some who are not disfellowshipped are still shunned i also know there’ are disfellowshipped ones that family still associate with..
Yes. When my husband got disfellowshipped most in the congregation started shunning me. My BFF and I would still hang out but now that I stopped going to meetings she completely avoids me.
I'm not disfellowshipped though. I havent been to a meeting in about a year.
My parents did tell me that they wanted to limit contact with me after I got together with my husband. We were separated for almost a year.
It's very strange how this all works.
i think this is a well developed discussion, of ian stevenson's work in investigating people's past lives claims.
it's a little long.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0attm9hgcdw.
@Blownaway They have actually documented several "shit kickers" as you call them lol. Some slaves, children who didn't make it into adulthood, some who used to be animals even, farmers, criminals the list goes on.
I think people are more interested in the ones who used to be royalty.
i was thinking about this phrase.
when you get baptized, you belong to "jehovah's organization".
when you go out in field service, you are.
ok. many people deny ct russell was a freemason.
i have read articles whereby some have found no evidence to prove he was one at any point in his life.. however, given all the masonic symbols in the early publications including the use of the name jehovah ( the name the freemason's use to identify god), as well as the expressions used such as 'new world, new order' etc certainly raises suspicions.. then there is the article he wrote in the herald magazine outlining that he was a freemason (see the following video 40 seconds in).
it really does make you think!.
Quiet a few have even called the Masonic Lodges and they couldn't find any records of Charles Taze Russell being one of them. I do know you can attend meetings without being a member and also be supportive by donating funds. At the least the Masons in my town run this way. They hold community fundraisers through a church.
I think C.T. Russell was friends with several of them and supported them but was not an actual member
i think this is a well developed discussion, of ian stevenson's work in investigating people's past lives claims.
it's a little long.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0attm9hgcdw.
I haven't watched the whole video. I'm planning on watching it later.
I must confess, I love Ian Stevenson's work and Jim Tucker's. I read their books and some of it did creep me out but I'm just not used to the idea of life after death. It is very fascinating though.
I do believe in life after death even though I don't have any tangible proof personally. It's something that must be approached with an open mind imo and I think the University is trying to work out a theory to better explained it and doing quite well. Dr. Edward Kelly's parasychology studies with EEG scans is something I just started reading about. It's very thought provoking. I know some people think it's hogwash but I do believe they have lots of observational case studies that can prove life after death.
Brian Weiss is another Psychiatrist whose work I really enjoy reading about.
4 years ago during the circuit overseers visit he asked a rather innapropriate question from the platform.
i say it's innapropriate because i think it's wrong to tell happy married couples how to love each other and much more wrong it is to tell them they should love their children less.. he said: "mothers, who should you love more your children or your husband?
" i think most mothers will quickly say you should love your children more.
GB really like to control every aspect of pur lives even how a couple loves each other in the bedroom. It's appalling!
They have to know how much damage they're causing. I doubt they have no idea.
I will love my husband however I want, my goodness!
can someone direct me to jw refutations of the harsh criticisms of charles russell and judge rutherford that are on the internet and youtube?
i am a fair person and insist on hearing both sides to a controversy.
in this case, i would like to know what traditional yw responds to such personal criticisms and alleged changes in beliefs.
I think your questions are better answered in the book Crisis of Conscience. In summary, the GB want to protect the organization and it's reputation.
When I was a strict JW I always felt embarrassed when anyone mentioned these shameful details but like I said, I always explained that they weren't perfect and the disciples weren't either.
My stance is different now but that is what JWs willn say. Although some who are ignorant may deny or just not care.
beccah hendrickson of wgal comes thru again!
a fabulous interview with barbara anderson, all the pieces of the puzzle are coming together!
watch out watchtower!
Excellent report!
has anybody seen the new online bible study yet, just posted yesterday i believe?
it's the first thing you see now when going to the home page.
the online bible study lessons on jw.org are free, have no obligation, and are easy to use.
I saw that today when a JW FB friend posted a link. I thought, hmmm... how is this helpful to the organization?
4 years ago during the circuit overseers visit he asked a rather innapropriate question from the platform.
i say it's innapropriate because i think it's wrong to tell happy married couples how to love each other and much more wrong it is to tell them they should love their children less.. he said: "mothers, who should you love more your children or your husband?
" i think most mothers will quickly say you should love your children more.
@TD I have also been to marriage counseling. Yes, they do encourage us to make sure we're not neglecting our spouse (we have 3 kids, 2 with special needs). It just think it's horrible to suggest to "love your children less." This is insane.
But I completely understand suggesting to spend time as a married couple. Making sure your spouse feels loved and appreciated which I think is extremely important. It also helps the children feel safe.
