please find below scanned in excerpts of the cover article of the 1/8/01 wt.
its another one of those articles which makes you say to yourself how can they print this!?..
under the heading your right to believe it has the following paragraph.
Them pesky lib'rals in Writing drop a few in now and then,
do they not?
Ah, mainstreaming. Right under our noses ...
And it really looks good when JW reps show those magazines to governments that are not too sure how "charitable" the organization really is, thinking about taxes and mundane stuff like that, or others who are concerned about Human Rights.
Maximus
i have noticed in using the wt-cd that the use of the terms "jehovah's christian witnesses" and "christian witnesses of jehovah" dropped dramatically after 1980. is there a reason for that?
Did yours have just the rubber stamp with the pseudo signature,
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,
and that letterhead,
or
Legal and Service Departments.
same corporation.
You are in U.S., right?
Max
will communicate with you monday at your office.. the million dollar figure for the litigation sounds about right.
no out-of-court settlements, of course.
we want the record to document a very long string of such distortions.. all for now,.
Will communicate with you Monday at your office.
The million dollar figure for the litigation sounds about right. No out-of-court settlements, of course. We want the record to document a very long string of such distortions.
All for now,
Maximus
Cheers to Alfred Hitchcock!
dun.
welcome to this site- after thinking about it for awhile and reading through all 7 pages i have come to the conclusion that actually it is a good thing that you have chosen to use some pretty large words on these threads-.
while i in noway understood half of what you have written-- i am impressed- i started thinking-- where would a person like this fit into wt world esp if you are a male.
Great to hear from you!
We need to connect, check your e-mail.
Max
my observation is that persons who 1) heal/adjust the most rapidly from their jw experience and 2) seem to have the most joy in life are those who read, read, read, in pursuit of what i call nourishment for the spirit.
i've really enjoy the pithy aphorisms you use here, which suggests you've distilled some wisdom from somewhere.
i'm going to ask your help in this thread.
I'm regularly asked to recommend a good book that takes a fresh look at Christianity, without all the baggage. "Books at the beginning of the thread are too heavy, not so accessible." I understand.
Try Alister McGrath's "The Unknown God: Searching for Spiritual Fulfillment." (Eerdmans, 1999.)
Someone has saved me the trouble of reviewing it:
"So what is it that really satisfies us?" On the first page McGrath walks us into this central question of our lives and proceeds to answer it by taking the reader through a kind of primer to the Christian faith. The chapters are quite brief, and while containing references to philosophers and theologians ranging from Plato and Augustine to Kierkegaard and Karl Barth, its style is quite simple and direct. A member of the Oxford University faculty of theology and the author of numerous works, McGrath clearly knows his material; but what's most striking about this book is not so much the answer to its primary question as the presentation.
The book's short chapters are punctuated by beautiful color illustrations (paintings by Raphael, Rubens, and many other artists, as well as photographs) and highlighted quotations from Christian writers.
These features make the pages extremely "user-friendly," much like what you might expect to find on a multimedia CD-ROM display. Checking in at under 125 pages, the combination of brevity and this design makes this a gret book for someone with little knowledge of Christianity. All that's required is the spiritual hunger.
i have noticed in using the wt-cd that the use of the terms "jehovah's christian witnesses" and "christian witnesses of jehovah" dropped dramatically after 1980. is there a reason for that?
Blondie has it right.
The expression "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" was a preferred expression by a senior writer and GB member now recently deceased, whose intellect shall we say deteriorated in later years. I asked him to elaborate on his usage when it first appeared, and he explained that he wanted to avoid any Judaic connotation, but more importantly to emphasize the Christian nature of the organization to strangers and JWs alike.
The cut-off time period you refer to was marked by an examination of how JWs should view Christ, especially by Ray Franz. This term almost became a code word for deviant thought.
Some convention centers the Society owns are called "Christian Convention Center" for obvious reasons.
"By their fruits you will know them."
Hope this helps.
Max
just pondering over a few things i have been reading.. 1.annual corporate meeting oct 6, 2001. with all the weird changes in the last year...red light alert!.
2. since it was the 337 voting members who had the biggest say so as to the changes last year in removing the gb...... (and they are non jws)....what else will they or have they done?.
the only reason they don't send the gb home, and it's not because they care about their elderly, is the fact without them as puppets up there, most jws might wake up and smell the kool-aid!.
Shelby, I see Seeker has already cleared up your question to me.
There are no non-JW members of the Pennsylvania corporation at the present time, or any other. Through death or buy-out they were replaced.
Best,
Max
to whom it may concern,.
the witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die.
such a religious position is untenable, opponents of jws will argue.
Well, Feuerbacher is more delightful to read than Gooch or Rudolf Otto, so I put the book down. I bet you enjoyed Otto's notions regarding the Holy as I did, good Doctor Subtilis, and I would enjoy seeing your thoughts some time.
My post cavalierly dismissed you, but I've read the threads anyway. Dawned on me that you must have hardly anyone to talk to within the organization at an intellectually rather than emotionally satisfying level. I see AlanF reaching out to you; I hope you recognize that. You've been provided with some very good insights from several here--and some very specific inside information on which you can rely.
As has at least one other poster, I've picked up on the persona perfectly, understand it and have enjoyed its manifestation. When your own humanity pokes through, you are at your best. It's okay to be vulnerable.
You are not in enemy territory.
Maximus
i posted this here a long time ago .
didn't get much reply, but then again, there weren't many of us posting at the time.. dedication and baptism.
in the org., the two are inextricably linked.
I owe you one.
The teaching essentially is that baptism is the outward symbol of one's inner dedication. Early on, the term dedication was not used in this way. One was "consecrated." That suggests somebody has done something to you. Since other sheep have no Mediator, who can "consecrate" OS in a theological sense?
New light flashed forth from the temple, and OS now first "dedicated" themselves hopefully before baptism. Some old baptism talks actually suggested that 'if you haven't done it before this moment, do it now or on the way to the pool.'
Baptism is a fixed ritual, dedication by definition is more nebulous. That's simplistic, but it might help you differentiate the two.
Max
just pondering over a few things i have been reading.. 1.annual corporate meeting oct 6, 2001. with all the weird changes in the last year...red light alert!.
2. since it was the 337 voting members who had the biggest say so as to the changes last year in removing the gb...... (and they are non jws)....what else will they or have they done?.
the only reason they don't send the gb home, and it's not because they care about their elderly, is the fact without them as puppets up there, most jws might wake up and smell the kool-aid!.
There were indeed non-JWs in the past. Some real characters.
The idea has been advanced that the corporation is actually some outside group with insidious goals. Nope. The members are insidious enough in their rubber stamp. The Society follows "the Society."
Replacement members have been C A R E F U L L Y selected. The ones I know personally are about as sweet and placid as one can imagine, followers following followers following followers--quite happy to get their ticket to go to the annual meeting and to agree upon everything the Lord wants ...
:: Yes, the GB are no part of the corporation therefore gave up any voting rights.
That's what's incorrect. As individuals the GB members may be part of a corporation but they now are not officers or directors thereof.
There are a number of Watch Tower or Watchtower entities that may exist only as a letterhead. I've negotiated convention contracts on such prior to execution of an agreement between the venue and the New York corporation. In recent years these procedures are rigidly controlled.
A tip for those "following the money": The Treasurer's office was always part of the Pennsylvania corporation. Today I see Treasurer's correspondence under the NY corporation. Makes you go hmmmmmm.
