Posts by Journeyman

18

Were JW Celebrities Ever An Asset To The Organisation?

by NotFormer in

jw
friends

just wondering if the rich celebrities that occasionally were aligned with the wt gave enough to the 'tower to be a worthwhile presence within the organisation?.

my gut instinct is: "no".

i imagine that the jackson family gave a fair bit, but it was obviously never enough to buy michael the right to be held as being in good standing.

Journeyman

I agree with the OP and all that Vidiot said earlier.

Unlike just about any other religious group - and certainly in contrast with the likes of Scientology - the JW org has nothing to gain from celebrity endorsement and has never really had a comfortable relationship with celebs.

By its very nature, "true" JW lifestyle and theology leaves no room for celebrity culture and status. The very fact they celebrate the leaving behind of high-profile careers and highlight that members should be "no part of the world" heavily mitigates against any sort of celebrity culture in the org. You would certainly never get celebrity endorsements, like famous JWs appearing on the platform at a convention to flash a toothy smile and show off their latest suit/dress! The very idea is ridiculous!

The only JW celebrities where there is no discomfort caused to either them or to the org, are the ones who are low-key and frankly fairly anonymous, like Hank Marvin, George Benson, etc. The loud, proud, flamboyant or high-profile types (like MJ and Prince used to be) have never really benefited the org, nor did they themselves benefit from association with it.

He spoke out against the practice of when a G.B member took to the Platform at a big Convention, the audience would clap them vigorously , before they had spoken a word, dad said that was idolizing them.
Later in life I saw first hand how J.W's sucked up to, and fawned over, prominent Bethel guys, and how those guys, and the G.B are the same, absolutely LOVED the adoration !

Yes, unfortunately, in the absence of a 'real' celebrity culture, the GB turned into the 'celebrities' (along with certain prominent 'helpers'), and that's got much worse since the arrival of the awful JW Broadcasting. The only decent feature of JWB is the ability to show different congregations from around the world, but the high-profile of the GB and their cheesy "we all love you verrry much", coupled with Disney-fied cartoon Bible stories and increasingly desperate use of dramatised scenes is all pretty tiresome.

2953

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

There is no such thing as Universal Basic Income here in the UK at the moment. There's a lot of talk about introducing it, and some pilot programmes proposed, but the benefit for people on low incomes who have not paid enough National Insurance contributions is Universal Credit.

Universal Credit is not very generous especially by the standards of what Lloyd will be used to, and one of the rules for eligibility is that you must have £16,000 in savings or less, which I doubt is true of him given his number of patrons (even though they're falling) and his regular spending on holidays. Here are the current rates, and from this he would only get about £400-800 per month. https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

To put that in context, the average monthly rent for a 1-bed flat is between £600-800, even outside London and South-East England. In the SE, it's well above that. So even if he gets Housing Benefit to help with his rent, it won't cover it all and he will barely have anything left.

Even if he claims some kind of disability, as a single, middle-aged, white British-born male he will have no priorities when it comes to further benefits, housing or anything like that.

For this reason, coupled with the fact that there are people over here who he would not want to encounter, and there may yet be legal difficulties for him if he settles back here, I really do not believe he would return to the UK permanently unless it was completely unavoidable.

43

How do JWs know that less than 150,000 Christians existed before the 20th Century?

by Vanderhoven7 in

according to watchtower, only anointed christians existed between the first and 20th centuries.

the great crowd of other sheep only began forming after the 20th century started.. how do they support this conclusion?

.

Journeyman

For me, I can see the point that all of the 144,000 have not yet been sealed, otherwise the end would have come by now, but that does not mean that there were never many faithful Christians between the Apostles and the Bible Students, as the org has claimed in the past. They confuse the number of believers with the number of ones bought from the earth to rule in heaven. The two numbers are clearly not the same and never have been.

The GB, while claiming to leave "matters to Jehovah", are still presumptuous about who they believe goes to heaven. They assume, firstly, that all their 'anointed' definitely will, but are much more coy about the possibility that any others from history will, or have done. For example, they often extol individuals from history who were 'martyrs' for Bible truths, like Wycliffe or Tyndale, etc, yet they are very hesitant to say those ones may have a heavenly resting place, yet they are adamant that their own organisation's leaders definitely do!

But scripturally speaking, that gift is not for men to decide, but only the Father.

