Posts by dontfitin

92

Montana jury awards two women $35M in sex abuse lawsuit against Jehovah's Witnesses

by AndersonsInfo in

https://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-jury-awards-two-women-m-in-sex-abuse-lawsuit/article_1bcabb7c-7381-574b-a2ba-e011cc0250a6.html.

montana jury awards two women $35m in sex abuse lawsuit against jehovah's witnesses .

a jury in northwestern montana awarded two women $35 million wednesday in their lawsuit against the local jehovah’s witnesses congregation and its worldwide headquarters.. .

dontfitin

From Fox News, did anyone catch this? Are they saying they aren't responsible for the failure to report? This sounds totally like they are throwing the elders under the bus, when the elders only follow their directions.

Is there a way to get actual court records from this???

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/27/jury-jehovahs-witnesses-must-pay-34m-to-abuse-survivor.html

The church also contended that the national organization isn't liable for the actions by Thompson Falls elders, and that too much time has passed for the women to sue.

19

Hello again

by BlackWolf in

jw
friends

hello everyone, it's been a while since i've posted anything on here so i thought i might give an update.

next month i turn 18 and my mom is constantly berating me about getting baptized, so much so that my siblings have even told her to stop.

ive just been flat out telling her no which i know is irritating her.

dontfitin

I'm fully awake, my husband is "in but questioning". Our daughter, who had been treated horribly by the congregation for the simple reason that she didn't want to be a pioneer but go to college instead, decided at 17 that she did not want to pursue baptism and after she was 18 and had a choice did not want to go to meetings any more. Husband was disappointed but took it well. Husband agreed she is still welcome to live here if she continues to abide by common moral standards. (She is dating a very nice "worldy" boy, he's okay with that.) If she chooses not to, she won't be kicked out but understands it will probably be time for her to start looking for her own place.

There is another family in the congregation who kicked out their unbaptized 18 year old because he didn't want to go to meetings. They were praised at the time, but now the father regrets it and told my husband, you're the only one who can decide what's right for your family, don't let anyone tell you differently.

So, there's hope!

49

Contempt of court, case in San Diego county really disgusts me!

by Crazyguy in

this case has to be talked about by ever awake jw every apostate everyone.

this case because they refuse to hand over documents the court already knows they have because they handed them over before but heavily redacted, is the icing on the cake!

this case shows thier evil plain and simple.

dontfitin

I shared this with my husband who is still in, and even he said, "I guess that's why they keep asking for money." I was surprised he would say that, but didn't pounce on him, just let it brew.

17

Revelation 5:9,10 and the 144,000

by Darkknight757 in

i hesitate to ask this question.

during some recent research on youtube i came across a few videos explaining how watchtower manipulated revelation 5:10. revelation 5:10 "you have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our god,and they will reign on the earth.”" -niv.

the nwt13 renders this verse: 10 and you made them to be a kingdom+ and priests to our god,+ and they are to rule as kings+ over the earth.”.

dontfitin

s there any talk of changing the 144k to symbolic? Hope so.
That's one of the things the wife says would never happen. After much questioning she admitted this would be cause for reconsideration of her faith in the organization.
But, if it did change, I'm certain she would rationalize it and be even more convinced the chariot is on the move.
Something like "It makes so much more sense now. I always believed in my heart that it was symbolic!"

I wonder if she realizes the whole reason the JWs believe there will be Christians with an earthly hope is because they limited the heavenly hope to a literal 144,000. When their numbers were clearly going to surpass that, they had to come up with something else to explain those people. If they ever backed out of it, there would be no reasoning at all for the Christian-earthly-hope argument.

21

"Well now at least they get a ressurection!"

by stuckinarut2 in

yes, that is what a witness said after the police shootings and terrible aftermath of violence occurred this week in the usa..... they said that it now gives them a chance to live forever...as if they would not have had that opportunity if they had not been tragically killed..... of course according to witness teachings, the contradictory thing is that if the big a had come a day before, then those same people would have been killed by jehovah because they were not his worshipers.....

dontfitin

I was "comforted" with this saying after my brother died.

26

Are the witnesses really False prophets?

by MrTheocratic in

when you read the following statements from the wt.

organization... do they satisfy you?

or better stated...... should you be satisfied by there answers?.

dontfitin

If the WT had the humility to say, "This is the conclusion we reached, based on this scripture, and this one, and this one." and then when they were wrong to say, "Sorry, I guess we had that wrong!" I would have zero problem with it.

