Posts by Londo111

64

Starting to read Crisis of Conscience....

by confuzzled777 in

jw
friends

after almost 2 years of being wrongfully disfellowshipped and over a year after finding this site....i am starting to read crisis of conscience.

i will not lie....i am a bit nervous as to what information i will find in the book.

i have a strong feeling that i will end up crying through most of it as i will start to see the truth about the "truth".

Londo111

I can't wait. I'm only on page 94...

The transcript from the 1954 Scotland Court case was stunning: "Unity at all costs." Even at the cost of Truth...and if one doesn't support a false prophesy or teaching that the Society won't teach a few years hence, you aren't promoting unity and you must be removed! I guess Jesus wasn't promoting unity when he threw out the moneychangers...maybe it's a good thing the Chief Priest got rid of him?

The Watchower article "Righteous Requirements" from 1943, where proclaims what the 'Lord' is commanding.

'Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.' These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us...

...there is absolutely no excuse for anyone, man or woman, to claim to be unable to accept an individual territory assignment and assume full responsibly for it.

The Lord through his faithful and wise servant now states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six months."

"...It just can't be done." We have all heard the argument before. And if it were true it would look bad indeed, and would imply that the Lord was asking us to do something that is impossible for us to accomplish.

64

Starting to read Crisis of Conscience....

by confuzzled777 in

jw
friends

after almost 2 years of being wrongfully disfellowshipped and over a year after finding this site....i am starting to read crisis of conscience.

i will not lie....i am a bit nervous as to what information i will find in the book.

i have a strong feeling that i will end up crying through most of it as i will start to see the truth about the "truth".

Londo111

It was one of the best books I've ever read in my life. I'm now reading, "In Search of Christian Freedom".

26

Occupy Watchtower

by OnTheWayOut in

jw
friends

i stole the idea from a fb friend.

just like occupy wallstreet (and the spread to various cities), imagine people without a single voice picketing wt at brooklyn and having warming barrels loaded with burning watchtower literature.

if you did, what would your sign say?

Londo111

I remember visiting Bethel in 1990 with a former Bethelite and his wife and there were demonstrators outside, shouting and poster waving. I was scared to death. I had to walk through the demonstrators to enter Bethels and they would say, "We love you! We love you!" That just creeped me out. That only perpetuated the myth of an Evil Slave Class in my mind and whatever they were saying, I just wanted 180 degrees opposite.

We met up with a Bethelite friend of the former Bethelite and he mentioned how some night workers were having trouble sleeping because of the noise. It definitely did not leave a good taste in anybody's mouth toward the demonstrators.

Demonstrating would only solidify the stereotype of the angry, crazy apostate. It would not win hearts and minds.

11

servants meeting with CO...

by stillin in

jw
friends

boring and irrelevant or what?!.

when i was appointed, i thought that i would share in building up the congregation.

the co is usually a company man making reports and passing.

Londo111

Whatever you do, don't let them know! It'll be a world of pain if you do.

As Micah says, "Do not put YOUR faith in a companion. Do not put YOUR trust in a confidential friend."

I believe one can subtlety do much good while in. Like researching the recent articles on 607. Asking about Jeremiah 25:12...maybe, "If someone says this scripture says that 70 years ended in 539 and not 537, how could we reason with them? Let's do some research." Maybe tracking down some of the quotes in these articles in the publications they are pointed to and saying, "The quote says this, but this is the author says this, hmm. What do you make of this?" Maybe that's too bold...

322

WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly in

out now.. yes, yes, yessssss!

on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.

"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.

Londo111

kurtbethel,

I am in awe.

I'm new here and I'm not sure what all the 'marking' stuff is about in these threads, but I've bookmarked this thread in my browser. Hands down, this has been the most valuable thread of any internet board that I've ever read.

37

Outright Misrepresentations of Quotes and Citations in Watchtower Literature

by Londo111 in

the research of doug mason, annomaly, and others have been eye opening in regards to the society's recent articles on 607 bc.

what i find most disturbing is the misrepresentations of scholars, who are quoted in such a way to say one thing, when they meant something completely different.

it is one thing to teach a doctrine, and quite another to play fast and loose with the truth.

Londo111

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/215282/1/WT-Nov-1-2011-public-When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed-Part-2

I refrenced this in my initial post, but I'll add the above link for posterity. I can't praise people like Alleymom, AnnOMaly, Doug Mason, kurtbethel and others on this thread highly enough. So much legwork has been done. Most enlightening were the responses of R. H. Sack and John Steele, who were misrepresented.

Keep it coming!

37

Outright Misrepresentations of Quotes and Citations in Watchtower Literature

by Londo111 in

the research of doug mason, annomaly, and others have been eye opening in regards to the society's recent articles on 607 bc.

what i find most disturbing is the misrepresentations of scholars, who are quoted in such a way to say one thing, when they meant something completely different.

it is one thing to teach a doctrine, and quite another to play fast and loose with the truth.

