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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
He was given ample opportunity to explain and chose not to.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
page 13, par.
18 - "yes, we have good reason to rejoice over the good work and spiritual activity that we can expect when believing mankind enjoys life during christ’s millennial reign.".
hey "faithful slave," aren't you forgetting something?
The front page has a picture of the paradise earth again. They are picking grapes this time. It's a proper vineyard, very organised, which means they believe man will continue to cultivate the earth, unlike the paradise that Adam and Eve lived in.
It looks like they just returned from a meeting and took their jackets off, they are wearing shirts.
Their clothes are 1960s style. Stepping into their future is like stepping into the past.
unexplained features: the covenant was with all of "gods people" not just the priests or kings.
the new covenant wt style be made only with the 144 000 king priests and not all members of the "israel of god" ?.
if the new covenant is for the "forgiveness of sin" why is only .01 % of wt members covered by it?
They liken the anointed as being the same as earthly Israel who were going to be a nation of Kings and Priests, only they are now Spiritual Israelites, God's chosen nation.
They deny the other sheep of so much. They are not sons of God, they are not Spiritual Brothers and Sisters, God is not their Father other than in a superficial way, they do not have the law written in their hearts, they are not part of the New Covenant and they do not have Jesus as their mediator. And then they turn around and claim there is nothing special about an anointed person.
with the talks abouth tight pants in men and now samuel herd abouth fat women are better then fit .
this are topics women talk abouth.
you think its the gb wifes running the show now?.
It is a fact that there are more female JWs than males. This results in the problem with the problem that there will be single, unmarried females with no prospect of finding a partner. Naturally the prettier females will be cherry picked.
There is occassionly talks and literature trying to address this problem of singleness.
Herds talk is aimed at putting it in the minds of single sisters that even if they are not pretty there is still a chance that they will be selected as a potential marriage mate. They must work hard on their inner beauty.
Its another form of control in the guise of giving hope to unmarriageable mates.
To some extent, he is also telling males to consider marrying Sisters who show dedicated JW qualities. The thing is, most males can, for the most part, have both and if you are a Bethelite, you get to pick young females as well.
It hasn't swayed GB Mark Sanderson in any way.
hey guys, i've been pimo going on full inactive for a very long time, 5+ years.
pretty happy with the current situation.
over the years, i've gotten lots of grief from the local elders and cos for my inactivity, attending wordly public events and social media posts.
Dating an unbaptised person is cause for them to call a Judicial Committee but they won't df, they will go to the point of marking you. Being marked means that all JWs who have knowledge of it will soft shun you. It means that they cannot socialise with you.
If you are not marked then technically your parents can still attend your wedding but it will be a conscience matter unless the Elders get wind of it. The Elders will tell them not to attend.
hey guys, i've been pimo going on full inactive for a very long time, 5+ years.
pretty happy with the current situation.
over the years, i've gotten lots of grief from the local elders and cos for my inactivity, attending wordly public events and social media posts.
The only way I know how is to hide the relationship until you are married, or the day you are getting married.
They will mark you at the very least if they know about it before you are married. Once married they can't do anything about it but they will still want to meet with you and when they do, do not meet with them.
