One should always bury one's grudge.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/mads-horrifying-clichs-burying-a-grudge--69454019239178234/
But seriously, given the institutional level grudges held by the organisation, they are hardly leading by example. 🙄
NotFormer
JoinedPosts by NotFormer
-
57
Holding a grudge
by LongHairGal ini read something recently on reddit (not sure what thread) where a person related how some jw told them that ‘they hold a grudge’.. this reminded me of something an old jw acquaintance said to me some years back when i related my bad experience in the religion.. so, apparently, jehovah’s witnesses feel they should be forgiven for anything.
people should forget all about it and act like nothing happened and be charitable towards them, etc… when i read in james and ephesians i got the sense ‘holding a grudge’ was referring to the things average people do to offend each other.. i don’t see it applying to a religion that claimed to speak for god and who engendered hateful and unchristian attitudes towards people.. i know because i experienced this.. in addition, some people’s lives were damaged by listening to faulty teachings and interference in things that were clearly none of anybody’s business.. one case in point: them knocking worldly careers and now there are thousands of destitute jws in senior years with nothing.. then in 2023 the religion does away with a century old teaching about counting hours in the ministry.
meanwhile, i got judged over this.
-
-
-
25
Would there, or would there not be, lawsuits if they took away the blood transfusion ban?
by VerdadTJ2 ini have heard or read, many times by many exjw's, that the org does not remove the blood transfusion ban because it would be crippled by the resulting lawsuits the minute that "new light" was made official.i am not a lawyer, but i would like to know what legal opinion lawyers have on that.on what legal basis would there be a lawsuit?
"i am suing the watchtower because my relative died because of a rule they had but no longer have"?am i missing something?.
-
-
-
20
What has the Spiritual Paradise of the WTS been over time
by blondie inthe first mention i find in the wts publications is 1958. although the wts says the index goes from 1930 to 1985, nothing appears before 1958 a search only found by using the phrase "spiritual paradise" not in the index.
in 2015 there was a clarification of the phrase "of course, we should not conclude that the terms “spiritual paradise” and “spiritual temple” are the same.
the spiritual temple is god’s arrangement for true worship.".
-
-
NotFormer
I wonder what a genuine conversation with a JW about this would be like. Firstly, I doubt that it would come up with a householder when they're out in field service. The "spiritual paradise" is, as I understand it, internal jargon used for mutual encouragement. I'd have to raise it as a subject.
Then, both those words would need defining. First, what do they mean by "spiritual"? The term itself is somewhat nebulous. Is there some sense of euphoria, of being closer to God, when they're in the Kingdom Hall? Or does "spiritual" mean "figurative"? In which case the "real" paradise would have to be defined. What is it like*? And how is the "spiritual paradise" like "actual paradise"?
I actually kind of miss the days when you could have a conversation like this with a JW at the door.
ETA: I should have read through the thread before posting the above. It seems that they have a definition in the literature, even going so far as to say that it is part of their "theocratic vocabulary"**. It doesn't preclude the above hypothetical conversation, however. I genuinely don't know the minutiae of their doctrine, and I doubt someone at the door will have that stuff memorised.
*For all those pictures of paradise published in their literature, what it entails is not very well defined.
** Remember the argument that the word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible, so the doctrine must be false? I don't remember seeing the terms "spiritual paradise" nor "theocratic vocabulary" either. 🙄
-
39
JE-sus making a comeback at the 2024 Convention
by dropoffyourkeylee inattended the friday sesson of the 2024 summer convention.. july 5, 2024 summer convention crowd photo; they invited quite a lot of empty chairs.. .
the facility usually has 5500-6500. they spun it saying that fewer congregations were assigned.
there were 6 of the smaller, more distant sections blocked off with tarps to lessen cleaning, which i understand.
-
-
NotFormer
"Could the picture be the Wright State Ervin J Nutter Center in Beavercreek Ohio?"
If it is, I'd much rather see WWE RAW on the 15th of July than the event featured in the photo.
-
39
JE-sus making a comeback at the 2024 Convention
by dropoffyourkeylee inattended the friday sesson of the 2024 summer convention.. july 5, 2024 summer convention crowd photo; they invited quite a lot of empty chairs.. .
the facility usually has 5500-6500. they spun it saying that fewer congregations were assigned.
there were 6 of the smaller, more distant sections blocked off with tarps to lessen cleaning, which i understand.
-
-
NotFormer
"they already do that to some of the 144,000"
My point is that the 144,000 and the 22,000* memorial partakers are problematic if they want the GB to be the only "Jesus' brothers". The GB can have no rivals. Which is why they, and only they, are now the sole representatives of the FDS "class". The 144,000 and annointed used to overlap with that class, doctrinally. The logical thing would be to jettison the 144,000 altogether and limit the annointed partakers to being only the GB.
