Posts by Maximus

59

Blood, The Watchtower and Deceit

by Maximus in

jw
friends

while much attention is given to doctrine in sites such as this, very little is noted about the watchtower societys intellectual dishonesty in its publications, especially when it comes to quotations.. oftentimes the societys writers will cite a scholar or author of some repute: "professor blank observes that blah, blah, blah.

" the reader assumes from the quotation that professor blank is in agreement with the organizations position, of course, and that the quotation chosen accurately depicts the authors thoughts.. heres the catch: the words between the quotation marks may be accurate, but the snippet may not at all faithfully represent someones actual thesis or position.

much like a newspaper ad for a movie that quotes a reviewer as saying "monumental!

Maximus

Bringing to the top for Voltaire.

Max

68

WTS lied about Joseph Priestley and Blood

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

some of you may have already made a post about this but i have decided to post the following anyway.. the booklet - how can blood save your life?

part 2 - bloodvital for life.

Maximus

I need to clarify this further, Waiting. The kind of stuff the men used to pat the women on the head about, which women actually pick up quicker than men because they are so very intuitive about nuances!

Think about the meaning of the term "disassocate" by itself. This is not semantics or word play about whether I am technically correct. I want to help you understand the concept. If the two categories were not different, there would not be two words used. How are they different?

Disassociation is what YOU do. (You join the military, I recognize it, announce you have disassociated yourself by your course of action. If I DF you, I am in trouble with the Government; they absolve themselves by using this category.)

Disassociation by definition is a course of action or something YOU do that tells everyone you are not going to follow their rules. How can I disassociate YOU? Disassociation is not an action performed by the Society or its representatives. Disfellowshipping, however, is just such an act.

If you are categorized as Disassociated, YOU have chosen to violate some JW standard or rule, and they merely recognize that, by making an announcement as noted above.

You are quite correct about general perceptions.

Can they make that decision behind your back? Without your meeting with them? Yes. Even if you tell them you still want to be a JW? If you joined the military, you could tell them you still wanted to be a dub but they would still consider you as DA. (I know nothing about Simon's case, but I have seen some really dumb things elders have done in committees.)

To repeat: You disassociate yourself by what you do in violation of "God's standards." I then tell the world about it via an announcement. In disfellowshipping I the Society am the one acting, and make an announcement. Again, the result is the same, shunning. But pay careful attention to the subtle distinctions. Particularly with blood transfusion.

So the Society and its reps would hold that it is not accurate to say THEY disassociated Simon against his will. What locals or the branch likely did is come to a decision that "by his course of action" he had disassociated HIMSELF. And they announced it despite any protestation.

If they sent him a letter saying "We hereby disassociate you," I want to see it. It would obviate the very reason for the category in the first place. The standard announcement is: "By his chosen course [name] has shown that he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Who did it? You did.

That distinction is very important when it comes to accountability. The Society is trying to shuck responsibility in more and more areas, in self-protection. Committees have practically begged individuals to do the manly thing (sorry about the sexist language; theirs not mine), not to be a coward, sign a letter, to avoid the slightest hint of responsibility on their part.

Hope this helps.

Some deaths left me anguished; thanks for the thoughts. Lots of fun chatter on the board, but for many it's life-or-death serious, especially when it seems there is no way out.

Maximus
'Sokay, I know a non-JW MD who was totally baffled by this--at first.

68

WTS lied about Joseph Priestley and Blood

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

some of you may have already made a post about this but i have decided to post the following anyway.. the booklet - how can blood save your life?

part 2 - bloodvital for life.

Maximus

Let's be very clear about penalties for blood transfusion. While it seems to be a distinction without a difference, i.e., you get shunned for BOTH DF (disfellowshipping) and DA (disassociation), it's important to note who is the responsible party. And to look at WHY the Society changed its policy.

If you are DFd, the organization does it through its local representatives the elders. If you are considered DA, you have done it to yourself in the eyes of the Society. The hierarchy now wants to wash its hands and say they are not responsible, you are. Reduces potential liability, right? YOUR decision to follow "God's standard," WHICH MAY CHANGE.

Another step in the blood policy evolution, much like alternative service. Meanwhile innocent lives are lost. The Society can't present clear reasons for their policy but they can state it and enforce it. And tell you to wait on Jehovah if you don't like it. (Just like they did with alternative service and other issues.)

A baptized JW who unrepentantly receives a blood transfusion (meaning an infusion of anything not an approved blood product or fraction) is now officially treated as having disassociated him/herself, after certain modified judicial proceedings.

How does this work? What is published below is taken from the Society’s letter read from the CO to US bodies of elders, no copies, notes only. (Hopefully no responsibility.)

‘We wish to make an adjustment in the current standing on blood transfusions. True Christians avoid blood transfusions. On rare occasions some have accepted them. In the event a brother or sister does so, two elders should be assigned to find out if they did so willingly. If it is determined that they did so willingly, a committee of three brothers (not a judicial committee) should be assigned to get the facts and determine the attitude of the individual. If the person who accepted a blood transfusion sincerely regrets his decision, he would not qualify for privileges [commenting, talk assignments, aux pio, prayer] within the congregation for a period of time. The committee may also make an announcement to the congregation:

‘"The elders have handled a matter having to do with-------------. You will
be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance."

‘If the person willfully and unrepentantly rejects God’s standards, and makes
statements to the effect he would continue in his course and advocates it to
others, thus he has chosen to disassociate himself from the congregation.
The following announcement would be made to the congregation:

‘"By his chosen course [name] has shown that he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."’

