Posts by Journeyman

21

Oral and Anal Sex flip flop? March 2025 Announcements and Reminders

by ukpimo in

just in.

a jaw dropping announcements and reminders for elders this month.

how can you serve as an elder and believe this organization is spirit directed after reading this letter?.

Journeyman

It's amazing how long they agonized over how to deal with something that could have been easily dealt with by minding their own business and staying out of the marital bedroom.

Well said.

"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Matthew 19:6/Mark 10:9 (NIV)

How much more intimate could two people become than "one flesh"? So of who else's business is it what sexual acts they mutually agree to engage in with each other? "No one", the verse clearly shows.

Were they 'scriptural principles' being expressed in the 1983 article or the 2025 article?

Good question. I don't know about the 1983 article - I haven't looked it up - but I would imagine it was more proscriptive back then. The recent 2025 article actually says nothing particularly helpful anyway. There's just a footnote that says:

The Bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean. A Christian couple must make decisions that reflect their resolve to honor Jehovah, to please each other, and to maintain a clean conscience. Generally speaking, a couple would not discuss with others this intimate aspect of their marriage.

Hardly much help to elders really. Better to just say something like "don't involve the elders in this aspect of your marriage unless there is an issue of non-consent", as there's not much "advice" they can - or should - provide in general. And of course from a secular viewpoint, if non-consensual sex acts in marriage are illegal in the country (as they are now in most advanced nations) that should be a matter for authorities trained in supporting victims of sex crime, not a bunch of unqualified "elders".

The only points I can make out that might provide the basis for advice are:

Paragraph 9: "Being sexually demeaning. Some husbands pressure their wife to engage in sexual acts that are demeaning and that make her feel unclean or unloved." That's linked to Ephesians 5 about husbands loving their wives as their own bodies, and

Paragraph 17: "He will not pressure her to engage in sexual acts that make her feel uncomfortable, that are demeaning, or that bother her conscience. He too will strive to maintain a clean conscience before Jehovah." The verse used there is Acts 24:16 about keeping a clean conscience.

It's true there is a significant strand of porn these days which focuses on degradation and humiliation, and the extreme forms of BDSM would seem to fall into that - many "worldly" authorities too are worried about the rise of those, for example with schoolkids now viewing stuff like that and thinking that's normal sexual activity. But beyond that, it doesn't really rule anything out. Certainly not "typical" oral or anal sex.

3097

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

The above link includes this:

Which according to Google translates as:

THE COURSE OF THE PROCEDURE

Date of initiation of procedure - 02.05.2022
Date of last award - 13.06.2024 - judge Ljuba Crnković
Date of the decision -
Date of shipment -
Date of archiving -
Term of keeping files -

(Edited due to accidental double post)

3097

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

The link for his case in the Croatian legal system is dead.

Interesting! According to this page, there were still no updates since the last submission and the change of judge in the case last summer?

https://e-predmet.pravosudje.hr/predmet?sud=5044&upisnik=K&predmet=252&godina=2022

10

Why GB Distorts the Story of Job

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/lpwusxk8ckc?si=d4nb1ciwccql8dox.

a man, like new gb member jody jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 rolex, freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate new york—pontificating about job’s suffering.

it’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.

Journeyman

In Job 1:6-12, Satan, not God, initiates the challenge. God’s response—“Have you considered my servant Job?”—isn’t a gleeful setup for a torture session but a recognition of Job’s existing faithfulness (Job 1:8). God isn’t itching to test someone; He’s responding to Satan’s accusation that Job’s righteousness is merely a byproduct of his prosperity (Job 1:9-10). God’s permission for the test (Job 1:12, 2:6) comes with limits—first sparing Job’s life, then his body (initially)—showing restraint, not relish.

To be fair, that's always how the JWs historically taught the account, at least back in the far-off days before Herd, Lett and the rest of GB2.0/2,5 anyway!

I hadn't watched the full Jody Jedele talk but my curiousity was piqued so just now I checked it out. I didn't detect at all that Jelene's talk "portrays God as a 'nasty, vindictive, exacting' deity" or that Job should've suffered more or anything like that.

