Writing the Society and simply talking to one of the local elders are in many respects essentially the same thing. No matter which route you take, you are not dealing with someone able to modify policy and/or effect change. In both cases, actually agreeing with a divergent point of view would be apostasy on their part, so that's not going to happen no matter how wrong current policy may happen to be.
Posts by TD
-
25Has anyone ever personally written to the Society?
by seeitallclearlynow ini've been listening to marlene mercado's audio testimony on jwinfoline while reading and posting here today; and it reminded me that i had written to the society once, years ago, and i received a response.
the response made me angry with them, although they were agreeing with me on something that i was complaining about.
what made me angry was that they made no acknowledgment that they put a lot of pressure on the brothers to reach out and even after they have attained an office of oversight, a lot more pressure is put on the elders and servants to do more, do just so, etc....they claimed that it was my elder husband's own fault that he was barely ever home, and when he was, he was in his den or on the phone with someone who couldn't make any decisions on their own.
-
-
-
11
Clay Kitten Shooting.
by Englishman ini am appalled!.
appalled i tell you!
http://www.richsalter.btinternet.co.uk/.
-
-
TD
LOL Englishman
Another appalling shooting game: http://www.joecartoon.com/pages/torpedojoe/
-
9
"Millions Now Living May Never Die"?
by Scorpion in"millions now living may never die"
that is how the september 1,1989, watchtower refers to the 1918 lectures (p.13).
although the society's watchtower publications index: 1930-1985 makes dozens of references to the book and lectures as ..."will never die" i could not find a single reference to millions now living may never die.
-
-
TD
On February 24, 1918 at the Temple Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, J.F. Rutherford gave a lecture entitled "The World Has Ended?Millions Now Living May Never Die." Rutherford pointed out among other things that "The antitypical jubilee, earth's times of restitution would begin in the springtime of 1926" and that the war already in progress was evidence that the world was experiencing the foretold tribulation. This lecture was so well received that it was again delivered little more than a month later with a slightly different title. On March 31, 1918 in Boston, Massachusetts, the same talk was given under the title "The World Has Ended?Millions Now Living Will Never Die."
The second, and more confident title was used from this point forward as the talk was presented over and over by a number of the Society?s speakers throughout the United States, Great Britain and Europe. The May 1, 1918 Watch Tower declared: "This door of opportunity should be quickly entered, that the people may have the truth concerning the Lord's kingdom, which is at hand. One public address should be given in each place on ?The World has Ended -- Millions Now Living Will Never Die'. Let us be zealous in proclaiming the truth while we have opportunity."
In more modern times however, the JW organization has appeared to be somewhat confused about the real title of this discourse. For example, the 1986 brochure Jehovah's Witnesses Unitedly Doing God's Will Worldwide said on page 10:
"Prior to 1918 the Bible Students understood that their purpose in preaching was to gather the remaining ones of those chosen to be with Christ Jesus in heaven and to warn the world of God's coming judgment. Little thought was given to gathering those who would survive the end of the present wicked system to live on earth. Then from 1918 onward the talk "Millions Now Living May Never Die!" was widely presented."
The April 1, 1990 issue of The Watchtower said on page 31:
"History shows that the public exposure of these facts actually began before 1922. For example, the lecture "Millions Now Living May Never Die," first delivered in 1918 and published in booklet form in 1920, told of Christendom's failure and of the approaching end of this world."
Neither of these statements is entirely accurate. One can only speculate as to the reasons why what had been the title of this discourse on only one single occasion would became more preferable than the title that it was actually given under literally thousands of times by scores of speakers. The most obvious answer it seems, would be an attempt to soften the confidence with which this prediction was made.
Tom
-
4
Changes
by TD in"changes that disturb people".
just ten years ago we catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this.
just ten years ago we jehovah?s witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this.
-
-
TD
"Changes That Disturb People"
This was the title of an article appearing in the April 22, 1970 issue of the JW periodical, Awake! As is indicated by the title, changes can be disturbing. What sort of changes? Let?s let the article speak for itself:
"One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church?"
How wonderful to be a JW and not have to worry about having the theological rug rudely jerked out from under you. How sad for members of other churches who must deal with this.
"A businessman in Medellín, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many. "Tell me," he asked, "how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ?new things.? How do I know the ?new things? will be the truth in five years?" What are some of these changes that disturb people?
This Columbian businessman?s questions certainly demand answers. How CAN you know that the "New light" your church teaches today won?t be tomorrow?s "Old truth?" Again, it must be wonderful to be a JW.
The next article goes on to describe one of these shocking changes:
"For centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed. The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule? A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: "The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason." It adds: The "Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell."?Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).
SHOCKING! Some Catholics regarded this as the "Law of Almighty God" and then it was changed! No wonder they were upset. What was the effect?
"The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. "All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat," explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. "Now I suddenly find out it isn?t a sin. That?s hard to understand." If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a "mortal sin" can suddenly be approved? If it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: "I don?t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?" Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?"
More questions that demand answers. Truly it must be devastating to belong to a church which wields ex cathedra authority and then reverses itself later. It can be noted however, that meatless Fridays, while stupid and inconvenient, probably didn?t put anyone?s life in jeopardy. Of course, Jehovah?s Witnesses are not hypocritical in taking this superior and indignant tone. Nothing like this could take place within the hallowed grounds of spiritual paradise enjoyed by Jehovah?s people. Or could it?
