i was told shooting guns and collecting them was not something a jw should do.
when i lived way up north us it was more of a deer hunting group and so some guns were ok, when i moved to florida it was different.
most people in the hall were not hunters.
I grew up in a semirural area. My father was from the mountains and when his family visited or he went to visit them, he hunted as their culture is. My maternal grandfather had rifle, mainly for predatory animals or to ease the suffering of domestic animals. They were both elders.
Personally, I don't like killing animals and have no need to. I can simply go to the store and afford the food I need. And I'm not in a warzone, so I don't need to worry about self defense.
the governing body and watchtower publications make clear there is only one official website that jws should go to about their religion.
they do not approve of independent pro-jw forums.
this would also fall in line of there being no independent study groups, on the internet, or elsewhere.. for that matter, they do not approve of jws posting on behalf of their religion on social media, “apostate” websites, or anywhere else on the internet.
Yep. I believe every JW has doubts, at least from time to time. And that definitely leads to fear that it might not to be truth, all the sacrifices are for nothing, and that maybe it is a cult. That fear can lead people to raise their defenses.
The organization has little in-depth articles anymore, no meaningful “apologetics”. So those who are hungering for something “meaty” would have to look elsewhere or go without.
Those sincere JWs who go to JWtalk and may have a sincere question and looking for comfort might actually wake up by how they are treated.
attorney of record in trademark name of jehovah's witnesses was caught in underage sex sting.
and is prohibitted from practicing law.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/member/detail/195791.
This seems to be older news. Do you know if this was the same person?
i came across a discussion of the golden age magazine's anti-aluminum stance in a book on the history of reaction to government policy on fluoride:.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/fluoride-wars-americas-political-melodrama/dp/0470448334/ref=sr_1_64?ie=utf8&s=books&qid=1276764067&sr=1-64.
use the "search inside" feature to find the discussion of the golden age on pages 131 and 132.. among other things it says: "unbelievably, the golden age published over 130 articles railing against aluminium cookware between 1925 and 1969".. did the society continue to publish articles against aluminum as late as 1969?
One old lady in my congregation who pioneered told me how her father, who professed to be of the anointed, came home one day and threw out everything in the how that was aluminium. At the time, I thought this was just him. But in retrospect, it all makes sense.
the governing body and watchtower publications make clear there is only one official website that jws should go to about their religion.
they do not approve of independent pro-jw forums.
this would also fall in line of there being no independent study groups, on the internet, or elsewhere.. for that matter, they do not approve of jws posting on behalf of their religion on social media, “apostate” websites, or anywhere else on the internet.
I don’t believe it is humanly possible to navigating all the rules, regulations, admonition, advice of Watchtower. It is so Talmudic and ever changing, something has to give.
I remember believing that Jehovah’s guidance came through the publications. But often some of the “food” was conflicting, because in truth, it often comes through the scores of writers over the years, each with their own pet peeve or viewpoint.
In the mind of a rank and file member though, an article from the 70’s frowning on chess can be basically a ban on chess. An article about music saying that to be safe stick to nineteen century folk music could be advice that someone really tries to follow, but I wonder how many followed it?
The constant message I got from meetings, assemblies and publications was basically to engage in the “preaching work” to the extent one was physically capable to serve “wholesouled”. The question always was, “Can you do more?” And it not only had to be quantity timewise, but quality as well. The bottom line seemed to be: pioneer or die.
Then was the directive that: “He that is faithful in what is least is faithful in much.” Who knew what that one “least” thing that you were doing or failing to do that could derail the whole applecart?
But the organization handles some directives more seriously than others. I wonder what would happen if members of JWtalk would raise their hands at the next Watchtower study and say, “I was reading a post on JWtalk and I responded by posting…” I suspect the elders would pull them into the backroom after the meeting.
If what they are doing is above board JW-wise, then would they feel okay being open about it? Would the moderator of JWtalk raise their hand at the meeting and say, “I run a website called JWtalk”? If not, why?
the governing body and watchtower publications make clear there is only one official website that jws should go to about their religion.
they do not approve of independent pro-jw forums.
this would also fall in line of there being no independent study groups, on the internet, or elsewhere.. for that matter, they do not approve of jws posting on behalf of their religion on social media, “apostate” websites, or anywhere else on the internet.