However, I did note he made one glaring error about Job at about 0:50, which in doing so undermines Job's faithful example.

Job did not "blame" or "criticise" Jehovah as Jedele claims. The account at Job 2:10 clearly says Job did not sin with his lips in saying what he did - including the statement that he believed God was the source of his suffering - so that proves that Job wasn't "blaming" God in his heart, he simply didn't understand the full picture, as raymond frantz pointed out (and the JWs have always traditionally taught).

Job's error that needed correcting was over-defending himself NOT "criticising" Jehovah.

Jedele even contradicts himself in this point when he admits around the 2:30 mark that Job "loved Jehovah and didn't want to break his integrity".

I've noticed this a lot in recent talks by GB members. They make direct statements about Bible characters or events that are contradicted by scriptures and even by their own comments later on, betraying a shallowness of thought, preparation and research that the older generation of speakers never demonstrated.

The speculatory bit near the end about how and why Jehovah used Job's name rather than waiting until Moses(? Not sure even of what the relevance of that is supposed to be) is odd too and - in line with what I mentioned above - completely out of kilter with the account in Job as far as I can see - but the end result point about letting Jehovah train us as humans and to counter Satan's attacks is still broadly a valid one, it could just have been made in a much more scripturally consistent way in line with the actual account.

It really does seem these days that the current crop of GB like to add their own pet ideas and comments or illustrations even when they don't fit the scriptures at all. Seems symptomatic of a greater or lesser form of egotism to me. Obviously, Splane is one of the worst for this kind of Biblical "ad-libbing", but Lett has often been guilty of flights of fancy too, and others. They've all clearly forgotten (or disregarded) the admonition at Revelation 22:18, 19 about not adding to, or taking away, anything in scripture!

44

New GB member Judy Jedele critizing Job's "humility" while wearing $20,000 Rolex, gold cuff links, coloured suit. Incredible!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

i swear, you can't make this shit up!

for years and years growing up in this cult, i had to constantly hear from my parents, from the stage, in the literature, about "keeping your eye simple", not being "materialistic", not "having a showy display of one's wealth.

" of course, this never seemed to apply to the wealthy business owning elduhzzzz who ran and lorded it out over the congregations, but i digress.

Journeyman

This raises a good point which, IMO, validates once again actual Bible principles vs the WT interpretation and implementation of them.

The Bible makes it clear that it is the underlying materialism itself - not the valuable objects - that are the problem. In doing so, it encourages Christians to actually go to the root of the issue and deal with it there. If you do not desire these things in the first place, then you won't be put in a compromising situation.

Now look at the GB. They become caught in the following dilemma while recommending others should "keep your eye simple" and not pursue "material things":

1) You purchase expensive items for yourself because you desire them.

Do you wear/use them while preaching to the "flock" live or on broadcasts? If so, you appear at best insensitive to the relative poverty of your followers, and at worst, a hypocrite.

Do you decide NOT to wear/use them while preaching so as not to offend others? Then again, you appear a hypocrite. If you are seen wearing/using items you are not prepared to wear/use in front of followers, people will inevitably ask "why?"

2) You are given expensive items as gifts and keep them for yourself because you desire them.

Do you wear/use them? If so, you again risk appearing greedy and hypocritical. People will rightly wonder why such items haven't been "donated" for the worldwide work, as many others are expected to do with their "valuable things".

Either way, choosing to wear/use such items any time, wherever they came from, compromises your position.

What if you decide to keep the valuable items without wearing/using them? What's the point? What motive would you have except to take them out sometimes and gloat over the fact you have them? Would it not be better to sell them if you are not going to use them for the purpose they are intended?

There are also other risks. Having those expensive items around you becomes all about image and vanity. It also means you become afraid of losing them, perhaps to the extent of being mentally dependent on having them. Like Gollum with his "precious" ring!

So if you are supposed to be advocates for "keeping your eye simple", the only solution to putting yourself in that situation is to take the original scriptural line and not desire what is materially excessive in the first place. As WingCommander said, you can wear a watch that does the job and still has a good inherent value without it being a massively expensive status symbol. Likewise with the kind of clothes you wear, car you drive, and so on.