In the August 1, 1961 issue of The Watchtower the following question appeared in the Questions from Readers column:
"Is there anything in the Bible against giving one?s eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person??L. C., United States."
Witness leaders and policy makers replied in part:
"The question of placing one?s body or parts of one?s body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one?s death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so."
A safe answer since the Bible, in truth, doesn?t address this question even obliquely. No more so than it addresses the question of whether meat should be eaten on Friday.
Slightly more than six years later however, virtually the same question appeared in the Questions from Readers column of the November 15, 1967 issue of The Watchtower:
"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one?s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source??W. L., U.S.A."
This time, Witness leaders and policy makers replied:
"Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one?s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people?.
?. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.?Gen. 9:5, 6?.
??When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic."
Yesterday?s "matter of conscience" was now today?s "Law of Almighty God." Jehovah?s Witnesses who sincerely believed that the question of organ transplantation was up to them to decide now had to believe that it was cannibalism and a disrespect for human life in contravention of the scriptures.
Not quite thirteen years later, in the March 15, 1980 issue of The Watchtower, the question of organ transplantation again appeared in the Questions from Readers column:
Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Why would this sort of question come up yet again? Surely Jehovah?s channel of communication on earth today would not reverse itself a second time on a serious matter of life and death:
"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah?s Witnesses??.
?..While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
Let?s look again at how the Witnesses ridiculed the meatless Friday business:
"This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God."
Indeed. However the same complete lack of Biblical instruction regarding organ transplantation didn?t seem to bother the Witness leaders and policy makers a bit.
"Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God?s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support."
Of course those wicked Catholics can indulge in the luxury of questioning the competence of their church leadership when mistakes are made and doctrines must be reversed. Imagine what would happen to a Witness who said: "How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Jehovah?s Witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the Governing Body and our elders are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ?new things.? How do I know the ?new things? will be the truth in five years?" Such a one would quickly find themselves out on their ear.
It is only members of OTHER religions who can afford to be disturbed.
Tom
(With apologies to Norm Hovland)
-
-
-
TD
You appear to be linking to a scanned document on your local hard drive.
Do you have server space with your ISP where you could upload it and then link to it?
-
2
Is anybody else into this?
by TD init's a small, fairly unobtrusive program that eats up spare cpu cycles when your system is idle.
it can be run as a screen saver if you so desire.
basically, it makes you part of a global cancer research computing grid.
-
-
TD
It's a small, fairly unobtrusive program that eats up spare cpu cycles when your system is idle. It can be run as a screen saver if you so desire. Basically, it makes you part of a global cancer research computing grid.
Seems like a worthy cause to me anyway.
-
16
Something good about the Witnesses
by TD in.
their 2004 calendar is very nice -- a huge improvement over the shmaltzy 2003 version.. i actually asked my jw wife to get me one.. .
tom
-
-
TD
It can't be nicer than my Llewellyn Witches calendar
Yeah, and I'm kinda partial to my Dillon Aero calendar too. Still and all, I think the Witnesses deserve credit on this one.
-
16
Something good about the Witnesses
by TD in.
their 2004 calendar is very nice -- a huge improvement over the shmaltzy 2003 version.. i actually asked my jw wife to get me one.. .
tom
-
-
TD
Blondie,
Describe the calendar to us. I lost interest when then went to staged photos. I actually enjoyed the paintings of scenes from the Bible. The originals are hung on the walls all over Bethel.
---There are exceptional landscape photographs above each pair of months. Jan-Feb is a forest in Normandy, March-April is Mount Fuji, May-June is the Tone River in Japan and so on. Very pleasant if you like that sort of thing. Below, on the calendar proper are smaller landscape and animal photographs.
The large photographs bear scriptural captions, but these are pretty much doctrinally neutral. By this I mean the applicability of the verses is to the act of creation itself and not some future JW paradise that will be paved with the bones and carcasses of the likes of you and me. I've found that implication in Witness literature to be extremely offensive at times. The September-October picture for example is a view of a seashore somewhere in Africa. The caption simply reads, "God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that it was good." ---Something that could have been produced by almost any Christian group.
-
16
Something good about the Witnesses
by TD in.
their 2004 calendar is very nice -- a huge improvement over the shmaltzy 2003 version.. i actually asked my jw wife to get me one.. .
tom
-
-
TD
Their 2004 calendar is very nice -- a huge improvement over the shmaltzy 2003 version.
I actually asked my JW wife to get me one.
Tom
-
8
Witnesses having children
by JH ini remember when i started mingling with the jw's in the mid 80's, they said that it was too late in this system to have children.
the great tribulation just around the corner made it a bad idea to have children, they said.. today with just about "zero increase" having children is a way of ensuring future witnesses.
i didn't set foot in a kh in 2 years, but if i remember well, the only new faces i saw were children that became adults.. i wonder if they still discourage witnesses from having children...or do they see it as something good now, since not many are joining?
-
-
TD
Good point JH. You would think they would realize this out of sheer pragmatism alone
But from what I've seen, the Witnesses don't exploit even the potential they have. Their retention rate must be dismal, as it appears to me that easily 8 out of 10 children eventually leave the faith. I think the realization that child-bearing is one of the best sources of new converts will probably go hand in hand with the realization that what the church currently does for its children is completely inadequate.
Of course suddenly "discovering" what the Mormons and Catholics have known all along would be a bitter pill to swallow for such a haughty, prideful leadership.
