https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go3arnnsfkk&feature=youtu.be.
no mention whatsoever that it was watchtower themselves that strongly hinted towards this date.
instead they blame those who "put their trust in a date, not jehovah".. let's recap... .
LURKERS; IF THIS PISSES YOU OFF AND YOU ARE STUCK IN....VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS!
That is exactly what I have done, and most recently when they passed out the pledge slips to find out how much more money they could milk from the congregation to spend at the orders of the LDC I wrote a big fat ZERO on it and turned it in. Do I care they know who did it? H--L NO!
ok i'am old so i need some help to understand this new thing, what's the point in marrying yourself?
this sound like a gb brain storm idea....i guess you can never commit adultery....
There once was a man from Nantucket.....
.....whose c--k was so long he could suck it.....
(Next)
may 15, 2017 to all bodies of elders re: regular pioneers.
uk version.
Being humane and sensitive to individual needs of JW's is NOT in the WT leaders vocabulary.
Of course not. Dubbies are all about putting everyone and everything WT related FIRST. A DF'd friends elderly single mother just had major surgery, she spent years door knocking as a reg. pio. and now two weeks after surgery has yet to have anyone from her KH come by her home, send a get well card, telephone (the secretary did call though to tell her she hadn't turned in her "service" report for April though), or anything. Nope, it's up to the DF'd friend to do everything including working full time while their mom heals and is incapacitated.
some of y'all may know why i am asking this, but i am curious about it.. sexting in the elders book says it's enough to warrant a jc but it's very loose at it... what's y'all opinion?
do elders care alot of it?
what if it's an old case?
Q) How serious do Elders view sexting? A) It depends who's sexting?
It's wrong as long as the eldurrs are not getting their jollies. As long as they get theirs...no problem, carry on!.
“there may be occasions when it would be good for us to reconsider a choice or decision.
it could be when the prevailing circumstances change.
jehovah altered his decision at times when circumstances changed.
In many respects, if we let others make our decisions, we are essentially deciding to “follow them.”
So says the governing body, as they continue to dictate what one should wear, how one should groom themselves, what entertainment they can engage in, what education they should have, how much money they should save, what kind of vehicle they should buy, who they should marry, when they should marry, what two married people can do in the privacy of their own home, that one must pioneer, etc.
Can anyone really not see the hypocrisy of what these chuckle-heads write?
“there may be occasions when it would be good for us to reconsider a choice or decision.
it could be when the prevailing circumstances change.
jehovah altered his decision at times when circumstances changed.
I agree that they are covering their asses, possibly going to come out with a big change soon,
I still firmly believe that they are going to refine a.k.a. completely abandon the idea of 144,000 as the ONLY ones going to heaven. They must do something to make the increasing numbers of partakers make sense. Three classes of people. Those who are alleged to be the 'little flock', those who are the 'great crowd' in heaven, and those who supposedly will pet pandas on earth forever.
“there may be occasions when it would be good for us to reconsider a choice or decision.
it could be when the prevailing circumstances change.
jehovah altered his decision at times when circumstances changed.
strange that wt will disfellowship people for disagreeing on doctrinal decisions , they made, that they later change, but will not automatically reinstate those that had it right in the first place,
I tried making that point some years ago when the "light" got brighter and the gb decided that they and only they were the "the slave". Thirty-five years or more ago at least one person was DF'd for believing that "the slave" could not be all self-proclaimed anointed on earth and could only be a small group of men. I wonder why he wasn't posthumously reinstated now that that is the current "truth"?
ones who are lovers of jehovah .
dont say rip .
rip is also pagan in origin.
Saying 'rest' in peace, or more often writing R.I.P after a deceased person's name, is primarily a way of showing respect to the dead person and the feelings of their relatives.
And that is the reason WT would not promote saying R.I.P. If it is a tool of the devil to remove ones hat or tip it to the ladies, and if it is a tool of the devil to stand up when a woman enters the room, then "evidently" it must be a tool of the devil promoting self-worship to show any respect for a dead person or their relatives by saying-thinking-or writing R.I.P.
Now didn't I sound like a "good" little Dubbie?
how do the gb micro-manage people's lives today?one example is their micro management in dress and grooming.
eg their view of beards.
elders in most congs will take a brother to a corner and remind him why jws don't grow beards.
How do the GB micro-manage people's lives today?
How don't they?
ok, so i've just put myself through another months broadcast so i can see what bull they're feeding my still in relatives.
all was going fine... well, i say fine, i mean the usual cheesy videos, rehearsed reactions from jeffrey jackson (you remember him, the one who told half truths and lies at the royal commission) and propaganda from jw land.. the last feature brings up 9/11 and the paris 2015 attack at the bataclan.
just as im thinking "how are they gonna spin this in their direction" i hear these words:.
Luke 6:32 (NIV): "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them."
That statement alone is enough to condamn the JDubs. Even sinners love those who love them, yet many of the Dubyas are some of the most back-biting, hateful, petty, gossiping, hypocritical, un-loving, split tongued, reviling, a--holes one would ever have the displeasure to meet.