The Governing Body and Watchtower publications make clear there is only one official website that JWs should go to about their religion. They do not approve of independent pro-JW forums. This would also fall in line of there being no independent study groups, on the internet, or elsewhere.
For that matter, they do not approve of JWs posting on behalf of their religion on social media, “apostate” websites, or anywhere else on the internet. In fact, there is no sanctioned forum of internet discussion, no ability on the official website to post comments.
Unless JWtalk.net has been given some sort of covert dispensation that is not made public, it is an act of disobedience to the organization and those who “take the lead”. When I was mentally in, I wouldn’t have been able to bring myself to go against this direction.
While I find its existence strange for those reasons and do not frequent it, I support the right of JWtalk to exist.
i think my last post i said i went to a new congregation,i'm going to just talk about some of the shit i have seen in my congregation.. there was a kid trying to talk to a adult next to him i think it was his dad,the kid just started taping him because he wanted to tell him something and the dad gets mad then boom the kid gets elbowed.i look around to see if anyone saw him do that to his kid and nope or they didn't want to say anything about it and just like wtf.. in my old congregation,the younger kids would do random stuff in the middle of the meeting to not get board.
when the mom or dad got mad i would see then get dragged to the back of the kingdom hall and hear them start crying.when i was still mentally in i just didnt think about it at all when it would happen but when i woke up im just like thats fucked up..
The meetings are long and boring, even for adults. I'm sure the Governing Body even finds it hard to sit through the meetings. There is absolutely nothing of interest to children.But they are expected to sit quietly, at the very least, for two hours. And if they are a little older, to follow along.
I remember hearing a story that when I was a baby I was making a disturbance at the meeting and so my father took me out back and spanked me. I think from a very early age I was scared into being absolutely quiet at the Kingdom Hall. My mother took it on herself to spank children of single mothers (those without a JW husband with them) if they acted up.
Kids being dragged into the bathroom and crying was a common occurrence at meetings. The elders counseled the congregation not to beat their children out front, facing the road, because passerby had noticed. They urged parents to be more "discreet".
I was quiet at the meetings. But I got spanked at home for other reasons. Like the time I accidentally discovered cuss words on the bathroom wall at school and asked my schoolmate, who reported it to the teacher, who promptly reported it to my parents.
Once, my father spanked me purple and blue. One time he threw a shoe at me. Another time he kicked me. Another time he smacked me with an iron rod. When I was 17 or 18, he took his belt and went to town on my back because I called him out for saying a cuss word.
But overall, I had it better than many of y'all.
i guess it would depend for me.
some of my family i would take out bill boards pointing to them.
many of the elders it would be he is over there and set off a neon sign.
Absolutely not. I would be opposed to any outright ban that targeted the rank and file.
Tax and fine the organization. Even liquidate cult property. But don't jail, fine, or harm the rank and file.
It's the golden rule. Had when I had been a JW the government outlawed the religion, would I have wanted someone to have turned me in? Would I wanted to go to jail or worse?
... well, obviously not rey (daisy ridley) from the latest star wars films.
she's a complete mary sue.
but, before hollywood tried to force sjw propaganda down our throats, there were lots of powerful, legit female characters in film.. here are some of my favourites .... ripley (sigourney weaver): i though this character was great.
I like Rey. I could relate to her. I loved the Force Awakens. I didn't care for the Last Jedi though...that was disappointing, but not prequel bad.
one thing i don't miss about being a jobo, is those families that ruled the congregations.. i've seen how the elders protected their own using our old friend, nepotism.. eg.
the son of an elder that stole a car and was prosecuted but 'let off' because it was kept secret and all his relatives were elders in the same congregation.
it certainly went on when i was an elder but i wasn't one of the 'in' crowd.
Yep...I believe my dog has more love and insight than the Governing Body.
