Drearyweather

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 764 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Drearyweather

• 
  17

  Apostate driven lies

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok guys and gals.. let's have them.

  as horrible as this may be i really want to see a few examples.

  all my life i was taught that apostates just spread lies and falsehoods.. yet since i have left the organisation and looked deeply into apostate articles.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  That's mostly individual exaggerations by disgruntled ex-jws. We had a person in one of our conventions with a slogan- 'Thousands of JW children die every year due to refusing blood transfusions'.- This was way exaggeration of a number no one actually knows.

  Some other are claims that JW's have spirit channeling inside Brooklyn and sort of that. And the Johny the Bethelite from the six screens conference calls. Almost dubious and enough to scare lurkers away.

  Can't find the sources but people here may know.
• 
  23

  Christ's sacrifice

  by dogisgod in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  so, i am having lunch with a group of women with varying backgrounds.

  i asked the circle how many believed in the story of adam and eve and the snake.

  no one believed it literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  So Christ paid the ransom.

  Yes

  So who set the ransom price?

  Jehovah. Remember, everything happens due to his will.

  The one who sets/demands a ransom is the one who stole/took/kidnapped someone or something---right?

  No. Legally, the bail/bond amount for releasing someone from prison/detention is set by the law, not by the perpetrator or the criminal.

  So if jehober set/demanded the ransom price, then he must also be the perpetrator of the crime that needed to be remedied by the ransom price ---right?

  No. See the reply above.

  
  
• 
  34

  Example of sensitive data – should I be worried?

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  ### here's a link to a high-quality version of the above form: https://1drv.ms/u/s!amcrvjcxi6m6a2mdhysjdll3m00 ###.

  the attached image is the rear of form a-27; this is just example of many forms that contain personal data.

  i’d like to know: should i be worried?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  I've personally seen forms come through with dire character comments

  That's the strange part I feel. The BOE letters clearly state that these construction/volunteer forms are for exemplary baptized publishers. In my congregation, the BOE has given forms only to those who qualify.
  
  

  The signed consent if for additional data, such as on this form, to be stored about you.

  This additional data is the subjective evaluation that the individual himself permits the elders to do regarding him when he signs the form. The individual himself permits the elders to rate him and store information on him. If he leaves the WT then he can ask the WT to erase the data on him under the Article 17, I guess.

  
  Why would a person who doubts the WT reach to the point of filling up a Volunteer Program Application?

  it is significant that S-21 data (name | DOB | baptism | phone | email | service record | "OS/anointed") is going to be held regardless of signed consent.

  The Baptism date and the service record data, OS/anointed is of zero value to anyone than the WT.

  The only data they will have is the name, DOB, phone/email and the address, which pretty much dozens and dozens of entities other than the WT have about me.

  My view is that you are overthinking about this issue. But you are entitled to an opinion.
  
• 
  34

  Example of sensitive data – should I be worried?

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  ### here's a link to a high-quality version of the above form: https://1drv.ms/u/s!amcrvjcxi6m6a2mdhysjdll3m00 ###.

  the attached image is the rear of form a-27; this is just example of many forms that contain personal data.

  i’d like to know: should i be worried?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  should a publisher just trust that their local elders will only write positive and accurate things?

  If the individual doesn't trust the elders, he would not sign it. By signing, he gives his consent that the elders are free to write what they want. The form is given to publishers in good standing. If the elders write inaccurate or negative things about the publisher, they are making a jackass of themselves as the branch would ask them why did they even give the form to the publisher who has questionable habits.

  The following para appears on the A-27 form before the applicant's sign:

  I further consent to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses that administers the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in my geographic area processing and retaining for its use the information found on this application and any additional information that may be submitted in connection with my application by individuals serving as elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses

  Are the 3 men making up the Service Committee always impartial and objective - in every congregation?

  That the individual has to decide how his service committee is and then decide if he wants to fill the form and submit the data. If the service committee if filling negative data about the individual, the branch or the CO directs the elders to speak to the individual why his application has been rejected.

  Is it healthy for the subject (the publisher) to be denied access to see what has been written about them, and available to view on the new Publisher ID global JW database?

  Sorry didn't get this question. What information is collected on the new database which the publishers are denied access to?
  
  

  I’d like to know: should I be worried

  The WT has been collecting information like these since decades. Do you have any evidence where WT has misused this information for commercial or non-commercial gain? If yes, it would be interesting to know.

  If billions have chosen to trust Mark Zuckerberg with their personal data, then I don't think 8 million witnesses who trust the FDS more than their life will doubt the WT (when more then 75% of the member's data would be only name, address, and dob.)
• 
  44

  Publisher ID: leaked video clip 2 of 4

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” ― george orwell, 1984 this video is leaked in interest of human dignity; you deserve to know who is keeping personal data and how they plan to expand their nets.

  open to your comments... https://youtu.be/xz1arhu0fg0

  [videos 1 to 4 leaked as own posts, with specific comments for each video].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  suppose that you had asked the wts to delete all references to your disfellowshipping

  The Right to Erasure (Article 17) has certain exceptions that allow an organization to deny an individuals request to delete his personal data. So if a disfellowshipped individual asks WT to delete his personal data, the WT is not obligated to delete the data if they can prove that the data falls under the following exceptions:

  1. for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;
  2. for compliance with a legal obligation which requires processing by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;
  3. for reasons of public interest in the area of public health in accordance with points (h) and (i) of Article 9(2) as well as Article 9(3);
  4. for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing; or
  5. for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
• 
  24

  New data movement this is what I see as their goals .

