Hi rocketman - I agree with your statements, particularly that they have cultivated a dependency on their teachings. My issue is mainly that of 'how can they keep going on that Jehovah is providing for them abundantly and blessing the organisation when they are no longer in "a position" to answer a few sincere letters'? How much does it take in resources to continue to maintain this provision, given that the brothers assigned to reply to correspondence do so free of charge? And how can they claim to be our spiritual stewards when they are not prepared to fulfil this role on a personal level, only through mass publication? Would the apostles have dissuaded ordinary fellow believers from approaching them with questions? Did they say "everything you need to know is in our letters, please don't approach us personally"?! Was that Jesus' attitude? Did he dissuade people from approaching him, even if they were children? Why would he be happy with his faithful and discreet slave ignoring his example? It's the contradictions thrown up by the quote above, and the clear evidence of hypocrisy that really riles me!!
Posts by cedars
-
60Society tells us to stop asking questions...
by cedars ini was just glancing at the back of the october 15th watchtower and the questions from readers.
the question under discussion is "what should i do when i have a question about something i read in the bible or when i need advice about a personal problem?".
the article goes on to discuss how we should consult the watch tower publications index among the many 'tools' that have been provided by the faithful and discreet slave whenever we have a question that is not directly discussed in the publications.. one statement really caught my eye, because it's the first time i've ever seen the society actually dissuade people from writing in with questions.
-
-
-
17
Stephen Lett: "Pray for us to be faithful and discreet!"
by cedars inout of interest, i have just been scanning through the four latest available watchtower study articles (july thru october 2011) and in doing so i am reading them objectively for the first time.
i have been shocked, outraged and amazed by some of my findings.. as one example, take the article "a history-making meeting" from the august 15th watchtower, 2011. the article, beginning on page 18, discusses the 126th annual meeting of the watch tower bible and tract society, and begins with a summary of the opening talk by governing body member stephen lett.
it concludes the highlights of his talk in this way:.
-
-
cedars
Thanks gayle and blondie. I just wish people could analyse what they are saying and put the pieces of the jigsaw together. Surely the fact that they could even ask for help in BEING the faithful and discreet slave reveals to the open-minded that it isn't a foregone conclusion that they are.
-
45
Am I on thin ice with my friend?
by cedars ini'm a former mts graduate, and it's a long story but i recently became inactive after realising it was all nonsense.
the problem is, i've noticed that my mts background makes it almost impossible for people to accept my new status as an "inactive" one.
people think that, given the amount of knowledge i have, there is surely no excuse for me to reach this preposterous decision.. a friend from my mts recently began emailing me to find out my reasons.
-
-
cedars
Thanks outsmartthesystem - I will be on guard. Worryingly I haven't heard anything from him since I started this post, although I did ask him to take his time in replying so that his reply would make more sense than his previous email, which was quite emotional and made little sense. I'm stuck in no-man's-land at the moment until I hear from him, but I think when he breaks his silence I will simply ask him to disregard what I've been saying and make some conciliatory statement (true or misleading) to draw a line under the whole thing.
-
46
QFR: "Warning - memorial partakers might be loonies!"
by cedars inas part of my objective analysis of four month's worth of watchtower study editions from july to october 2011, i found the following gem from a question from readers, on page 22 of the august 15 magazine.
the question under discussion was "how are we to understand the figures in the annual service report?
", and it goes on to provide an idiot's guide to what the figures mean, including the following.... "memorial partakers.
-
-
cedars
As part of my objective analysis of four month's worth of Watchtower study editions from July to October 2011, I found the following gem from a Question From Readers, on page 22 of the August 15 magazine. The question under discussion was "How are we to understand the figures in the annual service report?", and it goes on to provide an idiot's guide to what the figures mean, including the following...
"Memorial partakers. This is the number of baptized individuals who partake of the emblems at the Memorial worldwide. Does this total represent the number of anointed ones on earth? Not necessarily. A number of factors - including past religious beliefs or even mental or emotional imbalance - might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know. The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones."
This disclaimer has obviously been made in an attempt to extinguish any curiosity as to why the number of anointed "remnant" on the earth is apparently increasing rather than decreasing - from a steady 8000 (or so) to 11,202 (according to 2010's figures). In the past, any decrease has been hailed as justification for increased anticipation that the end is near. Look at this quote from page 31 of the 1981 Yearbook:
Over the past seven years, from 1974 to 1980 inclusive, Jehovah’s Witnesses have made steady progress. Their growth is healthy. Only as to Memorial partakers has there been a gradual decline, which is in accord with Scriptural expectations.
