"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.
NotFormer
JoinedPosts by NotFormer
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
25
New instructions on not using sisters to manage KH computer ?
by fifth.column insince covid in france, especially in the countryside with lack of brothers, it was quite common that some sisters were using the computer at the back of the kingdom hall to manage zoom session.. i heard a rumor that new instructions, maybe a july letter, stated that this was reserved for male only, even unbaptised publishers, but no sister if there is at least a male available.
that would be a steps back and disappointment for these sisters.
last week i heard at my mom’s house how they were happy that this service was available for them, a proof that the org was moving forward.
-
-
NotFormer
Sisters can't operate the machine that goes "Bing". 🙄
-
35
Re-activate me?
by punkofnice inthere was a knock at my door and i thought it was my take-away being delivered.. long story short, it was 2 elders calling to see me.
i guess to re-activate me.
once they said who they were i recognised them.
-
-
NotFormer
"There was a knock at my door and I thought it was my take-away being delivered."
Sounds like whatever they were delivering, you didn't want it.
"Then my kebabs arrived.
"I just wanted to share that"
I love shared kebabs!🥙
But seriously, Punky, it sounds like you handled it very well. And great to see that you've moved beyond them far enough that you displayed no bitterness.
Do you think that the timing is just to do with the recent changes?
-
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
It could be argued that announcing that someone has been disfellowshipped could be defamatory by nature. In this jurisdiction, defamation was* defined as anything communicated to a third party that could lower that person's reputation in the eyes of their peers. A disfellowshipment announcement could certainly be seen in that light.
The change in 2005 was probably to deflect a possible rise in defamation suits against elders and possibly the GB as heading up the whole defamatory machine.**
*Current law is different from when I learned it
** There are probably still plenty of jurisdictions that would allow defamation suits over a disfellowshipping announcement, even though the principle I "quote" above isn't the current defamation law. I might have a look at different regimes to see if the WT's caution in changing the announcement was prudent, at least in the face of defamation suits, when I have time.