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  after listening to the leaked videos this is what i think it’s all about.

  first i don’t believe they will want to much personal information ie bank accounts etc do to potential legal problems down the road.

  what i think is their goal is once all publishers are in the data base they then have no need for written information about any issue concerning a publisher and how issues are handled by elders and the branch etc... this information now is in their own data base and can be deleted or manipulated by them at any time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  out of the 1.2 million publishers only about 750,000 are in their current system. He acts as though these missing ones are just not in the system yet but I suspect these ones don’t exist. That’s over 400,000 less publishers just in the USA.

  In any branch office, only the Bethelites, Ex-bethelites, Regular Pioneers, Elders, MS, CO, DO and all others in any full-time service are present in the databases. (Not auxiliary pioneers). Any publisher who has never served in any type of full-time service is never included in any bethel database. Even those who participated in small campaigns or helped in construction are included in the database.

  The above calculation means that over 400,000 publishers in the US have never been in any form full-time service apart from being Aux. Pioneers at the most.
• 
  44

  Publisher ID: leaked video clip 2 of 4

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” ― george orwell, 1984 this video is leaked in interest of human dignity; you deserve to know who is keeping personal data and how they plan to expand their nets.

  open to your comments... https://youtu.be/xz1arhu0fg0

  [videos 1 to 4 leaked as own posts, with specific comments for each video].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  I can get the forms tomorrow, which on the REVERSE contain sensitive info about the publisher.

  Yes. But the publisher himself knows that this information is filled by the service committee and he agrees to the following terms when applying for it (A-27 form):

  I hereby consent to the collection and processing of my personal data necessary for the evaluation of my application to serve as a construction volunteer. I further consent to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses that administers the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in my geographic area processing and retaining for its use the information found on this application and any additional information that may be submitted in connection with my application by individuals serving as elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses or by me. I understand that the transfer of my personal data to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to the ecclesiastical Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses (the “Governing Body”) in the state of New York, United States of America, may be necessary for the evaluation of my application to serve as a construction volunteer. I authorize the transfer to the Governing Body of the information found on this application and any additional personal information that the Governing Body deems necessary regarding my capacity to serve as a construction volunteer.
• 
  20

  Need blood? Save your life, here's why.

  by LevelThePlayingField in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  so here's the point regarding blood transfusions.

  notice jesus asks the pharisees if it was lawful on the sabbath to save a life.

  so, can you break god's law to save your life if it came to that?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  So why is it a disfellowshipping offense to take a blood transfusion when there is no precedent in the Bible for it?

  Taking blood is not a direct disfellowshipping offense.

  Following are the two policies:

  1. If someone takes blood willingly and is not repentant, he is termed as disassociated.

  2. If someone takes blood under extreme pressure, he is given counsel.
  
  

  when there is no precedent in the Bible for it?

  In JW world, the precedent for the above policies is given in the two instances you mentioned:

  
  

  Remember that when someone was observed breaking the Sabbath, they reported it to Moses and they didn't do anything right away. But then Jehovah said to put him to death.

  In this instance, it is taken that the person willfully broke the Sabbath law and was punished with death. This is the basis for disassociating a person who wilfully takes blood and does not repent. (Policy No, 1 above)

  when it was reported to Saul, Jehovah did not say anything to them, no death, no punishment, just that they should not have done so, and he provided to them a slaughter.

  In this instance, Saul repented and provided special sacrifices which were accepted by Jehovah and was pardoned. This is the basis for not disfellowshipping a person who is repentant after taking blood due to extreme pressure.

  The above is the JW policies.

  However, whether blood transfusions fits the Biblical law is a different discussion.
• 
  24

  April 2018 Broadcast - normal weird stuff

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we hear a story regarding the life of thomas and emma.

  she states that "when thomas and i first learnt that i was pregnant, we were both really shocked" she doesn't explain why they were both really shocked but it seems an odd reaction unless they were using the safest contraception invented or hadn't been told about the bird and the bees.two experiences that touched the heart of gb sanderson were as follows -.

  in russia a jw was jailed for 6 months, the jailers did everything to try to undermine his faith, which included violence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  I don't recall anyone making the statement on this forum (or in practice) without explaining why it came as a shock. The way it came across on the video was odd because of that.

  This one:
  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/205990/im-pregnant

  No explanation. Not that she owes one. But everyone congratulated and wished her. No one mentioned that it was odd or asked for an explanation.

  My point was that a couple can get surprised by pregnancy and this couple in the video is no different.
• 
  24

  April 2018 Broadcast - normal weird stuff

  by Listener in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we hear a story regarding the life of thomas and emma.

  she states that "when thomas and i first learnt that i was pregnant, we were both really shocked" she doesn't explain why they were both really shocked but it seems an odd reaction unless they were using the safest contraception invented or hadn't been told about the bird and the bees.two experiences that touched the heart of gb sanderson were as follows -.

  in russia a jw was jailed for 6 months, the jailers did everything to try to undermine his faith, which included violence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  She doesn't explain why they were both really shocked but it seems an odd reaction

  Didn't anyone teach them the 'birds and the bees'? What a mad statement.

  Strange comments. Why can't pregnancy come as a shock to couples? There are many topics on this forum of members announcing that they are pregnant and were shocked when they got to know about it.