chezdale--that is the point: the GB FALSELY represent ...and yet good JW will go and preach and teach to others that the GB were chosen as a faithful and discreet slave...there is something wrong with that picture--don't ya think? How do you honestly direct people through Bible studies to an organization that falsely represents Jehovah and his Son?
enoughisenough
JoinedPosts by enoughisenough
-
147
Smoking gun GB can’t get out of this one
by Mikejw inhere in 2022 if anyone says anything against the vaccines even a little bit you are almost apostate.. someone once mentioned all vaccinated sports stars collapsing and someone else said not to speak badly about the gb or by extension jehovah.. the gb can’t get out of this one, it’s gone too far.
it’s now the case that if you speak against the vaccines you are speaking against the gb and by extension jehovah .
-
-
-
147
Smoking gun GB can’t get out of this one
by Mikejw inhere in 2022 if anyone says anything against the vaccines even a little bit you are almost apostate.. someone once mentioned all vaccinated sports stars collapsing and someone else said not to speak badly about the gb or by extension jehovah.. the gb can’t get out of this one, it’s gone too far.
it’s now the case that if you speak against the vaccines you are speaking against the gb and by extension jehovah .
-
-
enoughisenough
Bartolomeo, what a sad commentary: "situation of those who are divergent is not simple, rather dangerous" "...we are seen as disobedient" ( does that sound like "love among yourselves"?)
I personally was warned not to say anything against the GB guidelines and to remove some of my FB postings--I told everyone that would listen to me not to take those jabs...The friends said they had to take them because the GB told them to. Me: you don't have to listen to them if they are telling you the wrong thing. The GB continually tells the rank and file they have to obey them whether is makes sense or not. It makes me sick to my soul!
-
147
Smoking gun GB can’t get out of this one
by Mikejw inhere in 2022 if anyone says anything against the vaccines even a little bit you are almost apostate.. someone once mentioned all vaccinated sports stars collapsing and someone else said not to speak badly about the gb or by extension jehovah.. the gb can’t get out of this one, it’s gone too far.
it’s now the case that if you speak against the vaccines you are speaking against the gb and by extension jehovah .
-
-
enoughisenough
Bartolomeo , you wrote: the choice should remain to the individuals and in no case influence the decision of the brothers and sisters! " in no case influence the decision...." , yet they emotionally blackmailed, coerced, promoted the vx, told elders to keep their opinions to themselves so as not to cause contentions...
I congratulate you for resigning as an elder...at least you showed some gumption to do the right thing. So, I am curious, do you instruct your friends and family in the congregation not to take the sacrifice to big pharma?
"this is a great sin"--yes and they twist scriptures to instruct those who don't want to think for themselves. Jehovah has left the building -if he were ever there and when you consider the origins, that seems doubtful.
-
147
Smoking gun GB can’t get out of this one
by Mikejw inhere in 2022 if anyone says anything against the vaccines even a little bit you are almost apostate.. someone once mentioned all vaccinated sports stars collapsing and someone else said not to speak badly about the gb or by extension jehovah.. the gb can’t get out of this one, it’s gone too far.
it’s now the case that if you speak against the vaccines you are speaking against the gb and by extension jehovah .
-
-
enoughisenough
Bartolomeo, don't you mean you are angry at Jehovah ?...after all if you believe that the GB are the faithful slave, then you have to believe that Jehovah or Jesus ( as brought out in the 7/22 WT study article ) directed the way they handle the pandemic to keep everyone safe( how do you separate it?). The recent convention even reinforced it all with the "mask" drama, and telling the sheep they HAD to obey Jehovah or his spokes people here on earth-the GB. So either Jehovah directed them or he didn't. If he didn't ( and why would he direct such a murderous vx?) isn't it safe to say the GB are FRAUDS? I for one had enough of the GB saying Jehovah caused or directed this or that when he clearly didn't and the changing of "present truth" ( lies) to "new light" ( more lies) If Jehovah were really directing the GB, they would always publish truth! As far as the pandemic is concerned, they clearly got their information from worldly sources ( not devine one ) and even in advance of some of the world in general's edicts.( I find that strange ) If you speak against the way the GB handle it inside the congregation, you are speaking against the GB and you will be soon have your attitude adjusted.
