It's a real conundrum. On the one hand, she's in a difficult situation where she might be open to questioning her reality. On the other hand, if she's drawing comfort and strength from her WT beliefs (and presumably getting some support from her congregation) while in what is a pretty dire situation, it might not help her much to pull that rug out from under her at this time. Some JWs are happy (well, I assume that there must be some who are happy), and she might be happy and content with what she currently believes during these trying circumstances.
NotFormer
JoinedPosts by NotFormer
-
20
Waking Them Up When They Feel Safe
by KerryKing ingood morning all, i would love some genuine advice please.. i have an old friend who is still in the org, but has never been the very staunch type.
however, she is going through a very rough patch in life, (past deeds from youth caught up and now is in prison) and i reached out to her by old fashioned snail mail.. by her reply she sounds more pimi than ever and finding some sort of comfort in the literature.
would i be wrong to attempt to wake her up, would that actually be a cruel thing to do right now?
-
-
-
16
JW (?) murders wife and mother-in-law
by Chevelle inaccording to several spanish ex-jw youtube channels, this is a jw family... but i'm still trying to confirm... .
https://www.fox29.com/news/mom-daughter-found-stabbed-philadelphia-basement.
-
-
NotFormer
Sea Breeze, does that explanation often crop up as an officially reported aspect of such cases? Or is it common speculation by people outside the organisation?
I don't doubt that it could be a motive in a JW who's gone nuts.
Is the idea that death absolves a person of their sin debt discussed often enough in JW circles that it could make an impression such that an unhinged JW might decide to kill their loved ones in order to "save" them?
-
26
Still Confused About The FDS
by NotFormer inthis was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.
if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.
-
-
NotFormer
Riley: "Building core theology around the book of revelations that basically voids the new testament for anyone but 9 men is pretty bloody silly."
That's a pretty succinct summary. I wish I could remember something like that for when it comes up in conversation. š The whole adventist movement grew out of people saying "I've figured out Revelation!", and as you said, built a theology around it while ignoring all the other 65 books (maybe not Daniel, though).
-
12
Constant Pleas For Money
by NotFormer init comes up from time to time: that the wt's "constant pleas for money" signifies their precarious financial state due to the pressure of the csa settlements.
is there any way of demonstrating that to be a fact?
i ask because i've always been under the impression that "constant pleas for money" is the default state of the organisation, possibly going back to rutherford's time.
-
-
NotFormer
JW GoneBad, they're only "a" root of many injurious* things. Unfortunately, one among many.
* How long did they spend in the thesaurus to find that alternative to "evil"? šø
-
26
Still Confused About The FDS
by NotFormer inthis was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.
if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.
-
-
NotFormer
Earnest, you do not see the logical fallacy that I am pointing out? The WT two-tier system is inconsistent and didn't exist in anyone's mind until Rutherford made it out of whole cloth.
"We are all slaves of Christ, are we not."
JWs are the slaves of the GB. The GB is not Christ.
-
26
Still Confused About The FDS
by NotFormer inthis was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.
if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.
-
-
NotFormer
P.S. Has anyone asked a JW who believes that they are annointed what tribe they're from? Or what number out of the 12,000 for that tribe they occupy. I. E. are they number 11,357 from the tribe of Naphtali?
-
26
Still Confused About The FDS
by NotFormer inthis was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.
if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.
-
-
NotFormer
I figured that out a long time ago. Unlike most JWs, I've read Revelation without a WT publication in hand. I've argued the passage about the 144,000 at length with JWs at the door. They are absolutely adamant that 144,000 is an exact, literal figure , not symbolic, even though it is 12 X 12 X 1000, all biblically symbolic numbers. Then I point out that the 144,000 are male virgins from specifically named tribes of Israel. "Oh, that's just symbolic", they say. Then I say, "Then why don't you count the figure of 144,000 as symbolic?" Silence.
My question is to point out the inconsistencies I see in JW theology*. And the question still stands, according to JW theology, should the annointed (Jesus brothers) be referring to the vast majority of JWs, the unannointed, (not Jesus' brothers) as brothers and sisters? If they shouldn't, then why do they? To me it's just another example of a JW ramshackle doctrine that they've cobbled together without understanding its full implications.
*Also to try and understand it better in order to discuss it better with JWs I meet.
-
19
A fun moment
by Vidiot inmy wife of many years is more-or-less pomo, but she still (nominally) believes in jehovah and the bible.. she raised her eyebrows when she realized the full scope of the csa problemā¦ rolled her eyes when letto the clown called babies ālittle enemies of godāā¦ but today, we apparently crossed a real thresholdā¦.
ā¦her response to the governing body being referred to as āour future kingsā wasā¦.
ā¦āwhat????!!!!!ā.
-
-
NotFormer
Carla: "Don't they consider Jesus their King? now the gb are on equal footing? is that about right?"
Even though Jesus supposedly returned/came/parousia-ed in 1914, they are still ruling in absentia. It makes absolutely no sense to me either. I suppose if you hear something often enough you stop questioning it. That you might be whipped by the taskmasters for doing so just adds to the incentive, I guess.
-
19
A fun moment
by Vidiot inmy wife of many years is more-or-less pomo, but she still (nominally) believes in jehovah and the bible.. she raised her eyebrows when she realized the full scope of the csa problemā¦ rolled her eyes when letto the clown called babies ālittle enemies of godāā¦ but today, we apparently crossed a real thresholdā¦.
ā¦her response to the governing body being referred to as āour future kingsā wasā¦.
ā¦āwhat????!!!!!ā.
-
-
NotFormer
It strikes me as a bit of false modesty on their part. They are the current kings to obedient JWs. "Once and Future Kings"* should be their title, albeit self-bestowed.
* Apologies to T. H. White
-
26
Still Confused About The FDS
by NotFormer inthis was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.
if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.
-
-
NotFormer
There's a difference? They're currently the GB's slaves; why would that status change if the GB became kings? Let's not get too nitpicky over words. Slaves is the GB's word, not mine.
As an outsider, I'm going to get the specific jargon wrong, hence all the questions. But I'm trying to capture the spirit, not the letter, of the whole schemozzle. To me there seems to no inherent logic in all this. That they have recently massaged the FDS definition to only refer to the GB is problematic. What now is the status of the 144,000; do they matter? Are they the GB's brothers and sisters?