Posts by leaving

86

Music Video: Would Jesus Wear a Rolex on JW Broadcasting? - PARODY

by cappytan in

jw
friends

this took quite a while this evening.

so worth it though.

hope you enjoy!

leaving_quietly

The Aug. 1994 WT has been quoted a few times. Thought you'd like to see the Feb 1, 1990 WT quote (pg. 25 par. 19). The article is entitled, Exposing the "Man of Lawlessness". Oh, the irony!

The worldliness of some clergy has even been exposed in the media in recent times, as for example the licentious and luxurious life-styles of some TV clergymen. One modern songwriter composed a song with the title: “Would Jesus Wear a [$10,000] Rolex [watch] on His Television Show?” The song goes on to say: “Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth, have His second home in [luxurious] Palm Springs and try to hide His worth?” In addition, more and more clergymen condone or practice homosexuality. Even now the Catholic Church in the United States is paying millions of dollars in damages to compensate for priests guilty of sexual abuse of children.—Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

24

Most Translated Website

by Pubsinger in

wt claims their website is the 'most translated' and claims over 750 languages.

but in the drop down language menu there are only about 50. so where are the others?

leaving_quietly

So their "pride" in the number of languages means nothing.

To us, perhaps not. To them, it's a fulfillment of this verse:

And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. - Rev 14:6

26

Good idea or bad idea?

by stephanie61092 in

first and foremost, thank you so much to so many of you who have reached out to me over the past few days since my post on sunday.

i'm not totally in the best mental state, however, i do have a very small amount of people that i can lean on for support.

i relayed my feelings to a friend (my only friend, really), who took the initiative to inform my family.

Speaking as an ex-elder, what you put in the contribution box is irrelevant. As @OneGenTwoGroups said, accounts are handled by ministerial servants (usually, unless there's few MSs in a congregation.) The elders will likely never even see what you put in. In all the years I served, the subject of who contributes was never ever ever discussed, and was not ever, not even once, part of any factor leading to reinstatement.

I've seen letters get really involved and detailed and emotional. You don't need that, at least, not at first. Your first letter should simply ask to meet to see what you need to do to be re-instated, perhaps with a little, 'I've come to realize God's way is best and I made a huge mistake' thrown in (probably not far from the truth considering what you wrote in the first post.) Don't expect to be reinstated after the first meeting. During that first meeting, feel out how it's going. If you don't feel they're going to reinstate, then try to feel out how long before you could meet with them again. Many elders don't like to commit to a time period, but if they say something like, "a couple months," then that's a good takeaway. Wait that long, then submit another letter, but this time, ask to be reinstated, and mention the emotional aspects, such as how distraught you have been that you've brought reproach on Jehovah's name, etc. It may take a few requests to get it done.

A side note:

The elders on your reinstatement committee will be the same ones who were on the judicial committee unless you changed congregations, or one or more of them moved away. If you changed congregations, the final decision for reinstatement will rest with the original committee in the original congregation where you were DF'd. If they're not far away, they may meet with you instead. But if they are too far, your local elders will meet with you and when they feel ready to recommend you for reinstatement, they'll write a letter to your original congregation with the recommendation. The original congregation has to respond and either approve or reject the recommendation. It's a whole process. If you are in the same congregation as where you were DF'd, none of this applies, but if you're not, be prepared to tell them what congregation you were in when you were DF'd, and if possible, a contact of either the Coordinator there, the Secretary or one of the elders on the judicial committee.

28

2016-1-12-BOE--Mentioning Donation Arrangement to Householder!

by Atlantis in

2016-1-12-boe.

"apply yourself to the field ministry," the "initial call" assignmentdirects the student to mention the donation arrangement..http://postimg.org/image/tayz8pawn/..atlantis!

leaving_quietly

It is clear to see that Jehovah is directing his earthly organization to our benefit.

This. It's as if they continuously forget Eph 1:22 regarding Christ: "He also subjected all things under his feet and made him head over all things with regard to the congregation"

What did Jehovah do, make Jesus head, then take it back?

22

Swearing on the bible

by Lost and adrift in

on the subject of truth.

..... i was always under the impression that one of the reasons jws couldn't do jury duty or go to court etc was that we were not allowed to swear on the bible.

..as in i swear to tell the truth the whole truth etc etc .

leaving_quietly

In this case, you've been lied to by men, not by WTBTS. There's very few references to this topic, but:

w76 pp. 447-448, says "no Scriptural objection to doing so" and "a Christian may choose to comply."

it-2 p. 518: "For instance, as Jesus illustrated by example before the Jewish high priest, a Christian would not object to taking an oath in court, for he is going to speak the truth whether under oath or not."

As for jury duty in general, WTBTS has been consistent in saying it is a conscience matter, but just as consistent in discouraging it in the very same articles.

15

The WT knew in 1922 that 1914 was wrong !

by Phizzy in

in the may 1922 edition of the wt, page 133, rutherford is writing defending the work of russell and the 1914 doctrine, he quotes what some have said to prove russell was wrong :.