As Tonus added, it's about the motive and the example you set (two things which again, they are constantly counselling the R&F about) and it always looks bad when the GB appear like this while promoting "self-sacrifice" and "modesty" and showing pictures of the elderly and little children putting their last pennies in a contribution box.

13

Don't you just love LITERATURE truths?

by BoogerMan in

as jw's we swallowed such concoctions for years - without a single scripture provided as proof!.

w71 12/15 p. 759 - "apparently, the apostle peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of pentecost of 33 c.e., and the disciple james, the half brother of jesus christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in acts of apostles.

from this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated.".

Journeyman

...I hated all the statements they made without a single scripture to back them up..

There were always so many weaselly statements like "evidently", "apparently", "it would appear", etc, that the Society would use to fill in when the Bible wasn't explicit about something but they wanted to draw their own conclusions.

I notice the Org today uses these phrases less often, but in some ways they're almost worse now as they just simply assert things without even using those passive "alarm" phrases that the wary can watch out for.

I always regretted the ending of the congregation BoEs having a rotating chairman. It always worked well where I was , it gave bros. experience and stopped one man having “my congregation

Yes, of the three options - a single congregation elder/servant, a body led permanently by one elder, or a body led by a rotation of elders - the latter is the least likely to allow endemic corruption or "rule" by one man. As you say, it also shares knowledge and experience. Funny how anything that seems a more sensible idea often gets strangled out of the organisation over time!

21

Is Jesus a Created Being? Debate with a Pastor

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/ro6q_osgkns?si=hyxualluhruwvjnb.

—colossians 1:15 from the nwt says it plain as day: “he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation.” that’s not vague; it’s got a punch.

“firstborn” and “creation” sit side by side, and in greek, that second word is “ktisis,” which means the physical stuff—trees, stars, you name it.

Journeyman

The JW tunes out, their brain becomes zombified and the complete lack of interest they have in debating is obvious.
There is something really un-satisfying watching them feebly defend their views.

To be fair, that never used to be the way with most JWs, as many on here can attest. The average JW used to be trained and encouraged to really defend their beliefs. Of course many used to do it in strange ways, but at least they would attempt it, not just fold up and run away or say something like "just look on our website"!

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the opposite either - the kind of aggressive "street preaching" type of characters who get in your face with their beliefs. There rarely feels like anything Christian about them, they often just seem out to win arguments and score points, especially ones with a Trinitarian background.

JWs are supposed to be "ready to make a defence", not go on the attack. However, it's hard to defend if you've not been properly trained and practicing in the first place, as is often the case with JWs today.

It's rather like the concept of martial arts: on the one hand, real martial artists say you should only use the power for defensive means, not aggression, but of course some do use it that way. But in order to be ready to defend yourself, you still need to train and practice regularly.

Most of today's crop of JWs have little "training" and certainly do not really practice defending their beliefs (although to be fair, they are encouraged to do so in the meetings), so it's no surprise they are ill-prepared for many "preachers" that might approach them (whether street pastors, born agains and Seventh Day Adventists, or even other faiths like Muslims)

The pastor’s got charisma, but his argument’s a house of cards.

In this video, although he isn't aggressive in his approach, the "pastor" doesn't bring anything new. Those of us who were JWs "trained" years ago have heard all the standard trinitarian texts and concepts he claims here, and as stated by raymond frantz, it's not correct or persuasive at all to anyone who really knows their stuff.

And as ever, one has to ask: What is actually his motive for approaching these JWs, and how should they respond in the light of that? If his motive is one of questioning because he wants to know an answer (either for himself, or just because he's curious what JWs believe), then fine - a discussion can proceed. But if he is convinced of what he already believes and is simply trying to change the mind of the Witnesses, what's the point? Jesus did not continue trying to change or persuade the minds of those who were firmly decided in what they believed - whether the Pharisees, Sadducees, and so on, or even those in the crowds who did not really want to follow him. So from either perspective (his or the JWs) once it's clear the other "side" is firmly decided in their viewpoint, there is no reason to carry on.

