetical to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The word antithetical means direct or unequivocal opposition
So much for neutrality. They are trying to influence the commission here by suggesting that they will not have respect by World standards if they oppose the practices and beliefs instituted by the WTBTS in handling Child Abuse.
A major role of the RC is investigating and assessing the responses from organizations and it would prove pointless if they didn't include in their findings the shortcomings of institutions/organizations..
The faith is not an agency or instrumentality of government entrusted with the responsibility for the supervision and care of children.
No, instead, they have apparently been selected by Jesus by appointing the FDS and as those taking the lead, have a christian responsibility to care for children. A minor point that they choose to ignore in their submission. If they do not make these things clear to the Commission then they are not fully co-operating and clearly do not intend these higher authorities to provide assistance with helping them to improve.
Further, congregation members are free to report such matters to the secular authorities and many have done so, as is apparent from information provided to the Commission.
The evidence that so few cases were reported shows that some feel that they are not free at all, rather that there is a reluctance to report.
This is up to Page 74.
There is a lot that was said about the two witness rule but a new thought came to me.
The vast majority of JWs are disfellowshipped because they have been found not to have sufficiently repented.
The general procedure is that the Elders first investigate a matter and if they feel there is sufficient evidence they will hold a JC with 3 Elders. Why 3 elders? They use the same principle of 2 or more witnesses, so that 'where there are two or more witnesses any wrongdoing can be firmly established.
However, from there the Elders determine whether the person is repentant or not. In most cases this is a judgmental decision as there is little or no physical evidence that can be presented. Repentance is a spiritual condition and cannot be physically witnessed. The repentance does not take place in front of the Elders, it is a private matter between God and the individual.
Although there are two or more witnesses (Elders) at the JC in the instance of repentance there is not and cannot be two physical witnesses. So in regards to this cumulative sin they choose to apply this witness rule in a completely different way.
If they applied the same logic to determining whether a person is guilty of the sin of not repenting to the original sin then two physical witnesses are not required. All that is required is the same elders making a personal judgement as to whether the original sin took place or not and just as the matter of repentance can be established in this way, so can the original sin.
-
16
Geoffrey Jackson and the Australian Royal Commission's timing of events
by Tenacious ini'm not sure why i was thinking this but does anyone else find it an incredibly rare coincidence that geoffrey jackson just so happened to be in australia attending to his father when the arc happen to be at the exact stage for him to be deposed as a witness?
what are the chances of him being in the country at that precise moment?.
divine intervention?
-
-
Listener
It is an amazing coincidence.
I believe that they could have called Jackson to the RC even if he had not been in Australia (as he is still officially Australian) but I don't think they initially understood the significance of his position until things were revealed and due to the instant communications they were able to receive from ex JWs.
Things just came together perfectly. Even the fact that these days the internet can be used to send messages and infomation instantly and that ex JWs took advantage of this as well as the Commission making themselves available to receive them.
Cardinal Pell relocated from Sydney to Rome around Feb 2014. He has been called to the RC and now says he is ill and asked to be heard via video link. McLellan refused his request and postponed his hearing date.
It would appear that the more a witness shows a reluctance to attend the more the Commission is determined to hear them, which is commonsense as it raises the question of what they are trying to hide.
Jackson and his supporters went even further than trying to avoid attendance for compassionate reasons. They claimed he had nothing to contribute whereas the Commission were aware enough by this stage that the claims were untrue.
Recently I re-read some of the transcript in regards to the Victorian (a State of Australia) Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Organizations which was held in 2013 and the one that Seven Unthank was involved in. It didn't compare in any shape or form to the current RC and probably helped to make the WTBTS pretty much complacent about the whole thing. In comparison they would have had no idea what was about to hit them.
Reading the latest submission/response from the WTBTS demonstrates how stunned and bewildered they were about the whole hearing. They rejected all the claims, accused the commission of going outside its point of reference, belittled those involved in the Commission and were very reluctant to concede anything. In doing so they defied their own rules of neutrality - respect and submission for the higher authorities and not meddling in influencing changes to laws (as detailed in the April 2016 Watchtower).
I think they even said in their submission that it was obvious that the Commission were allowing themselves to be influenced by ex-JWs. Which of course they were, how else do they get both sides of the story? But there is a difference with being influenced and undue influence. I can't remember how accurate I am with this point though as I've only read it once and it was a very long document.
It's not just co-incidence for all this because the WTBTS have only themselves to blame. The Commission has shown itself to be very proficient and dedicated in what they are doing.
What puzzles me more than anything is in relation to Angus Stewart SC. He was only admitted as a Barrister in NSW in 2011 and appointed to Senior (formelly Queen's) Counsel in 2014, probably enabling him to hold the senior position he was in at the RC. As mentioned already, this Case Hearing 29 was far superior to the 2013 Victoria hearing and it was due to the Stewart's talent and dedication as well as the support given to him by the Hon Justice McLellan.
-
13
Using your car in service and still the GB asking for money
by life is to short ini listen to dave ramsey while i work.
he is that financial guy who hates debt.
i agree with 90 percent of what he says.
-
-
Listener
Life is too Short, that is a good point.
For many JWs the extra costs that they meet personally would be amount to more than 10% of their income and for most pioneers it would be way more.
-
41
If JWs were to change their name what would they change it to?
by slimboyfat inwas it 1931 when they adopted jehovah's witnesses?
(at the time with lower case w) isn't it about time now they changed name again?
i mean everything else is changing why not the name!
-
-
Listener
Jehovah's Christians - JC's (Jesus Christ), the closest they could get to including Jesus within their name but still retaining the name Jehovah which is one of the few things that they believe separate themselves from other Christians.