in a span of a few months time, we have had many unexpected changes announced by the jw organization.
some here have expressed the belief that a great number of witnesses will leave the religion.
in fact, there is a great probability the opposite will be true.. yeah, ancient hardliners will have a hard time assimilating these changes, but the younger generation will likely welcome these changes.
Vidiot: "Problem is, after a lifetime hearing everything from WTHQ as marching orders, the prospect of anything being genuinely optional is hard for them to wrap their heads around."
After decades in an organisation where many messages are coded to mean something other than what it would mean in plain English, eg. "conscience issue", the R&F JWs are probably trying to find the hidden code: "What are they actually commanding us to do here?"
let's be honest, there's a stigma to the name jehovah's witness.
if they are going more mainstream.
i imagine the first recommendation was a name change.
Just to add, if they were thinking of dropping "Jehovah" in order to mainstream, you'd think that they would be getting people used to it by using "God" more. A post just this week pointed to an article put out by them with "Jehovah" as virtually every second word*. They may have thought of it, rejected it and are doubling down to make sure.
But it wouldn't be the first time they've apparently doubled down on something, only to unceremoniously drop it later. Although the "later" usually is a couple of decades or so...
* https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4697143395221504/june-2024-study-watchtower
let's be honest, there's a stigma to the name jehovah's witness.
if they are going more mainstream.
i imagine the first recommendation was a name change.
I cringe whenever one of the higher-ups says "Jehovah", when anyone else, outside of the organisation, says "God". The name change could be possible. They probably couldn't have "church" in their title. Something like "Worldwide Congregations of the God of the Bible" might be enough to look more mainstream while maintaining some distinctiveness. Of course they might need to change the whole "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" title to something with "Bible" in it to facilitate a change of that sort.
There are plenty of naming possibilities. "New Life", "New Hope", and so on.
But a name change won't necessarily stick. Prince tried to be clever and ended up being "the singer formerly known as Prince". X is still called Twitter by most people. Be prepared for "the organisation formerly known as The Jehovah's Witnesses "
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/512321/jehovah-s-witness-church-takes-case-over-abuse-in-care-ruling-to-court-of-appeal?fbclid=iwar0ipoxydannpkym0rbwj-0ffxcmauhknchpvhql2l0azq4-garjfiihsqa.
the court of appeal has reserved its decision in the jehovah's witness church's case challenging the abuse in care inquiry.. in wellington on thursday the church appealed a high court ruling that dismissed its claim to be excluded from the investigation.. the public gallery was packed with members of the church and abuse survivors.. lawyer sarah jerebine began the appeal by challenging the royal commission's decision to extend the inquiry's scope from institutional care to trust-based relationships between authority figures and children.. "it becomes a person with authority, not authority to care but just authority, can assume responsibility for a trust-based relationship.
we say that is something quite different to what was intended and understood by what this commission would be looking at.".
Vidiot: "It’s like they have trouble grasping that secular laws can, will, and need to be fine-tuned from time to time, and it ain’t always gonna be in their favor."
That's an interesting point. It's perhaps seriously ironic that an organisation that flounders around from doctrine* to doctrine, new light to new light and is constantly making "adjustments", can't perceive that the real world might function that way too.
* "Doctrine" might be too specific; perhaps "points of doctrine" might be more accurate.
in a span of a few months time, we have had many unexpected changes announced by the jw organization.
some here have expressed the belief that a great number of witnesses will leave the religion.
in fact, there is a great probability the opposite will be true.. yeah, ancient hardliners will have a hard time assimilating these changes, but the younger generation will likely welcome these changes.
I'm somewhat surprised that slacks doesn't mean anything in the UK. Here in Australia we usually follow a lot of Britishisms and slacks have always meant women's trousers over here (at least in my lifetime). Must be one of those times we followed the American pattern.
in a span of a few months time, we have had many unexpected changes announced by the jw organization.
some here have expressed the belief that a great number of witnesses will leave the religion.
in fact, there is a great probability the opposite will be true.. yeah, ancient hardliners will have a hard time assimilating these changes, but the younger generation will likely welcome these changes.
KerryKing: "The WT changed the dress code right after they lost the Spain court case against the Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses Association, where the Judge said that JWs are a cult because of the level of control they have over their members' dress and grooming.
"This has nothing to do with them wanting to be more appealing as a religion, this is damage control, and if Norway is anything to go by, then WT stand to lose a lot lot more."
Yes, this is not an attempt to be kinder or gentler. Whenever the WT changes anything, always look for the smoking gun of what governments are looking at with regards to the WT.
Funny how Jehovah himself doesn't get a look in.
there're always things we did in the past that we wish had never happened or that we could make them all go away.. the wt actually can do this, to a certain extent.
speculation about tony?
they command the r&f to stop doing it, and it goes away.
There're always things we did in the past that we wish had never happened or that we could make them all go away.
The WT actually can do this, to a certain extent. Speculation about Tony? They command the R&F to stop doing it, and it goes away. They change a stance on something heavily embedded in the culture in a way that the JWs might feel resentful about? The GB commands them not to resent anything, nor to hold them responsible. And it goes away.
They seem to have a charmed existence. Perhaps they are some sort of magical group that doesn't have to conform to the realities of existence on this planet.
Or have they just been extraordinarily lucky?
And is the luck running out?
...is you don't start growing a beard in the spring!
you start growing it in the fall, keep your chin warm in the winter, and then shave it off for warm weather.
at least that's how it works in my household and in the northern hemisphere where the gb are.. i have the sneaking suspicion that there is going to be a steep learning curve for many.. will they know to trim it along their jawbone properly?
About the bloke with three legs:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/512321/jehovah-s-witness-church-takes-case-over-abuse-in-care-ruling-to-court-of-appeal?fbclid=iwar0ipoxydannpkym0rbwj-0ffxcmauhknchpvhql2l0azq4-garjfiihsqa.
the court of appeal has reserved its decision in the jehovah's witness church's case challenging the abuse in care inquiry.. in wellington on thursday the church appealed a high court ruling that dismissed its claim to be excluded from the investigation.. the public gallery was packed with members of the church and abuse survivors.. lawyer sarah jerebine began the appeal by challenging the royal commission's decision to extend the inquiry's scope from institutional care to trust-based relationships between authority figures and children.. "it becomes a person with authority, not authority to care but just authority, can assume responsibility for a trust-based relationship.
we say that is something quite different to what was intended and understood by what this commission would be looking at.".
They play stupid games and they may end up winning stupid prizes. Even if they get off on the "in care" technicality, what's to stop Parliament from deciding to broaden the scope of the inquiry*? Another legal precedent brought on by themselves.
*Or announcing a special enquiry, all for them?
for those of you who are pimo, how do you feel it may be effecting your mental and physical health?
is it easy to pretend to be what you are not?
how do you feel about falsely supporting the pimi which builds them up and therefore an org you don't believe in?
"You can basically do whatever you want. Sex, blood, smoking, drugs, rock and roll."
I think you're stretching things a bit here. Even if they are relatively lenient the first time, habitual exercise of those things are going to demonstrate that the person doing them isn't taking anything very seriously, as would probably be the judgement of someone not in the organisation. I don't see it as the organisation's version of cheap grace.