To me, it's perfectly possible for there to have been hundreds of thousands of faithful Christians through history (by that I mean, honest-hearted though not worshipping correctly), yet only some of those selected by God to form part of the 144,000, because he's not just looking for being "faithful", but for more than that. And besides, it's His decision, not ours. Only he can read the entirety of a person's character, faith and so on, and he knows the best individuals to take to heaven to rule.

It may well be, for example, that the list of characteristics given of those ones in Revelation are literal - that they are virgins (never having had a mate means they were fully attentive on God all the time, without distraction - like Jesus) and they were executed or martyred for their faith (to surrender your life for your love of Christ would be the ultimate sacrifice, just as Jesus himself gave for us), possibly even that they are all male and are ultimately descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel (not that they would all be Jewish, but their lineage would eventually trace back that far).

After all, Revelation makes it clear these ones who become heavenly kings have these characteristics, and all attempts to explain symbolic versions of those qualities often appear forced, whereas to literally fill those characteristics would be completely in keeping with scriptural history, rather as Jesus fitted the foretold Messiah both symbolically and in terms of behaviour and heredity.

Individuals are invited to heaven not just for being 'faithful', so it's impossible to claim there were never more than a handful of 'acceptable' Christians before 1914. No human has the right to assert that - that's entirely in God's hands to determine. One of the reasons for the resurrection and Thousand Year reign is to enable previously "honest-hearted" ones to be restored to life and grow to full knowledge and perfection, so how can the org know that there may not be thousands - maybe even millions - from history who identified as Christians who God will allow to live again in Paradise because their faith was genuine, even if it wasn't all "according to accurate knowledge"? (And even today, how do we know whose faith is entirely "according to accurate knowledge"?)

39

Faithful Slave Appointment: What are the assumptions of Watchtower Matthew 24:45-47 Eschatology?

by Vanderhoven7 in

text: matthew 24:45-47.

45 “who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?

46 it will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.

Journeyman

To get back on track to the original question, the thing that always made me suspicious of the GB interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47 is that they have always stated that Jesus' warning of an "evil slave" in the rest of the chapter was not literal - that he was not saying that there was a risk the "slave" could turn bad.

That appears to completely contradict the pattern set by all the other parables and illustrations Jesus gave. Wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, broad road and narrow road, wise virgins and foolish virgins, house built on rock vs house build on sand, etc - every one of those was a warning of the potential or danger of choosing to be on the wrong "side" by making bad or foolish choices. Yet mysteriously, the one parable that did not contain that message is the one about the faithful slave? How convenient.

Oh no, they say - the "slave" has proved itself faithful and so could never turn evil!

Then what was the whole point of the illustration in the first place? Jesus was clearly warning the "slave" (whether we identify the slave as an individual or a group - and that's another question) that he/they could go either way: do as the master wanted and be faithful, or become lazy and arrogant and "beat their fellow slaves", for which they will be later judged as "evil" when the master returns. There is no lesson or warning and the whole thing becomes pointless if there was never any risk or chance that the "slave" could become corrupted or turn evil.

Instead, the clear warning is that anyone wishing to identify themselves as that slave MUST be doing what the master wants in serving the "household", or risk being judged "evil" on His return. But no, that's too stark a message for the GB to tolerate and it would hold them too accountable for their liking, so they choose to claim the master has already come, observed them and declared them faithful - with no real scriptural proof, and in a way that is very dangerous to presume. By disregarding Jesus' warning and claiming he has already returned and declared them righteous, they in fact make themselves even more likely to be identified as the "evil slave", because it makes them too self-confident and presumptuous of their own position. and adamant that the Master will bless them when He returns "in Kingdom power"!

It also interestingly parallels Matthew 22:11. where a wedding guest presumes he's entitled to be at the feast, but is thrown out by the King at the last minute when He arrives and finds the guest not properly 'dressed'. There is a presumption among JWs, from the top downwards, that all GB members (and anyone else declared 'anointed') are definitely heaven-bound and certain to become part of the Bride of Christ, even though that privilege is not for men to claim, but only God. (That also links to my view of the GB interpretation of the 144,000 too, which is being discussed on this thread).

136

List of UK Travelling Overseers in 2013

by soiledumpling in

hi pepeep am attempting to get a current list of uk travelling overseers.

left 4 years ago and have heard rumours of many new ones.