-
21
Do you think the JW's ever will or could go the Mormon route?
by BettyHumpter inwhat i mean is the mormon's have their own set of wacky beliefs and are a pretty insular group, engage in a form of door to door ministry but don't discourage higher education.
in fact, the handful of mormons i went to school with were pushed to excel academically and go to college.
yeah there are ex mormons but for a great many, going to university doesn't turn them into atheists.
-
-
enoughisenough
I have thought about Mormons: how does anyone go along with those teachings. I thought the same about Catholics and their "worship" of the pope. Scientology has a huge following with their bizarre set of beliefs...I could go on and on....I didn't see the connection that I was one who was also following men...( this faithful slave ) If there are some PIMI reading these posts, be sure and tell your students what they are really getting into when you are encouraging them to be baptised.
-
34
1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today
by enoughisenough ini am posting a link as to being legally bound to jw rules at time of baptism.
i only did a quick skim, but what i gathered is interesting, and what it says about 1985 may be of use to some hoping to just fade and not be bothered.
in 1985, the questions were changed at baptism for legal purposes so they could have causation to defend themselves should you decide to sue for whatever reason.
-
-
enoughisenough
the words "spirit directed" have been taken out of the oath. Not sure when. If the wording was changed so as to prevent legal actions against them, then they had to have known they weren't doing something right. I remember when they df someone they announce that the person no longer had conduct befitting a Christian.
-
4
Please listen to this song
by Aroq indoes this song resonate with anyone?
it does me, no curse words.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zonn0pxguc.
-
-
enoughisenough
Spot on!
-
34
1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today
by enoughisenough ini am posting a link as to being legally bound to jw rules at time of baptism.
i only did a quick skim, but what i gathered is interesting, and what it says about 1985 may be of use to some hoping to just fade and not be bothered.
in 1985, the questions were changed at baptism for legal purposes so they could have causation to defend themselves should you decide to sue for whatever reason.
-
-
enoughisenough
BettyHumpter ....
The introduction of the second baptismal question - “Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization - was designed by watchtower lawyers. The watchtower introduced this question to protect themselves legally in case of lawsuit from those who become subject to their shunning policies and seeks to restrain them. It was simply design in such a way that members cannot simply leave them without either being disfellowshipped or disassociated, with the whole object of humiliating any that leaves and shunning them.
It is interesting to note that those Jehovah’s Witnesses who were never administered the 1985 question can leave the organization without them forcing their shunning policies on them. The individual simple needs to remind the elders that they never told the 1985 oaths. ( copied and Pasted)If I had read that before, I would not have written a disassociation letter. You can't make people be friendly towards you, but you may be able to keep them from shunning you. I would have come up with a different strategy. ( not sure what and it doesn't matter now )
-
34
1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today
by enoughisenough ini am posting a link as to being legally bound to jw rules at time of baptism.
i only did a quick skim, but what i gathered is interesting, and what it says about 1985 may be of use to some hoping to just fade and not be bothered.
in 1985, the questions were changed at baptism for legal purposes so they could have causation to defend themselves should you decide to sue for whatever reason.
-
-
enoughisenough
foolednomore, what makes you think it isn't enforced? they can kick you out if you don't abide by the rules. If you disassociate, the R and F treat you like scum...the only way to get out unscathed is to fade, which if you stay in the same place isn't that easy.( watched a video the other day of an old sister, who didn't go to the invited judicial meeting and later learned she had been df. The way I read it is those who got baptized 1985 and after unquittedly accepted a legal agreement with the JW-accepting the practices of JW.
-
-
-
enoughisenough
how come?
There will be a good reason why the top picture is wrong, but the bottom one is fine to do....