If a decline in partakers is "in accord with Scriptural expectations", then surely the current increase is against scriptural expections. It's therefore perhaps to be expected that the Society has now changed it's tune and said that the number of memorial partakers is of no particular relevance at all.
This aside, the Question From Readers article opens the door to some intriguing questions....
- If partaking at the memorial is something that one might do mistakenly because he/she is mentally or emotionally imbalanced, what assurances do we have that individual members of the Governing Body themselves are not suffering from similar delusions? How is there any way of knowing for sure either way?
- If memorial partakers as a whole are to be openly discredited, shouldn't the validity of Governing Body members as anointed co-rulers with Christ be similarly open to scepticism?
- Given that memorial partakers might be partaking unworthily, shouldn't elders be questioning these individuals congregation-by-congregation to ascertain their state of mental/emotional health, particularly in the light of Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 11:27, "Consequently whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord."
I would raise these questions with the Governing Body directly in writing, but apparently I'm no longer allowed !
Thoughts please!
-
17
Stephen Lett: "Pray for us to be faithful and discreet!"
by cedars inout of interest, i have just been scanning through the four latest available watchtower study articles (july thru october 2011) and in doing so i am reading them objectively for the first time.
i have been shocked, outraged and amazed by some of my findings.. as one example, take the article "a history-making meeting" from the august 15th watchtower, 2011. the article, beginning on page 18, discusses the 126th annual meeting of the watch tower bible and tract society, and begins with a summary of the opening talk by governing body member stephen lett.
it concludes the highlights of his talk in this way:.
-
-
cedars
Out of interest, I have just been scanning through the four latest available Watchtower study articles (July thru October 2011) and in doing so I am reading them objectively for the first time. I have been shocked, outraged and amazed by some of my findings.
As one example, take the article "A History-Making Meeting" from the August 15th Watchtower, 2011. The article, beginning on page 18, discusses the 126th annual meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and begins with a summary of the opening talk by Governing Body member Stephen Lett. It concludes the highlights of his talk in this way:
"Brother Lett urged the audience to keep praying that the Governing Body, as the representative of the slave class, continue to be not only faithful but also wise, or discreet.-Matt. 24:45-47."
In what way is it down to us (as the 'rank and file') to pray for the Governing Body, as representatives of the slave class, to be faithful and discreet? Did Jesus ask his followers to pray for him to be the Messiah? Did the apostles ask the congregations to pray for them to be apostles? Surely the Governing Body is either faithful and discreet, or it isn't - and no amount of praying on our part should make a difference.
This bizarre request also poses another question. If the faithfulness and discretion of the Governing Body is now a matter for prayer, does this constitute an admission on their part that they may potentially lose these attributes, and what would be the outcome were this to happen??
Anyone else on my wavelength?
-
60
Society tells us to stop asking questions...
by cedars ini was just glancing at the back of the october 15th watchtower and the questions from readers.
the question under discussion is "what should i do when i have a question about something i read in the bible or when i need advice about a personal problem?".
the article goes on to discuss how we should consult the watch tower publications index among the many 'tools' that have been provided by the faithful and discreet slave whenever we have a question that is not directly discussed in the publications.. one statement really caught my eye, because it's the first time i've ever seen the society actually dissuade people from writing in with questions.
-
-
cedars
I'm actually quite shocked. I haven't really read any Watchtower articles objectively since I made my decision, and I've just finished leafing through the July study Watchtower (to be considered during September) which deals with, among other things, how to view apostates and how to treat disfellowshipped family members. It amazes me how hate-filled and delusional the language is, accusing apostates of being "mentally diseased", and like an illness that must be eradicated by Jehovah the "Great Physician" (not sure how scripturally based that name is).
Family members who are disfellowshipped are to be shunned and viewed in the same way as Aaron's sons who were struck down by Jehovah for offering up illegitimate fire, a shockingly flawed application of scripture. In both cases (apostasy and disfellowshipping) no firm scriptural support is given for such extreme views, nor is any effort made to explain why apostates may feel justified in leaving the organisation. It's just hate, hate, hate all the way. Makes me feel sick!
