Posts by vienne

unveiling the true meaning of 666. for centuries, the number 666 and the mark of the beast have sparked widespread speculation, fear, and countless interpretations.

some believe it signifies an actual physical marking, while others see it as symbolic of spiritual allegiance.

but amidst all these theories, one question remains:.

vienne

So, we have a new wanna be prophet. How swell.

45

The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie in

.

sorry i can't get the file attachment to work

The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie in

.

sorry i can't get the file attachment to work

aqw if you could be more concise, less OCD and hide your aspergers syndrome a bit more, you wouldn't seem quite so stupid. Give it a rest. We all know your opinion. Prolonging this 'discussion' is nonsense. Whom exactly do you wish to persuade? And why? Do you think Slim will change his mind? Aside from being a heck of a lot smarter than you are, he is poking your nose and leading you along. Wake up, and stop it.

45

The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie in

.

sorry i can't get the file attachment to work

vienne

Americans typically calculate cousin relationships differently than some Europeans and genealogists. There is a useful cousin chart at familysearch.org

26

Things Rutherford got wrong that Fred Franz had to clear up

by slimboyfat in

i was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that rutherford was in some way preferable to fred franz, because i’ve not come across this view before.

it made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why i hold the opposite view and prefer fred franz to rutherford.

i haven’t done any additional research, so i’m only drawing on what i can remember off the top of my head, but i thought i’d list a few things where i reckon fred franz’s approach was preferable to rutherford.

vienne

Looking through my mom's research notes I find this:

Blood transfusion rejection came about because two witness doctors had a Witness patient who refused blood they believed he needed. In 1945 they wrote to the Society seeking help to persuade their patient that he misunderstood Acts' prohibition on blood. To their surprise the society said he was right, and the Watchtower article that year followed. See July 1, 1945, issue which has, I believe, Franz style.

This came from an interview with one of the doctors involved. Since they have living family, I probably shouldn't include a name. Blood transfusion became a disfellowshipping offence in 1961 through a question from readers in the January 15th Watchtower.

I have no details of the internal discussions. Wish I did.

51