The Organization = Jehovah in the minds of the GB
Posts by 00DAD
-
51April 15, 2013 Watchtower - p. 22-26: Organization-Obsessed Much???
by sd-7 inthere's a study article "make sure of the more important things", and in no uncertain terms the article makes clear that "jehovah's organization" is the most important thing.
the term "organization" or "jehovah's organization" is used a whopping 24 times in the article, including a subheading titled: "follow the example of jehovah's organization".
i thought organizations were entities, but that sort of subheading makes it seem like the organization is one giant person whose example we can follow.
-
-
-
22
I've just been 'Outted' by my own sister
by Newly Enlightened ini thought that we could just fade away peacefully, but i guess my mother told my sister that we no longer wanted to be jehovah's witnesses so now all hell is breaking loose.. .
it's a relief tho.
i feel really sad and upset also, because my mom lives with my sister and now has been forbidden from contacting me or vice versa.
-
-
00DAD
By this all will know you are my disciples, if you have love among yourself ... and absolutely obey everything I say without question! - GB 13:35
-
25
New Release for 2013 District Assemblies
by RubaDub inan insider at bethel has confirmed that there will be a new book released this summer at the district assemblies.
the society is using some new technology called "current light.
" it allows them to print the book with certain parts in permanant ink (as has been historically used) while other parts of the book have erasable ink.. as i understand it, sentences that begin with words such as "evidently, apparently, obviously, it appears that, likely, clearly, doubtless" and numerous other phrases will be in a slightly different font so that the "current light" sentences can be easily changed when needed.. for example:.
-
-
-
15
$3 Billion Lawsuit
by The Searcher incould this have any bearing on current changes at brooklyn?.
-
-
00DAD
What are you talking about?
Some references and details would help.
-
73
How many decades/centuries before 1914 becomes irrelevant?
by jwfacts inhow long do you think the watchtower can speak about 1914 and have followers think it relevant?
i think for people born in the 1900's, it feels like an acceptable year.
but what about those born since 2000, will 1914 seem like a year of relevance?
-
-
00DAD
Ding: Why doesn't the GB just make 2014 the new date?
That makes as much sense as anything else they've got, ... which is none!
-
73
How many decades/centuries before 1914 becomes irrelevant?
by jwfacts inhow long do you think the watchtower can speak about 1914 and have followers think it relevant?
i think for people born in the 1900's, it feels like an acceptable year.
but what about those born since 2000, will 1914 seem like a year of relevance?
-
-
00DAD
For as much talk as this religion gives to the alleged importance of "accurate knowledge" they are correspondingly clueless as to what that actually is!
-
60
My husband deleted me as a friend on FaceBook
by cognac inafter this whole thing with him talking to this other girl on fb, now he deleted me as a friend.
i have his username and password.
it's like, he doesn't want this marriage to work at all.. i don't even have it in me to argue with him.
-
-
00DAD
cognac: He doesn't like to be controlled
If he's a JW, he's programmed to be controlled.
-
73
How many decades/centuries before 1914 becomes irrelevant?
by jwfacts inhow long do you think the watchtower can speak about 1914 and have followers think it relevant?
i think for people born in the 1900's, it feels like an acceptable year.
but what about those born since 2000, will 1914 seem like a year of relevance?
-
-
00DAD
I just had an intriguing thought: It's likely that there are many active JWs that doubt the accuracy of 1914, but they're afraid to say anything for fear of being labeled an apostate and subsequently disfellowshipped.
Recent doctrinal changes have proved that the GB can come up with any illogical and incoherent change and very few will leave over it. They're just too emotionally invested in the religion to protest over a little thing like nonsensical beliefs.
I think that if the GB came up with a fresh interpretation of Bible chronology and End Times prophecy that moved the date of Jesus' Invisible Presence to a more recent year, the majority of JWs would view it as a breath of fresh air and issue a huge, collective sigh of relief saying something like:
"That's what I already believed anyways! This proves we have 'The Truth!' Praise be to Jehovah and his Governing Body, the wise 'Faithful and Discreet Slave!'"
Obviously it doesn't have to make sense or even be that plausible. But it would be a little easier on the brain if "the beginning of the end" wasn't quite so long ago. Also, it would add to sense of urgency.
They did it in the '30s and they can do it again. I hereby nominate 1984 as the New Beginning of the End. (Nods to George Orwell.)
1984 is the New 1914!
Whaddya' think?
00DAD
-
73
How many decades/centuries before 1914 becomes irrelevant?
by jwfacts inhow long do you think the watchtower can speak about 1914 and have followers think it relevant?
i think for people born in the 1900's, it feels like an acceptable year.
but what about those born since 2000, will 1914 seem like a year of relevance?
-
-
00DAD
Very interesting question. If the GB guys share 1/2 a brain between them, you can bet they've given this lots of consideration. (And according to Ray Franz in CofC they were talking about this very subject way back in the days of Knorr and Crazy Freddie).
That being said, they evidently still haven't been able to come up with anything better than the ridiculous "Overlapping Generation" nonsense.
Interestingly, when I started associating with JWs back in the early '80s they had completely ditched any pre-1900 dates even though Russell was still oft spoken of in fond, reverent tones.
Fast forward to today and it's obvious that the WTBTS are trying to distance themselves from their modern day founder. Recent articles are deliberately written to toss ol' Charlie to the wayside. How convenient was it that the latest "New Light" puts the appointment of the FDS after his death! Bye, bye Charlie!
To put it bluntly, 1914 is already irrelevant. In fact it has been since its very inception, at least in reference to Bible prophecy. The religion fondly known as Jehovah's Witnesses and its leaders are just too stubborn to admit it.
Obviously, some--maybe even many--of the R&F question or even doubt its relevance. I know I did. The last few years I served as an elder I completely avoided the subject of chronology in any of my talks or presentations in the ministry, specifically refraining from mentioning the year 1914 as having any significance in Bible prophecy.
You wanna' know the craziest thing? No one seemed to notice!
Now I'd been an elder for about two decades and, as many elders do, I gave public talks about once a month in my own congregation and others within about 100 mile radius, I had weekly meeting parts, conducted the Book Study and so on and so forth. For the last few years I was an elder I deliberately and scrupulously avoided the subject of 1914 and no one even noticed; or if they did they didn't say anything, at least not to me.
00DAD
-
4
Letter of Understanding - LOU
by dreamgolfer indear friends,.
after reading the wonderful article and comments on the lou with regards to blood for minor children.. it made me think that such a document and it's principle of writing would also have merit and be valid for use of and not limited to allowing - military service, acceptances of oaths and allegiance and other legal situations that have cost many previous jw's their lives.. i throw this out to all in terms of a discussion - what do you think?.
thanks and happy new year!
-
-
00DAD
Hey DG,
I guess I got to the discussion late. To what LOU are you referring? Clue me in!
00DAD