The bullish refusal to answer any more questions addressed to world headquarters seems irrelevant in comparison! Sheesh.
-
60
Society tells us to stop asking questions...
by cedars ini was just glancing at the back of the october 15th watchtower and the questions from readers.
the question under discussion is "what should i do when i have a question about something i read in the bible or when i need advice about a personal problem?".
the article goes on to discuss how we should consult the watch tower publications index among the many 'tools' that have been provided by the faithful and discreet slave whenever we have a question that is not directly discussed in the publications.. one statement really caught my eye, because it's the first time i've ever seen the society actually dissuade people from writing in with questions.
-
-
cedars
I was just glancing at the back of the October 15th Watchtower and the Questions From Readers. The question under discussion is "What should I do when I have a question about something I read in the Bible or when I need advice about a personal problem?"
The article goes on to discuss how we should consult the Watch Tower Publications Index among the many 'tools' that have been provided by the Faithful and Discreet Slave whenever we have a question that is not directly discussed in the publications.
One statement really caught my eye, because it's the first time I've ever seen the Society actually dissuade people from writing in with questions. It reads as follows:
"Neither the branch office nor world headquarters is in a position to analyze and answer all such questions that have not been considered in our literature."
For decades the Society has supposedly had unlimited resources, facilities and manpower at its disposal around the world. Surely answering sincere questions from fellow worshippers that are not touched upon in the publications is part of their duty as God's channel of communication etc. Suddenly, they are no longer in a 'position' to fulfil their obligation to "feed" their brothers on a personal level when unusual questions arise. Is this an admission on their part that Jehovah is no longer blessing them with sufficient resources to fulfil their normal day-to-day administrative functions, or are they simply telling the worldwide brotherhood straight to shut up and stop asking impertinent questions, because if it isn't in the publications it shouldn't be worth asking about???
Thoughts please!
-
12
A photograph that I would pay money for...
by cedars ini've only recently become properly acquainted with barbara anderson's wonderful website www.watchtowerdocuments.com.
after reading her life story, she strikes me as a truly remarkable woman.. if i may quote from her story, one particular experience stood out for me when she was going through old memorabilia as part of a research project at the brooklyn headquarters.... in one of these drawers, finding personal photographs of the second president of the watchtower society, joseph f. rutherford, was, for me, one of the most disagreeable and revolting discoveries.
rutherford was clad in a dark-colored, one-piece, skin-tight, sleeveless swimsuit which covered him down to his thighs, a garment popular in the late 1920s and 30s.
-
-
cedars
Yikes... it's Jabba Rutherford!
-
25
Is the IBSA's charitable status in the UK vulnerable?
by cedars inone thing that has occurred to me recently is how much money the society makes from being registered as a charity in certain countries.
in the uk, the government contributes 28 pence for every pound that is donated (referred to as "gift aid"), effectively increasing the value of each contribution from 1 to 1.28. not surprisingly, the society in the uk are doing very well out of this arrangement, and last year according to the charity commission's website they made a turnover of 25.7 million, with profits of 7.8 million.
i calculate that approximately 5 million of this must have been generated by gift aid.. the thing is, to my knowledge recent laws that have been passed by parliament stipulating that a charity must be in the "public benefit".
-
-
cedars
Thanks Mickey Mouse, after all the estimated £5million gift aid contribution from last year could have built a hospital wing, or put extra bobbies on the beat, or even just kept the Ark Royal afloat!!
-
25
Is the IBSA's charitable status in the UK vulnerable?
by cedars inone thing that has occurred to me recently is how much money the society makes from being registered as a charity in certain countries.
in the uk, the government contributes 28 pence for every pound that is donated (referred to as "gift aid"), effectively increasing the value of each contribution from 1 to 1.28. not surprisingly, the society in the uk are doing very well out of this arrangement, and last year according to the charity commission's website they made a turnover of 25.7 million, with profits of 7.8 million.
i calculate that approximately 5 million of this must have been generated by gift aid.. the thing is, to my knowledge recent laws that have been passed by parliament stipulating that a charity must be in the "public benefit".
-
-
cedars
Thanks mickey mouse, I am aware that this may have come up before.
Since starting the thread I've been digging on the Charity Commission website and found an online "Decision Review" form, where you can submit evidence as to why an organisation's charitable status should be revoked. Here it is:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/reviewprocform.aspx
Has anyone tried filling it in? If so, with what success/response?