So much for Bethel "family".
Families don't put their members out on the street. Families find a way to take care of their own, even if it means adding water to the stew to make it go-round.
just got a phone call from an older sister saying that a couple that got re-assigned from bethel 4 years ago to live at their kh apartment as special pioneers, just received a letter saying "as of january 2016, your special pioneer assignment will be discontinued".. they live in a south miami kh(snapper creek congregation).. this couple had only served in bethel for 15 years before they were sent out into the special pioneer work.
they are now in their mid 50's and the sister said that they have to find part time jobs to support themselves.. the older sister (does not have a pc or internet), says that the couple are just devastated!
.
So much for Bethel "family".
Families don't put their members out on the street. Families find a way to take care of their own, even if it means adding water to the stew to make it go-round.
last night our congregation read a letter for the global assistance arrangement combined with the traveling overseer assistance arrangement.
the "recommended" amount was $15 per publisher, which was well over $1000 for our hall.. it seemed steep.
our congregation does not have this type of money.
I'm a bit puzzled. I though the new arrangement was that basically the congregation submitted virtually all their donations anyway to the Society , keeping only a very small amount for short term essential small items of spending. Is this encouraging an additional donation by the congregation.
The one-time congregation bank account raid was nothing short of theft by consent.
These constant and overlapping cash grabs are an attempt at improving cash flow. Watchtower is funneling (bleeding!) nickels-and-dimes from the masses, which ends up as a serious cash cow for the Org.
i was invited to a small get-together by a long time friend.
we both served as elders for years.
he is in his late 70s.
It's amazing there aren't more given the scale and frequency of their doctrinal changes but the fact that there aren't demonstrates that the majority don't really have strongly held beliefs about much other than that the society is always right.
That's well said Simon. Here's another version of the same idea:
"Anyone truly familiar with the JW cult understands that their fundamental doctrine is that the word of the Governing Body supercedes the Bible."--Alan Feuerbacher
___
there were at least four jw's to one lone man on the street.
they look to be mostly elders.
if they are ... is this the example they really want to set.
i've always maintained a huge sense of justice, when presented with facts and truth i don't tolerate hypocrisy and "fake" my path in life.
i relate to nancy grace from hln, seeking justice and truth.
many friends tell me i would be a great lawyer for my candor and directness, i don't think soo because i honestly do not like confrontation.
here is an idea i tested.
works at both assemblies and conventions.
i have noticed at the last convention and at my last assembly that when i opened up my wifi setting, tons of hotspots came up for people tethering their tablets to their smart phones.
I don't know how to do what everyone is talking about, but that doesn't mean I can't follow the discussion. That said, the one thing that gives some legs to this hotspot thing is this: these conventions and assembly programs are horribly, horribly boring.
Individuals with e-devices are known to go on fishing expeditions to interrupt death by boredom, and this hotspot idea might just compel a few of the nearly-bored-to-death weary attendees enough of an opportunity to go take a look. We know what they'll find. They'll find Watchtower has told lie upon lie. To those who know how to do this I say do it if it makes you happy.
here is an idea i tested.
works at both assemblies and conventions.
i have noticed at the last convention and at my last assembly that when i opened up my wifi setting, tons of hotspots came up for people tethering their tablets to their smart phones.
we are more than familiar with the wts rules that say the d/f'd ones , even close relatives outside the home are to be shunned completely "not even saying a greeting" except in very exceptional circumstances.
there is ,however, a line of thought that reasons on jesus' words at matthew 18 ,regarding personal disputes,and their application of it to being disfellowshipped.. matthew 18:15-17.
15 moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone.
continuing a topic that is dear to my heart because of my experience as both a shunner and a shunnee .... some people seem to get very agitated when i talk about the responsibility people have to make the right choices and that despite all the wrongs within the wts, people themselves have a role to play and some personal responsibility for the experience.. notice i said "some" responsibility, not "complete" - this doesn't absolve the wts for the things they do wrong in any way shape or form.
so please don't get argumentative about possible meanings and absolutes - of course the wts has a significant role to play but we need to decide what we're trying to achieve here and why the personal choice is so important.. i'm also not talking about actual crimes that the wts should answer for.
if they cover up child abuse for instance, they absolutely should be reported immediately.
But it is about making them aware of the choice and that they are making it. Instead of shirking the responsibility at least if we make them think about and admit the reasons there may be a chance the realize that they are simply following men, don't know why and are making a bad choice.
I've had some success speaking with JWs over the years on this very basis.
In one instance a JW mentioned to me how hard it was to shun a particular individual. I responded saying" I could understand why they felt that way." This prompted a question to me asking "Why do you say that?" I responded by pointing out the biblical model does in each case of a disfellowshipping (borrowing WTS nomenclature) have elders sharing what act the individual is being shunned for, and when we don't have this information it's much harder to find closure to the event because we are left wondering what happened, why and whether the individual really did something they should be shunned over.
That prompted a second question of "Don't you trust elders to decide these things." This brought a speedy response of "No. I don't. I've seen too much to be that naive. If I'm going to shun someone then I have know know what they did and why. Only then will I take on the responsibility of whatever harm might be caused by me shunning a person."
continuing a topic that is dear to my heart because of my experience as both a shunner and a shunnee .... some people seem to get very agitated when i talk about the responsibility people have to make the right choices and that despite all the wrongs within the wts, people themselves have a role to play and some personal responsibility for the experience.. notice i said "some" responsibility, not "complete" - this doesn't absolve the wts for the things they do wrong in any way shape or form.
so please don't get argumentative about possible meanings and absolutes - of course the wts has a significant role to play but we need to decide what we're trying to achieve here and why the personal choice is so important.. i'm also not talking about actual crimes that the wts should answer for.
if they cover up child abuse for instance, they absolutely should be reported immediately.
I think the danger with that is that it may subtly promote the idea that it's OK if there is a reason they know about it and it moves the discussion into what are and what aren't valid reasons.
Insofar as I'm concerned it is morally acceptable for one person to shun another if the individual knows precisely the conduct at issue and has made a personal choice to shun based on that conduct. In that case individual accountability for shunning is put under an even more intense lens of scrutiny. They can't, for instance, get away with saying "Well So-n-So did something horrible otherwise they'd not be disfellowshipped." Instead the individual has to be comfortable saying, for example, "I'm shunning So-n-So because So-n-So was asking questions that my religion's leaders could not answer for."