Posts by sizemik

23

Another newguy here

by shakyground in

jw
friends

hmmm where do i start?

well, i have been lurking on here for about 6 months.

i was raised around the witnesses all my life.

The fears and doubts you express both about WTS and your future are normal and understandable. The only way to find your way through that is to know the "truth" about "the truth" . . . and indeed to educate yourself on the matters of concern you raise, as others suggest. You will soon form a true picture of things . . . and that is what you want right? . . . the truth.

One unbalanced way of thinking that WT instills in us, is an "us and them" mentality. When we make contact with "worldly" people who are dead losses we tend to view them as typical and want to head back to the KH.

Consider first, that JW's represent about 0.01% of the total population. There are a lot of people in the world that make poor associates . . . some of them are JW's as well. Making valued and trusted friends is not determined by whether or not they are JW's. The converse is true however . . . there are many people out there who do make good reliable and trustworthy friends. You will find plenty I'm sure if you are discerning about who you spend time with.

18

Watchtower Land Grab?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

watchtower land grab?.

today i uploaded a new article to my blog giving attention to an under-publicized directive from watchtower issued to elders in march of 2000 regarding distribution of property assets when a congregation is dissolved.

readers can make of it what they will, but i think the documentation speaks for itself.

sizemik

Yes George I concur with that.

However, the particular congregation I was in from 1999 - 2003 was looking at selling and rebuilding, so some discussions, and even some dissent did occur at voting time. I don't recall a change to the articles being one of them . . . but of course . . . it could well have occurred in my absence. In which case, just as you've described may well have occurred.

And, as this thread has demonstrated, they can be very cunning as to how these changes are presented. They're still bloody thieves either way . . . the change is purely for the pecuniary advantage of WTBTS

18

Watchtower Land Grab?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

watchtower land grab?.

today i uploaded a new article to my blog giving attention to an under-publicized directive from watchtower issued to elders in march of 2000 regarding distribution of property assets when a congregation is dissolved.

readers can make of it what they will, but i think the documentation speaks for itself.

sizemik

In these cases, however, the clause is in the "Articles... of INCORPORATION." Meaning, the congregations are not "unincorporated." They are very much incorporated (albeit as an exempt non-profit, but even non-profits have assets)... and I've glanced over two or three sets of congregation Articles* and my recollection is that they show the "congregation" as the shareholder body. I don't know exactly how they're worded now but it used to be that the PO was the "President", the TMS Conductor was the "Secretary" and the Service Conductor was the "Treasurer"... or something to that effect. They were the directors. But it was the "Congregation of Such-and-So" that OWNED the KH and land it was built on.

I'm not sure how different laws might apply in different countries. I do recall however that this was the basic arrangement here in NZ when I was a member. Any expenses regarding maintenance, loans, mortgages, purchases etc etc, were presented to the "shareholders" and voted on. We were looking at a land purchase at the time so it was a regular monthly occurrance at least. I stopped attending early 2003. What I cant understand is how this alteration to the articles could be made without the shareholder approval (vote), without it being illegal. No such change was ever presented for approval in my cong prior to early 2003.

Any legal minds shed some light on this?

17

Reasons "love bombing" ceases

by roxanesophia in

i study with a highly esteemed pioneer & elder's kid and i've learned on here that pioneers are right up there when it comes to gossip, as are elders kids, so i've got a double whammy.

unfortunately i didn't learn that until after i'd trusted her.

call me a moron but i'm totally drawn in by the kindness.

sizemik

Me: "That's instant disfellowshipping, right? Hardest time of their life being sick and all, and then shunned on top of it."
Him: "Well.... uhh, no... no... well, let's say they'd definitely get a talking to."

What would actually happen by way of a "talking to" is that a Judicial Committee would be assigned to investigate. If the individual was able to demonstrate "repentance" . . . (lot's of tears and apologies and a promise to do more in service etc) . . . they might get away with a "private reproof" which would be accompanied by restrictions and loss of service "privileges". Depending on the JC's conclusions (one being how many know of it) they may receive "public reproof' which involves them being publicly named from the platform but without the transgression being identified. This too would have penalties attached. Additionally it would be accompanied by some degree of shunning from some, and a high volume of speculative gossip. If true repentance is not established, then disfellowshipping and shunning in full force would occur. This too would involve a public announcement.