The following is not medical conversation, but for those interested in thinking things through:

What happens when Elder X visits Publisher Y in the hospital and sees a red bag hanging? Say he asks the obvious question, "What’s that?" and Publisher Y responds: "What you see in that bag is permitted by my Christian conscience."

Dilemma for Elder X: Does he try to take a sneak peek at the medical records? Find out from a "loyal" JW or unwitting secretary in the hospital?

Medical confidentiality looms large as an issue.

There are new rules that set national standards for protecting the privacy and distribution of Americans' personal health records and establish fines and criminal penalties for violations of those standards.

Snoops, watch out. You are at risk--legally.

Hope the above is helpful to y'all, yez, youse, what---ever. Or to the one person who may have read it.

Maximus

18

Basic Requirements For Bethel Service 2001...

by TheApostleAK in

jw
friends

taken from our kingdom ministry, june 2001. .

basic requirements for bethel service.

- requirements for bethel service.

Maximus

When I went to Bethel, the application pointedly asked if I would remain until "the Lord takes you away."

That got changed to four years. Then to one. Then, well, here's a quotation from Metatron's Mainstreaming thread:

::Want to become a Bethelite? Well, you're coming to stay for 'life'
No, wait, you're coming for at least 4 'full years'. No, wait a
minute, you have to stay for ONE year! You have to be a regular
pioneer for several years,..... one year......you have to be
a good publisher ..... in the 'truth' for many years, NO, BAPTIZED
FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS!!!!!!

Get it?

The question on drug use was never on the questionnaire, but for the last ten years or so the majority answer YES as to whether there was any experimentation with drugs. And "degrading music"? I'm serious.

They have had an increasing problem with getting help. Period. And in the early 1990's the progressives grabbed the opportunity and there was a little relaxation on the college issue. The pendulum has swung the other way. Now there are special meetings puzzling over why young men don't pioneer anymore but --gasp-- work or --double-gasp-- go to college.

They don't get it.

Max

16

Some Things in Life Are Bad - Monty Python

by LadyBug in

jw
friends

and ... always look on the bright side of life.

always look on the bright side of life.

Maximus

"Wot did 'e say?

"Blessed are the cheese-makers?"

M
And wasn't your little ditty also featured at ...
the crucifixion?

24

Doubt Not!

by silentlambs in

i only use this expression when something big is forth coming.

within the next four days another major news story will hit the papers regarding the pedophile issue and jw's.

as soon as i have the go ahead we will release the details here, so stay tuned and you can hear it first here.

Maximus

If laughter is the best medicine, I owe you an enormous check for the pharmaceutical! Can't stop laughing! Been a tough week; you're obviously a 9/9.

M

24

Doubt Not!

by silentlambs in

i only use this expression when something big is forth coming.

within the next four days another major news story will hit the papers regarding the pedophile issue and jw's.

as soon as i have the go ahead we will release the details here, so stay tuned and you can hear it first here.

Maximus

I am ready when Richard is.

Max

68

WTS lied about Joseph Priestley and Blood

by hawkaw in

jw
friends

some of you may have already made a post about this but i have decided to post the following anyway.. the booklet - how can blood save your life?

part 2 - bloodvital for life.

Maximus

Hawkaw, sorry I haven't answered your mail; time constraints have prevented the full attention you deserve. The 'no fraternizing' comments in the W article are simply dropped in at what seemed to be a good spot, in strained fashion. Forget context.

I'll send you a copy of that current Watchtower anyway, which also has a whole page devoted to the pregnant question, 'How long did Job suffer?' Not exactly one everyone has been holding his breath for. It is awful juvenile stuff. (As to the awkward NW construction "it came to be the day," Hebrew scholars would howl with laughter; akin to "once upon a time." (Compare "The Art of Biblical Narrative," Robert Alter, Basic Books. I've recently seen it in remainder stores for $4.)

I invite you to pay particular attention to the two "mainstreaming vs. reform" posts by metatron, which speak to the dumbing down of the Society's publications and the deaf responses to honest inquirers. That's the best insight you could have, expressed honestly and accurately to a devastating degree.

Yes, the white cell issue is another huge inconsistency. Reason has not prevailed in this area either. "Then again," as the late Karl Klein was fond of using in his Watchtower articles, "some" do not want this inconsistency to be too glaring to the hardliners, who would put this genie back into the bottle. For non-JWs like you and Sam Muramoto, this is especially incredible.

Maximus
Picturing the JW rabbis overseeing cow blood collection at BioPure, declaring it kosher and crossing their fingers ...

5

Why Mainstreaming Will Win Part Two

by metatron in

jw
friends

i have no quarrel with anyone who wishes to hope for the.

society's 'reform', i just want to draw attention to the .

real cause of change by distinguishing reform from mainstreaming.. when someone says 'reform', i think of brave reformers who.

Maximus

Amen and Amen.

Maximus

7

We had Bethelite visitors last night

by ozziepost in

jw
friends

we had a lovely meal and conversation, but then the conversation turned to rome, which is a city all of us had visited not too long ago.. we spoke about the sights as you normally do, the vatican, st peters bassilica, the sistene chapel, and so on.

but then i mentioned the catacombs.

i am impressed by the sheer size of the catacombs.

Maximus

::They start with a teaching, then try and make everything fit to the teaching, instead of vice versa.

Exactly so. From the beginning. The easiest way to err: start with the conclusion instead of the facts, the presupposition, buttressed with whatever badly chosen quotations or scriptures or illustrations.

I've dubbed it the Procrustean bed theology. Remember Procrustes, with the ill-fitting bed? He fixed things very nicely, by lopping off the limbs of his guests so they could fit the bed.

Maximus