Instead they say, "Jehovah revealed to his servants...." They say, "Jehovah's direction is.." They say, "Jehovah wants us to...." They say, "Jehovah's arrangements..." By doing so they are presuming to speak directly for Jehovah, They claim they are not, but all you have to do is look at the wording.

Claiming to be guided by holy spirit and by the scriptures (the same as all of us are or can be) is fine. Claiming "Jehovah revealed this" is not. When you speak for Jehovah, you don't get to be wrong. It's as simple as that.

Their arrogance has lead them into a very bad position.

52

Is shunning unscriptual?

by MrTheocratic in

international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

.how does one explain this scripture?.

dontfitin

I'm not saying that just because a person is not officially DFd from the congregation they are great association. I had a brother who was never a Witness, who was a drug addict. I was very discerning in my association with him. I had him over for dinner once a year or something, checked in with him to see how he was doing. Did we hang out every weekend and talk on the phone for hours? No. I didn't want to be around his behavior.

Personal discernment and conscience will always apply. We would have to get better at exercising those powers of discernment. Right now, there is yes, have all the association you want, or no, you may not even speak to them, not even hello. I would argue that MOST cases fall in a wide range BETWEEN those two options.

When it comes to the congregation, the scriptural guideline we are given is that even when we withdraw from someone we are not to be treating them as an enemy. (I believe personally that those two scriptures, Corinth and Thess, are referring to the same thing. After all they do use the same word for the behavior.)

(sorry for the serial posts! this subject is close to my heart.)

52

Is shunning unscriptual?

by MrTheocratic in

international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

.how does one explain this scripture?.

dontfitin

Also, according to scripture, Bro Smith is FIRST confronted about his immorality by the one having knowledge, then taking along another. Only then if Bro Smith won't give up the immorality does it go to a congregation level. He can either stop the immorality and get help, or he can leave the congregation. In both ways the congregation is protected.

52

Is shunning unscriptual?

by MrTheocratic in

international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

.how does one explain this scripture?.

dontfitin

Reasonable Christians will reach their own decision about what level of association is appropriate based on his behavior, the same way they do about anyone else who is not a Christian.

Bro Smith leaves the congregation and then moves in with his girl friend. I would imagine a great number of Christians won't choose to support his behavior. But yet, they are still free to say, "we miss you", "I hope you are doing okay", they don't have to go to the other aisle if they see him in the grocery store. If someone happens to have special knowledge of his situation, they are free to talk more to him if they think it is beneficial. The point is, they are free to exercise their own Christian conscience and discernment in the matter.

Once the person leaves, they no longer pose a danger or bring reproach upon the congregation. So why should the congregation *as a whole* have to take any action against them?

ETA, the scriptures refer specifically to removing the wicked man from your midst. If the man is not within your midst, how does that apply?

52

Is shunning unscriptual?

by MrTheocratic in

international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

.how does one explain this scripture?.

dontfitin

1. As others have pointed out, the scripture applies to those called a brother. If someone was trying to remain in the congregation and was committing serious sin without repentance, then yes, they should be asked to leave the congregation. The behavior should not be accepted as normal within the congregation. As Jesus said, he should be treated as a man of the nations and a tax collector. That would mean "not your best friend". We all know that Jesus still spoke with tax collectors/sinners.

2. There is no scriptural basis even remotely for shunning someone who has already left the congregation. They left. They are now outside and that judgment is to be left to God.

3. Two things about the wording of "not even eating with such a man". First, if those weren't supposed to even be talked to, that wording wouldn't make much sense. Second, early Christians worshiped together at meals. Not eating with such a man would have the affect of not worshiping with him.

4. If you read the scriptures in John about not even saying a greeting, it is very specifically talking about "those who are trying to mislead you". It is referring to people who were actively trying to sabatoge their belief in Jesus' sacrifice. And again, if they were not supposed to be spoken to, then why say, "not even" eating with them?

5. The word for "not associate with" is the same word used in Thessalonians about disorderly ones. The same word, describing the same behavior. Yet, in Thessalonians it says, "but do not be treating him as an enemy, but continue to admonish him as a brother." Those two scriptures are describing the same behavior.

6. According to scripture a person should never be disciplined if they are repentant and want help to remain in the congregation. Jesus said you should forgive (in imitation of Jehovah) up to 77 times. Surely you might doubt someone's motives after 77 times? And yet, that is what Jesus is saying. If the situation is bad enough to be causing danger to the congregation after repeated incidents, then some action might be justified.

7. The reinstatement process as it currently exists is in exact opposition to the example of the Prodigal Son.

I investigated this extensively, because I really did want to be doing the right thing and I take the scriptures seriously. The way shunning is currently happening is, in most cases, absolutely unscriptural.