on page 23, par 14 of the 12/15/2010 wt study, it says of russell:.
so he had decided to devote himself to his business interests, reasoning that if he made some money, he would at least be able to address the physical needs of people even if he could not help them spiritually.. did he really "reason" that if he made some money, he could address people's physical needs?
was he planning some sort of charity?
On page 23, par 14 of the 12/15/2010 WT Study, it says of Russell:
So he had decided to devote himself to his business interests, reasoning that if he made some money, he would at least be able to address the physical needs of people even if he could not help them spiritually.
Did he really "reason" that if he made some money, he could address people's physical needs? Was he planning some sort of charity? Is there a historical reference to verify what his "reasoning" was?
i just read the thread about women & men waking up etc.
and saw a post saying women can't face the audience from the platform.
i thought, hmm yeah, now that i think about it, they're always looking sideways, like toward the other woman in the role-playing, or if they're being interviewed, they look toward the guy at the podium.
Thank you DanaBug! I appreciate the info.
i just read the thread about women & men waking up etc.
and saw a post saying women can't face the audience from the platform.
i thought, hmm yeah, now that i think about it, they're always looking sideways, like toward the other woman in the role-playing, or if they're being interviewed, they look toward the guy at the podium.
I was aware that there were some verses in Paul's letters about women not teaching, but I was wondering if the WT had something like the Elders' manual or a set of guidelines to make sure everyone was in "unity" about how to apply those verses. I'm curious how all the congregations seem to know what to do. Is it all word of mouth, or are there printed instructions from the WT explaining what is and is not allowed regarding women on the platform?
i just read the thread about women & men waking up etc.
and saw a post saying women can't face the audience from the platform.
i thought, hmm yeah, now that i think about it, they're always looking sideways, like toward the other woman in the role-playing, or if they're being interviewed, they look toward the guy at the podium.
I just read the thread about women & men waking up etc. and saw a post saying women can't face the audience from the platform. I thought, hmm yeah, now that I think about it, they're always looking sideways, like toward the other woman in the role-playing, or if they're being interviewed, they look toward the guy at the podium. Is there some JW rule book that actually contains this policy in writing? I would be curious to read it.
being a non-jw, i have a logistical question about the tms.
does everyone enrolled have to do one of those play-acting demo skits where someone plays the hh and the other plays the jw?
or, can some enrollees choose never to do them?
Being a non-JW, I have a logistical question about the TMS. Does everyone enrolled have to do one of those play-acting demo skits where someone plays the HH and the other plays the JW? Or, can some enrollees choose never to do them? I was wondering how the schedule fills up for the year. Do the elders assign everyone a date when they are expected to do the assigned skit, or do people fill up the schedule voluntarily? When does the schedule get established? At the beginning of the year? I'm asking all this b/c I want to find out if/when my JW friend might be doing one of those skits. I'll probably ask her, but I wanted to find out the background on the logistics first.
a freind of mine went online and requested a bible study.
they showed up while she was gone and i talked to them.
i told them they could come over to talk to me and we could try to find my place in the org.
He says we have no common ground
It looked to me like you had a lot of common ground - God, Jesus, and the Bible. I wonder how he could say you have no common ground.
i just read some of ex-specialpioneer's story and noticed they filed "s-3" forms on his dad with the cong secretary.
i am a worldly in the middle of doing a jw study.
could someone please enlighten me on these "s-3" forms?.
I just read some of ex-specialpioneer's story and noticed they filed "S-3" forms on his dad with the cong secretary. I am a worldly in the middle of doing a JW study. Could someone please enlighten me on these "S-3" forms?
Anyone have a pdf? What do you think would happen if I asked him about it & if I may read the records?
well folks, got back from my trip to see russell's grave site.
it was quite a interesting experience and sobering to see the pyramid right by his tombstone.
i'm kind of tired and will be hitting the sack soon but i wanted to post a few pictures.
dgp - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell#Death where it says he is buried in Rosemont United Cemetery in Pittsburgh, PA USA. Notice there is a link to the latitude & longitude which takes you to lots of info on the location.
i've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
Nathan Natas - I only chose the name "InterestedOne" as a mild dig at the way they label everyone. Unfortunately, my friend was baptized in 2003. I got into this because she fooled me with "informal witnessing." I thought we were friends, and now I am in the process of understanding what is really going on with JW's. I am hurt by this "informal witnessing" BS, and asking questions/discussing the issues is helping me work through my feelings. I am learning a lot that applies not just to JW's, but anyone who uses manipulative tactics. The tactics are an interesting mix of logic and emotion. Your spider web & fishhooks illustration is brilliant.
Flipper - I believe all those things you said make them not chosen by God - as if God is even doing the kind of "choosing" with which they frame the matter. I was asking the title question because I've heard comments on other threads saying things like "if they change 1914, they lose their claim to be exclusively chosen by God." I was wondering, from a purely logical/doctrinal standpoint, why removing 1914 removes their claim of authority - like why the specific number/date matters at all within their framework. Basically, it's like an engineering question of robustness. If you do a robust design, various components of the piece of equipment can change without affecting the overall performance. I was asking about how robust the JW doctrinal framework is to 1914 - how changing 1914 would supposedly cause their claim of authority to fall apart, if at all.
i've read here that if the wt admits 607 is wrong or if 1914 is wrong, the logical result is that god did not choose them as his org.
can someone explain to me how that logically follows?.
couldn't they just say, "we have received new light on that, have learned that we cannot give a specific date (like how they abandoned 1935), but look, we adhere to the bible more strictly than anyone else, we strive to 'keep the cong clean' more than any other group, etc., so therefore, we must be chosen by god as his only org.
DesirousOfChange - I was thinking about that too. I know the first world war works with 1914, but maybe "world events" around 1934 could also be considered "right on schedule" if they started counting at 587. That's why I was wondering if there was something I was missing in JW doctrine that absolutely requires the specific date of 1914 - and if it moved, somehow it would doctrinally mess up their claim to be God's only instrument. I wasn't sure what the logical relationship was between the specific date and their claim of authority & why the date couldn't just shift with no problem. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the problem is that it would take a lot of work to get the PR right (i.e. attempt to save their "credibility") and do the re-tooling in the literature.