Londo111

sd-7: Yes you should...and yes you did. Good show! :)

37

Outright Misrepresentations of Quotes and Citations in Watchtower Literature

by Londo111 in

the research of doug mason, annomaly, and others have been eye opening in regards to the society's recent articles on 607 bc.

what i find most disturbing is the misrepresentations of scholars, who are quoted in such a way to say one thing, when they meant something completely different.

it is one thing to teach a doctrine, and quite another to play fast and loose with the truth.

Londo111

leavingwt,

I was really floored by the account of Harry Peloyan. This in particular is daming: "Peloyan's overall attitude about using quotes in a way the original author would disagree with was that it did not matter. As long as the words were quoted properly, the author's intent was irrelevant." This is shoddy research at best, and at worse, outright deceict. Perhaps this explains the motivations.

A friend of mine had many issues with the Blue Creation book. In fact, he, the most conscientious Witness I know, said plainly, 'I hate it'. And he should know, for biology was his major in college. He was very conscious on how the Society's publications would look to professors and academics that he knew and thus believed they needed to be top-notch in terms of accuracy. He never told me exactly what the problems were and I never imagined the problems ran that deep. And he often told me that the Insight books has contradictions because they were produced by committee.

37

Outright Misrepresentations of Quotes and Citations in Watchtower Literature

by Londo111 in

the research of doug mason, annomaly, and others have been eye opening in regards to the society's recent articles on 607 bc.

what i find most disturbing is the misrepresentations of scholars, who are quoted in such a way to say one thing, when they meant something completely different.

it is one thing to teach a doctrine, and quite another to play fast and loose with the truth.

Londo111

The research of Doug Mason, AnnOMaly, and others have been eye opening in regards to the Society's recent articles on 607 BC. What I find most disturbing is the misrepresentations of scholars, who are quoted in such a way to say one thing, when they meant something completely different. It is one thing to teach a doctrine, and quite another to play fast and loose with the truth. The validity of any one doctrine has no bearing on the matter, the Great Issue here is that of honest and credibility.

A few weeks ago, I remember reading an experience of a young man who had a college assignment, and he chose the topic of Blood as his subject. Using the Blood brochure as a frame of reference, he began to read the cited quotes from experts in context, and found that time and time again, the experts were misrepresented. He was shocked by what he found.

It would be interesting to see examples of misrepresentations in a consolidated thread. Have any found other misquotes in your research? Perhaps, if it is not too much trouble, these can be shared: the misquote versus what the source material meant in context. I would be most grateful and I think it would be helpful for others who are finally awakening to these matters.

31

How Judicial Committees Violate Individual Privacy

by Londo111 in

many here have called for public judicial committees, which would indeed add to transparency.

but--every person deserves a measure of privacy, and to be able to keep their dirty laundry from public view.

why should everyone know the details of very personal matters, perhaps involving private struggles and family secrets?

Londo111

As for the question in regards to murderers and other predators, such crimes should be reported and handled by the law of the land. No such person should be harbored. Besides, if one has been convicted of such crimes, does not 'Caesar' have these in things in their own records?

But I am referring to 'sins' which are not predatory crimes. Should records be kept by overseers and follow one throughout life? Should their not be provisions to protect a person's privacy or family secrets? The general populace was in an uproar over Facebook sharing information--but imagine if these folks had to deal with the level of privacy within the WTS organization? Would they want these people as keepers of their private data?

And I totally agree about a more fair judicial system. A person provided with a defense and matters voted on by a jury, and character witnesses, ect… But, of course, this is how a democracy functions. As we are reminded from the platform, "Jehovah's organization is run from the top down!" Thus if you find yourself on the wrong side of a judicial committee, you have no rights. And several times throughout the 'Sheppard' book, it says when certain circumstances arises, it says, "Do not tell them…" It begs the question, to any who are still believers, is this Court truly a function of a loving and merciful and fair Kingdom? Is this a foregleam of what the Millennium would be like?

Also…voting publicly is a farce and there are no secret ballots. That is true when a congregation has to vote on a matter, when the elders vote, even when the Governing Body votes. How many might vote differently if they code vote secretly? As in quantum mechanics, observation changes the outcome. Perhaps some in the judicial committee might vote toward a more merciful outcome, if they were not swayed, or afraid of what others would think. Perhaps the Governing Body would shift on doctrine or practice and take a more moderate line.

I always thought it was funny when motions were voted on by the congregation. They were always unanimous. Who wanted to voice dissent in public? Who wanted to raise their hand to oppose? So in essence, whatever the elders decided, they knew the congregation would go through the motions on it. Thus voting was a mere formality and a waste of everyone's time.

I remembered this in a congregation: "Who wants the meeting at 7 versus 7:30? Keep in mind brothers, elderly folks need to get home earlier because they have problems driving at night. What is the loving thing to do? Okay--let's see a show of hands…" How many would have voted differently if there were ballot boxes? Who would have raised their hands in favor of 7:30 after that?