* Two decades ago it was 10,000
-
39
JE-sus making a comeback at the 2024 Convention
by dropoffyourkeylee inattended the friday sesson of the 2024 summer convention.. july 5, 2024 summer convention crowd photo; they invited quite a lot of empty chairs.. .
the facility usually has 5500-6500. they spun it saying that fewer congregations were assigned.
there were 6 of the smaller, more distant sections blocked off with tarps to lessen cleaning, which i understand.
-
-
NotFormer
My gut feeling is that they are going to decouple Jesus' brothers from the 144,000/annointed and make it solely representative of the FDS, which, we already know, means only the GB.
Showing Jesus in an affectionate light gives them the opportunity to further highlight Jesus' brothers 🙄. "Jesus is wonderful, but he's not with us visibly. But his earthly brothers are here and approachable; treat them as you would Jesus himself". (They're future kings, remember? 🙄)
If this is what they're up to, they're going to have to eventually address the dilemma of the 144,000 being annointed/Jesus' brothers, and stop 🛑 any memorial attendees from partaking. I foresee* the memorial becoming a live broadcast, in every Kingdom Hall, of the GB partaking.
They're not referring to themselves as a slave so much, anymore, and are emphasising a "right to rule" with the reference to being Christ's brothers and future kings.
Rest assured, this is not about Jesus, but "his brothers". 🙄
* This is all speculative, of course. It's one prediction among many of a possible future path for the WT.
-
25
Would there, or would there not be, lawsuits if they took away the blood transfusion ban?
by VerdadTJ2 ini have heard or read, many times by many exjw's, that the org does not remove the blood transfusion ban because it would be crippled by the resulting lawsuits the minute that "new light" was made official.i am not a lawyer, but i would like to know what legal opinion lawyers have on that.on what legal basis would there be a lawsuit?
"i am suing the watchtower because my relative died because of a rule they had but no longer have"?am i missing something?.
-
-
NotFormer
We don't have that plasma industry in this country.
I believe it's fairly unique to the USA
-
25
Would there, or would there not be, lawsuits if they took away the blood transfusion ban?
by VerdadTJ2 ini have heard or read, many times by many exjw's, that the org does not remove the blood transfusion ban because it would be crippled by the resulting lawsuits the minute that "new light" was made official.i am not a lawyer, but i would like to know what legal opinion lawyers have on that.on what legal basis would there be a lawsuit?
"i am suing the watchtower because my relative died because of a rule they had but no longer have"?am i missing something?.
-
-
NotFormer
They always deny control over the decisions of individual JWs. The existence of sanctions and HLCs makes this a very difficult position to prove. They've "forced" people to deny themselves potentially lifesaving treatment for decades. Some of those people have died, who might otherwise have had a chance to live. Suddenly changing the doctrine that killed so many IOW, admitting that there was no justification for those deaths, is definitely going to open the legal floodgates.
They've killed so many people via the blood doctrine that they're now experiencing a warped version of the sunk cost fallacy.
-
46
August WT: DF'ing renamed "Removed." AKA: GB re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
by WingCommander inso: the mystery has been clarified as to more "new light" / clarifications of decades old doctrine and procedure.
august watchtower has finally been leaked.
disfellowshipping?
-
-
NotFormer
The legal department probably felt that there was enough of a difference to make it harder to prove before a court. That doesn't mean that they are right. If "no longer one of us" could still have a defamatory effect, then perhaps it would be worth pursuing it in the courts. The plaintiff would probably need to have FU money; there's no guarantee of anything.
-
46
August WT: DF'ing renamed "Removed." AKA: GB re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
by WingCommander inso: the mystery has been clarified as to more "new light" / clarifications of decades old doctrine and procedure.
august watchtower has finally been leaked.
disfellowshipping?
-
-
NotFormer
"Defamation essentially involves harm or injury to a person’s reputation.
"And reputation is a social concept: It refers to a person’s standing in some relevant audience, i.e., the group or community beyond the speaker and the person."
https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/simons.pdf
On the above basis announcing a disfellowshipment could be considered defamatory. It is certainly going to harm a person's reputation within the JW circle.
Let's remember that the merest whiff of legal action will make the WT change policy.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/8367/disassociation-versus-disfellowshipping
Defamation is mentioned in the above thread. From that thread:
"A couple of years ago, I asked an elder I knew well about this and other matters that had "wording" changed. Such as, not announcing why a person had been df'd. At the time, I was still active and didn't even know of the term 'disassociation.'
"His response? "Because they kept being sued, that's why! Satan is after the Society in any way he can. It's just words - they have to protect themselves."
"So....it's ok to change "words" to stay out of court. Such as disfellowshipped to disassociated. "It's just words" - the locals know that no real change has taken place"
It seems that the 2005 change relates to the above mentioned lawsuits.