"I don't recognise it and don't see it on jw.org"
I won't be put there till all conventions are held.
this was actually first spotted by a good dub over on jw talk.
i find it amusing, to say the least.. .
"I don't recognise it and don't see it on jw.org"
I won't be put there till all conventions are held.
it was last updated in 1985. does the watchtower still print it?
could a jw place an order for one at the kingdom hall?.
Well, I did not receive it "lasy tear", but "last year", and the "sp" is better understood as "so" ..................
it was last updated in 1985. does the watchtower still print it?
could a jw place an order for one at the kingdom hall?.
There was also a 1969 print og 700,000, in purple.
I received a copy lasy tear, sp it is still very much around.
this was actually first spotted by a good dub over on jw talk.
i find it amusing, to say the least.. .
"well they have plagerized a cover or two. I think I remember one in the live forever book."
If it is the "bathing beauty" you are thinking of, that is no plagarization, but a picture bought from a photo stock, and the German magazine bought it from the same stock.
today's study article, "do not look at the things behind," from the 3/15/12 study edition, which was reviewed by blondie in her thread, has a footnote on paragraph 12.. the original-language word here translated refuse.
also meant what is thrown to the dogs,.
dung, excrement.
I saw the Lakeside Church of Christ uses the same reference, http://lakesidechurchofchrist.com/lakesidecoc/article.php?story=20070906201832863&query=amos
So I guess you will have to write them and tell them to stop using any reference to Kittel?
i'm curious.
for the benefit of all, perhaps some who were psychology students in college and are posters on jwn (and anybody else for that matter) would like to comment on the somewhat controversial material i've posted here which was sent to my face book page.the short article below in english was originally in italian and is google translated.
in this recent article, the italian psychology student who wrote it points to an "... old article by john spencer (psychiatrist) published in the '75 british journal of psychiatry , titled '"the mental health of jehovah's witnesses,"' which, the author said, "speaks for itself.
Faulty translation:
"The witnesses will be accused of psychotic spiritualism?"
This does not mean anything. It should be: "A psychotic witness accused of spiritualism (or possession)?"
And then he goes on to say that this has happened many times. (With which I agree).
i'm curious.
for the benefit of all, perhaps some who were psychology students in college and are posters on jwn (and anybody else for that matter) would like to comment on the somewhat controversial material i've posted here which was sent to my face book page.the short article below in english was originally in italian and is google translated.
in this recent article, the italian psychology student who wrote it points to an "... old article by john spencer (psychiatrist) published in the '75 british journal of psychiatry , titled '"the mental health of jehovah's witnesses,"' which, the author said, "speaks for itself.
The author of the original article is not particularly neutral from the start off, is he - he is not exactly on Jung's side, it seems he is more is a firm supporter of the Marxist view of religion as opium for the people. But that put aside, and the findings are as they are - just a question: I remember a discussion of this article around 1980, and there were some psychiatrists - among whom a priest (!) - that critizised the study and stated it was poor from a methodology point of view. That it was flawed. I do not remember the particulars, but remember there were some discussions about it. And it was also stated that the JWs in Western Australia were not respresentable of Australian JWs as a whole, because the young male JWs refusing military service were sent to isolated outposts or prisons in Western Australia and so suffered isolation for a longer period, resulting in mental problems. I repeat I am not trying to say the results tell something dofferent from what they do - but it sould have been interesting to see the tabulations or figures broken down by age and sex, and if the younger male group was predominant, the isolation because of imprisonment would be a contributing factor. That point of view, as I recall, was the major point of critisim against the study.
Such a long time has elapsed sice the 70s that it probably is far-fetched to believe anyone else has a slight recollection of this, but there might be an oldtimer or two remembering it ................
for 2011, jws in mexico had the lowest baptism number in years, a critical 26.9% decrease from 2010. something is going there!?.
.
"I have always been skeptical about the WTS numbers outside of the U.S."
Yeah - the US is the only trustworthy nation on Earth .................................
for 2011, jws in mexico had the lowest baptism number in years, a critical 26.9% decrease from 2010. something is going there!?.
.
As usual, this is a wild exaggeration aimed at spreading unsubstantiated gossip. There was no "decreased critical 26.9%". The decrease was a mere 26.8%. Do your math correctly!
love these stats from jwfacts /jehovah's witnesess.
"this is one of the most telling graphs, showing that the number of people leaving has tripled from the rate in the early 1990's.
for the 10 years from 1986 to 1995 the rate was an average of 12%; for the 10 years from 1996 to 2005 it had risen to 41%.".
One mistake in the original article: "Subtracting the increase in average publishers from the number baptised each year can be used to determine the number of Jehovah's Witnesses that leave each year. "
And that is a crucial mistake, for the simple reason that one does not have to be baptised to be included as a publisher. Because of this, it is impossible to produce statistics like the ones shown. There is no way knowing whether an unbaptised person starts publishing, stops, starts again etc. If you had to be baptised, it would be easy, but now it is close to impossible. You would have to know the exact number of the publishers that are baptised in order to do the math.