Sorry if this come across as long-winded . . . but it highlights the high degree of control that is exercised.

93

How many here would be prepared to reveal thier real identity NOW ?

by eruption in

jw
friends

sizemik

I am not afraid of the BORG or anyone else. I like to be able to express my freedom of speech here on a variety of subjects, and to freely offer help and support where I can.

I also involve myself periodically in lobbying prominent people, Govt departments and Media outlets, on various facets of this cult when appropriate. What I don't want is to allow freedom to anybody to scroll through all of the opinions and comments I have made here and then use them at a later date in a different setting or context. That may reduce my effectiveness in either activity. Good enough for me.

70

I'm new to the whole JW religion - Can someone please explain the basics?

by Jackals in

i recently began a wonderful relationship with a guy who also happened to be a jw.

i have learned alot about him and how the religion effects his life and now i am interested in learning more about the religion - but from a beginners' point of view.

could anyone give me an idea of the basic beliefs and practices of jws?.

sizemik

Thank you Maze for your input . . . .

You will see foul mouths and evidence of ungodliness here. One of the more popular threads right now reads: An open letter to the Governing Body: Go F*ck Yourselves

I too would encourage you to read this post . . . it is a fine example of how a high-control religious cult sets about destroying the love and trust inside an otherwise loving family.

21

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Chrsitians?

by TimothyT in

despite being a jw for 20 years, this has just flashed up into my mind?.

of course jesus is important in the lives of jw's, but they worship jehovah!.

hence, are they christians or jehovians?.

sizemik

For instance Paul wrote a letter to Thessalonians .You will not prove it was a letter written to you or any other person in our time.It was written to Thessalonians .

OBVES . . . Would that also apply for the books of Acts and Galatians?

119

Are JWs Who Join This Forum Expected to Tow the Accepted Line of

by believingxjw in

jw
friends

can those prominent in the "apostate" world be criticized?

we expect that jws be willing to read and swallow what is written here about their leaders and i agree with this.

but...do we also allow criticism of those taking the lead among us?

sizemik

How much weight that voice carrys,depends on the credibility they have earned.. . . . OUTLAW

I hear ya OUTLAW . . . and credibility is a valid feature in debate.

A problem only arises when a "voice" is heard based too much on "credibility" and not enough on the content of their argument. Most posters achieve a reasonable balance of each, when responding, but a number don't. This thread has been useful, in that an assesment of "credibility" when taken too far becomes a prejudice.

When that happens, the same opinion will be treated quite differently, based entirely on who it is that is expressing it. This gives the impression of a heirarchial structure whether it exists or not.

Whether it be applicable to the individual or not, the danger of prejudice based on credibility alone, is something that each needs to recognise and be wary of. Benefit of the doubt based on what we may not know when assessing credibility, and instead focussing on content is a wiser course for any to whom it may apply IMO.

Without dragging out names and details . . . a particular thread that has been commented on here, displayed all of the dangers I'm referring to, and to a worrying level. Any who care to, may wish to revisit that thread in light of what's been discussed here and make their own assessment . . . and adjustments if appropriate. I don't excuse myself from that process either.

21

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Chrsitians?

by TimothyT in

despite being a jw for 20 years, this has just flashed up into my mind?.

of course jesus is important in the lives of jw's, but they worship jehovah!.

hence, are they christians or jehovians?.

sizemik

By this all will know you are my disciples . . . if you have love among yourselves.

On the critereia put forth by Christ himself . . . NO . . . they are not Christians.

They are a fundamentalist mind-controlling religious cult . . . (note; the word "christian" does not appear.)

203

HEAVY ROCK LOVERS - Unite Here

by sizemik in

i'm a sucker for heavy rock .

so long as it's good .

always have been since early 70's.. thought i'd start an entertainment thread so post your fav heavy rockers here.

sizemik

Sorry Size, I'm going down a not so heavy road here. One more.

You go down any road you like . . . I'm lovin' this.