in a span of a few months time, we have had many unexpected changes announced by the jw organization.
some here have expressed the belief that a great number of witnesses will leave the religion.
in fact, there is a great probability the opposite will be true.. yeah, ancient hardliners will have a hard time assimilating these changes, but the younger generation will likely welcome these changes.
One old standby in particular that the Org used for for years was the expression “we do not recommend/advise you to…” (paraphrasing, but not much).
…which was overwhelmingly understood by the R&F as “we recommend/advise you not to”…
…whereas technically (in terms of grammar), it was actually a much more neutral turn of phrase, closer to “we neither recommend nor forbid you to…”
It took me years to figure that out.
in a span of a few months time, we have had many unexpected changes announced by the jw organization.
some here have expressed the belief that a great number of witnesses will leave the religion.
in fact, there is a great probability the opposite will be true.. yeah, ancient hardliners will have a hard time assimilating these changes, but the younger generation will likely welcome these changes.
NotFormer - “…R&F JWs are probably trying to find the hidden code: ‘What are they actually commanding us to do here?’…”
Tell them “nothing”, sit back, and watch the confusion. 😏
I’m actually reminded of when they started discussing blood fractions; specifically advising to inform your doctor of your choices …and a lot of folks did indeed try to “decode” the instructions.
One old loyalist biddy said that she still wouldn’t accept anything, only to be told “don’t tell us, tell your doctor”.
Viewing almost everything as some kind of litmus test and feeling compelled to broadcast all your personal business to everyone around you must be exhausting AF. 😵💫
there's been a lot of discussion about the changes in the org.
you might think all this would shake things up, especially for the older or super dedicated jws.
but remember when gb decided all the khs and the bank accounts needed to be transferred/managed from the top?
Tom has a source, Red is a source…
…we should start a betting pool of some kind…
😏
let's be honest, there's a stigma to the name jehovah's witness.
if they are going more mainstream.
i imagine the first recommendation was a name change.
At this point, they’re not trying to look more “appealing”…
…they’re trying to look less toxic.
And the “Jehovah’s Witness” and “Watchtower” labels are definitely more toxic than not, these days.
there're always things we did in the past that we wish had never happened or that we could make them all go away.. the wt actually can do this, to a certain extent.
speculation about tony?
they command the r&f to stop doing it, and it goes away.
They tried controlling the narrative in Norway, and the court saw right through it.
there's been a lot of discussion about the changes in the org.
you might think all this would shake things up, especially for the older or super dedicated jws.
but remember when gb decided all the khs and the bank accounts needed to be transferred/managed from the top?
If they’re doubling down on the blood rules, it’s probably because their lawyers have done some kind of cost-benefit analysis, and determined that dropping it will actually result in more legal problems than keeping it.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/512321/jehovah-s-witness-church-takes-case-over-abuse-in-care-ruling-to-court-of-appeal?fbclid=iwar0ipoxydannpkym0rbwj-0ffxcmauhknchpvhql2l0azq4-garjfiihsqa.
the court of appeal has reserved its decision in the jehovah's witness church's case challenging the abuse in care inquiry.. in wellington on thursday the church appealed a high court ruling that dismissed its claim to be excluded from the investigation.. the public gallery was packed with members of the church and abuse survivors.. lawyer sarah jerebine began the appeal by challenging the royal commission's decision to extend the inquiry's scope from institutional care to trust-based relationships between authority figures and children.. "it becomes a person with authority, not authority to care but just authority, can assume responsibility for a trust-based relationship.
we say that is something quite different to what was intended and understood by what this commission would be looking at.".
NotFormer - “…Even if they get off on the ‘in care’ technicality, what's to stop Parliament from deciding to broaden the scope of the inquiry? Another legal precedent brought on by themselves…”
Bingo.
It’s like they have trouble grasping that secular laws can, will, and need to be fine-tuned from time to time, and it ain’t always gonna be in their favor.
They always assumed the World would use heavy-handed militant force to try and wipe them out (which, let’s face it, would make it way easier to look like victims).
They never imagined they could be sued, taxed, or legislated into oblivion. 😏
i prepared the following in abrief essay form from my research on the subject.. please read it through.
it will take a few minutes.i believe it is comprehensive enough for use with almost anyone.. if any one wants it in word ot pdf format, i can email it you.. a matter of reason.
the issue of being disturbed by the watchtower society becoming associated with the united nations as a non-governmental organization (ngo) is not a matter of faith, but a matter of reason.. .
Not to mention that if reports are accurate, they’re trying to overhaul their eschatology anyway…
…and I pretty sure the UN will be a virtual nonentity in the new-and-improved narrative.
let's be honest, there's a stigma to the name jehovah's witness.
if they are going more mainstream.
i imagine the first recommendation was a name change.
in a span of a few months time, we have had many unexpected changes announced by the jw organization.
some here have expressed the belief that a great number of witnesses will leave the religion.
in fact, there is a great probability the opposite will be true.. yeah, ancient hardliners will have a hard time assimilating these changes, but the younger generation will likely welcome these changes.
Ron W. - “…My aged family are desperately trying to find ways to convince themselves to be faithful and loyal to these new dress codes but are seriously struggling.”
slimboyfat - “The new rules allow for people who want to keep dressing the way they’ve always done. Many JWs will choose to do so. I don’t think it should be such a problem from that point of view.”Problem is, after a lifetime hearing everything from WTHQ as marching orders, the prospect of anything being genuinely optional is hard for them to wrap their heads around.