I've terminated many such conversations after a few minutes and exchanges of Bible verses, when it becomes clear that is why the person is there - usually they will also admit they are a priest/pastor, they are trying to "save" me, or whatever. They often also start increasing the tension, such as was highlighted here by talking about "heresy" or they may begin to use name-calling or insults. Again, those are further signals that the person does not intend to be reasonable.

If neither side is going to change, then there is no point continuing. It's also why I largely avoid the interminable debates over the trinity on these pages too.

Just as any person approached by a JW has a right to say "no thank you" if they are convinced that Witnesses are wrong, so too a JW can refuse to continue a conversation if a person who has approached them is just there to argue.

11

King of the North / South predictions

by Gorb in

jw
friends

during my jw.org lifetime since 1970 (2008 we faded out of it all) i read and heared a lot of the king of the north and the south.. but about an aliance between the two kings, that was not a jw.org scenario, wasn't it?.

g..

Journeyman

Ecclesiastes 12:12-14 KJV. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

It's funny, they used to use that scripture sometimes to claim that secular research and study (eg: at university) was pointless, but never realised the irony that at the same time they were producing - and changing - book after book of their own.

However, I've not heard that verse used for ages now. Probably they realised how well it applies to the JW org itself, especially since they change their publications even more now, and did a wholesale dump of their "old light" just a few years ago! Now almost all the publications printed before 2010 are just so much waste paper and never referred to.

Anyone who has been in the congregation for more than about 10 years can now look back and see literature they studied diligently and were told was vital "spiritual food" has been consigned to the dustbin of history and forgotten. The Daniel's Prophecy book of the 1990s was the last one to outline in detail their beliefs of who the Kings of the North and South were through history, and it came out just after the fall of the USSR so it ended with a comment about how Russia was the latest King of the North until that point, but who knows who it might be in future?

Since then, they've not revisited the KoN/KoS history in detail, although I seem to recall there was some article recently that pretty much undid a lot of the precise explanations given in the Daniel book by saying something like "we don't know what the identities of the two kings were at every point in history, but we do know the KoN and KoS today are Russia and the UK/USA". Typical of their recent erasure of the past teachings from the Franz era.

23

In the past 24 hours, the world has been breaking into fragments. What will be the Outcome??

by liam in

new german chancellor merz has won the election.

trump congratulated his victory but the response was not what trump expected.

merz condemned america, saying that america seemed to be aligning with russia.. he also expressed doubts about nato’s future.. he is now advocating that germany must gain independence from usa.

Journeyman

That video is a classic! And here's Noah 10 years on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKR9yFz0btk

With all that's going on in the world right now, this is a brief moment of wholesomeness! (Well, ok, apart from the appearance of Ellen DeGeneres)

3097

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

The kind of trauma she endured from that vermin publicly and privately I think it will take a lifetime to recover.

The cost to her resulted in the loss of her anonymity, and this is due to her own choices as well as her husband’s big fat mouth.

The more I think back about it, the more I believe she* was a victim of long-term domestic abuse (emotionally at least). As I recall, her first appearance that I saw on his channel was when Lloyd was going on some kind of family road trip with her, and with their young girls in the back seats.

She was quite quiet and spoke cautiously, which he "explained" as due to her not enjoying being on camera and preferring to be a private person, but I have often wondered since whether it was also that she was uncomfortable having her conversation with him recorded because she was concerned about what he might say to her that he would then share with the world. She was probably already used to being belittled, patronised and gaslit by him by then, especially on subjects where he thinks he is superior, like JWs and theology (who am I kidding, he thought he was superior in everything!)

Times like that now seem like staged interactions where he was bringing her out of her box like a puppet to dance for him, and to play the loyal "wifey" and mother to his kids, so he could project a squeaky-clean family man image to the public.

(* I've decided from now on I'm going to stop using her name if I refer to her, to help reduce the chances of it appearing linked to Lloyd in future post searches, etc. We all know who we're talking about.)