" "zedekiah was taken captive and jerusalem fell in the year 587 b. c.; thus showing that the full end of the gentile times and the fall of gentile governments is indicated to take place in 1934".. he goes on, in his own inimitable style, to disprove the above, but note, he is aware of the 587bce date for jerusalem's destruction.. if you are interested, you can read the whole mag here*, just click on pdf to read.. * https://ia700401.us.archive.org/19/items/1922watchtowerarticlesonchronology/1922_watchtower_articles_on_chronology.pdf.

.

leaving_quietly

Wow, that article is dizzying.

On page 136, second column, there's a paragraph that quotes Daniel 2:1.

It goes on to describe how Daniel was brought in before the king to interpret the dreams. The very next paragraph says this is impossible.

So, here you have J.F. Rutherford saying the Biblical account is not possible. On the next page, he writes this:

Ah, so he's saying all the other renderings regarding Daniel 2:1 is incorrect and Variorium is correct because it fits the circumstances. Yet, the NWT and the RNWT both say, "the second year."

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

leaving_quietly

I did read it, and I agree we can concede those four points.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

leaving_quietly

This particular topic is not interesting to me. Don't know why... just doesn't top the list of issues I have with the WT organization. That said, the ONLY reason JWs do not permit blood transfusions is because Acts 15:29 says to "abstain...from blood." That's it.

As someone on this thread astutely pointed out, (way back on page 3 or 4 or 5 or 6... can't remember), Acts 15:29 also says to abstain "from things sacrificed to idols," and this was downplayed by Paul at 1 Cor 8:7-13, making it a conscience matter, but to make sure it does not stumble your brother. Additionally, Hebrews 8:13 shows that the old covenant was obsolete and "is near to vanishing away." From this, we can conclude that the laws in the Mosaic Law Covenant were mostly in effect when Acts 15:29 was penned, but were on their way out, and by the time Hebrews was written, were mostly gone.

Also, Hebrews points out that because there is a new priest "of the order of Melchizedek," that is, Christ, there is a new law. "For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well." (Heb 7:12)

Sadly, JWs want to be part of the old "order of Aaron" (Heb 7:11) and thus want to hang onto the old Law, even reading into it things that were never stated.

6

Revisions to the Faithful & Discreet Slave.

by Ben131895 in

http://avoidjw.org/2015/12/revisions-faithful-discreet-slave/

leaving_quietly

In the interests of accuracy, #12 is not correct. The June 15, 2009 Watchtower does not say the slave refers only to the Governing Body. It still says the Governing Body REPRESENTS the slave. Even the article is titled, "The Faithful Steward and Its Governing Body."

It really wasn't until the annual meeting in October, 2012 where the idea of the Governing Body alone being the slave class came to fruition. An idea, incidentally, that was thoroughly discredited in 1981.

Some readers may feel that this is a rather sectarian view of matters. Or they may object to the idea that the “slave” and the “domestics” represent the same class, one as a composite body and the other as individuals. The objectors may argue that not all of Christ’s anointed disciples have a share in preparing the spiritual food, so that perhaps the “slave” pictures only the leading ones, and the “domestics” those they serve in the congregation. - w81 3/1 p. 24-25

BTW, I agree with your assessment that they started earlier than 2012 to put more emphasis on the Governing Body and less on the slave for the very purpose you stated in your response above to nelim.

32

No Soliciting signage and JW Policy

by Oubliette in

does anyone have a copy of the boe letter directing publishers to not go into apartment complexes and/or condominium complexes with no soliciting signs?

i ask because yesterday and buttheaded jw (that obviously had no idea who i am or my past) was knocking on doors in our condo complex.

he would have had to drive past a sign which clearly states "no solicitation or material distribution.".

leaving_quietly

I don't have a letter, but I was always a stickler on this one. I suspect it depends on where you are. In the U.S., it's like this:

- "No trespassing" on a personal residence means you're on your own if you ignore the sign.

- "No trespassing" for a community (e.g. apartment complex) means to tread carefully, and if management asks you to leave, to so immediately. The law really does not permit management to speak for the entire community. Only if the sign is at a single resident would it really hold any legal weight.

- "No soliciting" means nothing, really. If it says "no distribution" or "no religious groups," it's still not the same, but at least it gets the message across. There's no legal issue with this one, as far as I know.

Now, that said, our last CO talked specifically about "No soliciting" signs, and basically said that most people think it means the same as no trespassing, so just use caution. Maybe ask the householder if the sign applies to JWs.

I came across a door once where there was a "no soliciting" sign, but it was above me and off to the left-hand side of the door. I never saw it. The householder opened the door and pointed to the sign, at which point, I had to look up to even see it. I apologized and went on my way.

In short, "no soliciting" is not the same as "no trespassing". Best you put up your own "no trespassing" sign on your door, if you live in an apartment complex.

The only one that bugs me is the "no canvassing" ones. Some communities have a "no canvassing" ordinance. I talked to one of the elders about this a year or so ago and pointed out that when we go and leave our tracts, like for the convention or memorial invitations, we ARE canvassing. There's no two ways about it. We MUST obey the law. The elder didn't see it the same way I did.

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly