2019 application for prison minister.
https://docdro.id/dxusjmu.
2019 brd visitor center newsletter.
... publishers should refrain from posting messages to guest books or online obituaries unless they personally know the deceased or the family of the deceased.
Translation: We are fully aware that this cult has trained you to be calloused, insensitive, socially maladjusted, and opportunistic, and you are all doing very well, however, this one even squicked us a little bit, so ... just ... just, no.
i know people are concerned about adding positively to jw stats on the site that shall not be named, but i don't think the argument is a valid one, because they are going to see cause to brag on themselves whether the stats rise, stagnate, or fall.
it's built into their self-conceits.
here's the menu you get when you create a user account on that site.. .
I'm actually finding some dismaying stuff available without a login from their site. The second of these two Questions From Readers, Watchtower April 1, 1953: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953247
I had been given to understand the views on disfellowshipping had hardened over a span of some decades, but this seems a very harsh view by the early 1950s.
Since the disfellowshiped one is no longer a participant in the meetings at the Kingdom Hall, and since it is no longer his rightful place of religious association, he having been disconnected from that association by disfellowshiping, and in attendance at Kingdom Hall now, not by invitation or welcome but by his unwanted intrusion ...
Yeah ... pretty dark.
Here's the October 1, 1956 reference to the study article discussing why "Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1956723#h=24
Pops you right to the very paragraph. On their site.
The same cult that tells adherents to "wait on Jehovah" has never shown the slightest inclination to do that among the cult's leadership. That's why there are ever growing mountains of "old light" piling up behind the cult's leadership.
i know people are concerned about adding positively to jw stats on the site that shall not be named, but i don't think the argument is a valid one, because they are going to see cause to brag on themselves whether the stats rise, stagnate, or fall.
it's built into their self-conceits.
here's the menu you get when you create a user account on that site.. .
I know people are concerned about adding positively to JW stats on the site that shall not be named, but I don't think the argument is a valid one, because they are going to see cause to brag on themselves whether the stats rise, stagnate, or fall. It's built into their self-conceits. Here's the menu you get when you create a user account on that site.
If the only thing you had to judge the cult by was this screen, what would you think was probably very important to them about their interactions with validated users accounts?
'Announcements' may as well be labeled 'Find a Propaganda Center Near You or Donate' ... here's all I found when I clicked on Announcements:
Seems to me that donations is what they most want from their registered users. But that's just a feeling I got.
Under their Terms of Use, Medical Section, I found this:
They seem a bit worried about lawsuits, to me.
.
this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.
disgusting.
For the record, in the year before I left the cult (2004) the only "charitable" works the religion cited to secure its charitable organization status from the United States government was "Education."
They do not offer education as a charitable work, rather, they offer propaganda.
Unless that has changed, they would not be among the charities Kramer referenced. It is a common fallacy for people to assume that JWs are charitable in much the same way as other religions, but JW literature actually scorns other religions for creating "rice Christians" out of the people they are charitable toward.
It isn't easy, at all, to reconcile life as a JW with chapters four and five of Acts, or with any of the many times Jesus urged charity with material goods.
.
this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.
disgusting.
My answer to question 3:- I have no idea if kramer’s anecdotal evidence is true [of JWs] ...
Giles, this is correct.
However, I have no reason to doubt [he was referring to what he has seen from JWs] ...
This is incorrect. The cult literally teaches that doing good to the materially less fortunate is only a very temporary fix, and that time and resources would be better utilized in the preaching and teaching or in funding the worldwide work of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you are aware that is what the cult teaches, you have very sound reason to doubt Kramer.
What's more, if you believe these 5 JWs in the photograph are typical "faithful JWs" who, at very least, follow the encouragement received from the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses while they are in each other's presence, you have every reason in the world to seriously doubt the veracity of Kramer's claim as applicable to JWs. His claim was not specifically about JWs (if you notice carefully). His claim was specifically about "the charities," which explicitly disqualifies JWs as being referenced. Kramer may not know that concept would not include JWs, but whether or not Kramer knows that is immaterial ... because you know it.
... although it would require further verification before I could even think about passing judgement on the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that photograph.
"Further verification" of what? That they have invaded this homeless man's personal space?
M'kay, if you say so.
If we assume for a moment that kramer’s anecdotal evidence is true [of JWs] ...
... then we're doing so by ignoring the very sound reasons to doubt that he was talking explicitly about what he's seen from local JWs.
If we assume for a moment that kramer’s anecdotal evidence ... is applicable to the 5 JWs in that photograph ...
1) Why should anyone assume that Kramer's anecdotal "evidence" that we inexplicably assumed is true of his local JWs, is also applicable to the 5 JWs in that photograph?
2) If Kramer's anecdote is true of his local JWs—as unlikely as that is—then the 5 JWs in that photograph spoke to the man and brought him coffee, and callously invaded his personal space to engage in their cult propaganda work. The homeless man's choices were more limited than their choices.
The JWs weren't choosing between rain and crowding under this man's shelter, they were choosing between crowding under this man's shelter and abandoning the work of spreading their cult propaganda on that rainy day. They chose callously. The picture shows that calloused choice they made.
You guys sure are hasty to judge people for their social media opinions. I recommend you and Drearyweather avoid Facebook and Twitter, dare I say, religiously.
.
this was taken in london yesterday by a twitter user still managing his fade so i can't be more specific than that.
disgusting.
I have seen lives wrecked because of this, and that I try to caution anyone who does it.
Drearyweather,
I have been investigated by two elders for someone claiming that I was a spy for the Federal Government, sent in to monitor the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have been formally counseled by an elder (with another elder present) for making comments that were over the heads of some (him, in that case), I have been investigated by two elders for a report they'd received about me not correcting a 19 year old who claimed he'd been given a foregleam of what life would be like in paradise, and all manner of other stupid and petty ridiculousness.
I'm not surprised that you were an elder.
Please, explain your statement above. Whose life have you seen ruined over claiming, on a social media site, that they knew what was happening in a scene from a picture?
I strongly suspect you have overstated your case. I invite you to explain why I should accept that you have not done so.
More worse, we become what the WT wants us to become.
We became that the moment we left their cult, Drearyweather. A worldly person. They do not need us to be anything other than that to shun us for the sin of having once been a JW.
I do not do or avoid doing any thing at all based on how the WT would perceive it, nor based on how any of Jehovah's Witnesses or former Jehovah's Witnesses would perceive it.
If you feel otherwise, then more power to you.
Maybe I was unclear in the comment you responded to, but I thought I made it extremely clear that I feel otherwise, and think otherwise, and that I don't appreciate anyone (especially, former or current JW elders) condescendingly preening authority they don't have over others.
I do not need your permission to feel otherwise, and that was my point. Your offered perspective is that judging opinions offered about a picture is a valid thing to do based on the Slippery Slope Fallacy:
... by that reasoning you can excuse any behaviour that an ex-jw displays towards a JW. Because surge of emotions can get better of us.
No, Drearyweather, by my reasoning you have no position from which to judge the opinions or emotions of others. No one "wronged" any person shown in that picture by making a personal observation of their own perspective on what the picture depicts. Get down off that high horse you're still riding on, you're still running roughshod over people, pressing them into your personal mold of "ethical behaviour."
I lived daily in fear of "what if" while in that cult. I will not silently tolerate people seeking to create that same vibe out here, where worldly people live. This isn't the cult.
just wondering how many here have read "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand, and what you thought about it ?.
Consider: Had Galt not been the one to arrive at what the character called "Objectivism" but, instead, that concept had been arrived at and adopted 100 years earlier ... Galt would likely have never been permitted to go to University, or to have any opportunity for advancement beyond his father's garage.
Once he succeeded, personally, he adopted an ideology that permitted him to comfortably shut the door behind himself. Selfish vanity.
just wondering how many here have read "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand, and what you thought about it ?.
In my opinion, Ayn's work is a welcome aid to the ultra-wealthy who pretend to the world that they have earned what they have acquired.
The ultra-wealthy have leveraged political will to create a Flood Up Economy that automatically becomes a Feudal system of Corporate Serfdom with perceptible alacrity, they have misnamed that economic model a "Trickle Down Economy," they have deliberately conflated the terms "earning" and "income" in common usage in our language, and they now argue that everyone should be able to "keep what they earn," by which they mean, everyone should be able to keep their income whether or not they have earned it.
There is no single human on the face of planet earth that earns $1,000,000 in a single year from their work product. That person does not exist.
There are many humans who have annual incomes far in excess of $1,000,000.
Ayn focuses on the character of Galt, a working stiff, who succeeds through access to a quality education, personal innovation, personal ingenuity, a desire to better humanity, and thousands of working stiffs, much like his father, hired as laborers to manufacture his inventions, without whom, his innovations and ingenuity would be just shy of worthless, if not never sold.
I found Atlas Shrugged to be offensive to the idea of rational ethics in its myopic perspectives on personal worth.
It advances the false, ethically reprehensible idea that it does not matter how or why someone has achieved success, only whether they have done so. Galt does not care what would happen to other humans as a result of his professed "Objectivism" which is actually only a piss-poor mask for selfish vanity. He lacks the perspective required for valid Objectivism, as does every human.
It's an exceptional and indelicate conceit Rand offered, pretty to look at only until it becomes reality.
Paul Ryan is a huge fan. Really. He considers Rand's work to be a very significant influence in his life. I don't consider that a positive endorsement, but do consider that support for my perspective that Ayn has offered base conceit and vanity and gave it a lofty sounding name.
regional convention in greenville sc june 28-30...avg about 5800...33 baptized.peak attendance for the rc was sunday am 6250 for public talk.do the math!
!.
It is important to remember the bizarre effects of looming war talk on former JWs who are still mentally in. They probably think Daniel 8 is all about Trump and the END IS NIGH! (... again ... maybe ... but for sure sometime ... eventually ... unless JWs are wrong, in which case, they don't wanna be right!)
Little do they suspect that the end is Nye!
i wrote a letter some time ago and to my surprise and despite the elders manual saying that a letter is sufficient for establishing 'wrongdoing' they would not announce me as no longer a jw until i met with 2 elders to verbally acknowledge that the letter was written by me.. .
well yesterday i met with them and the meeting lasted 2 minutes.
"did you write the letter?
Congratulations on free breathing, Jared!