.

Journeyman

This is an old thread, but it mentioned Doug Turnbull who some on here knew (or knew of) so I thought I'd post here that I heard that the pioneer sister he married then dumped (causing the big scandal back in the day) died last month at the age of 90. She was still a pioneer right up until recently when her health took a turn.

Other names on this thread I recognise:
Anton Irons
Mike Spurr
Mike Purbrick (universally loathed, it seems!)
David Rastall
Dennis Dutton
Mel Parkin
Ron Drage
David Algar
Alan Stokes
.. and more.

So many memories, so many lives.. slipped or slipping away.
"Time and unforeseen occurrence befalls them all" indeed!

2953

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

Lloyd will always be a liability to any organisation or group he is in - whether it's the JWs, the Atheist Alliance, the Croatian Musician's Union or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club - because Lloyd is only interested in advancing the opinions and desires of one person: himself.

48

Even with recent changes it’s a struggle to get people to attend

by hoser in

jw
friends

the kingdom hall is still empty.

even with amalgamation of 2 congregations.

the elders are handling the microphones and there was only one comment from zoom at the watchtower.

Journeyman

Ever think maybe WatchTower is actually "Babylon the Great", and the people getting away from her detestable behaviour are the ones being sifted? The irony!

For some time I've certainly thought it's arrogant of the GB to assume the JW org would not also be tested and need purifying. Of course, they would never admit it, as they claim it was somehow all done by 1919, but all the scriptural evidence is that even if an org is supported by God it gets more sifting and testing.

The nation of Israel was constantly in need of cleansing. The first century Christian congregation had "certain men" that had slipped in, and misunderstanding and internal wrangling like circumcision, and who was "best", and whether or not the resurrection had happened, and many other controversies (plus of course individuals among them who were practicing badness like immorality, stealing, etc, that needed weeding out). Even in Revelation when the congregations with the lampstands are examined, Jesus basically gives a number of the warnings that they need to sort themselves out before he comes.

The principle used to be mentioned that "judgement starts with the house of God". Funny how that verse - along with many others which should prompt honest self-examination by the GB, helpers and other prominent men in the org - gets overlooked these days!

Just look even at their most recent example, with the lack of humility over the subject of beards: no apology for error, no recognition that it was a false issue that never had a scriptural basis, and worse, they somehow make it out to be God's volte-face by Lett claiming that now "Jehovah dignifies us with the choice for each brother to decide for himself whether to grow a beard". Err.. Christians have always had that freedom, it's only been a certain group of men on earth who have made an issue out of it up until now!

--

Back on the main subject though: In my area, meeting attendance is moderate. It's still not what it was before COVID, but I have to say it's not dropped through the floor. In fact it's gradually been improving, although there's still about a quarter of the congregation regularly on Zoom.

Attendance for in-person ministry groups, however, is way down, and those that do attend seem to do a lot less and be a lot less 'zealous' than we all used to be (house to house is usually just a few doors then go separate ways on "return calls"). Most publishers at Zoom ministry meetings will just get their territory and disappear off shortly after the prayer, so you have no idea if they're writing, calling on doors or not even doing anything!

41

Geoffrey Jackson goatiegate Part 2

by Tahoe in

from ske graduation this past weekend.

(sent from a pimi).

from ske on zoom: .

Journeyman

My underlying thought for the previous comment is, could this quick adoption of facial hair (if genuine) be an indication that Jackson is actually one of the key players behind a lot of the major organisational changes lately?

He's been a more low-profile character in recent years, compared to the likes of Sanderson (and of course the always-OTT Lett, who seemed back to his previous form of exaggerated delivery with his recent broadcast justifying the beard change), and as a result not many have considered him a significant 'power behind the throne', but perhaps this is a sign that Jackson is actually more influential in tearing up the old GB1.0 rulebook than had been assumed? (And possibly also more responsible for the dumping of AMIII, too?)

41

Geoffrey Jackson goatiegate Part 2

by Tahoe in

from ske graduation this past weekend.

(sent from a pimi).

from ske on zoom: .

Journeyman

Rockin' that goatee, he reminded me a bit of the veteran musician Peter Gabriel...

On a more serious note... if this is real, it's interesting he's grown a beard so soon. Was it simply the "set the lead" for the congregations to show that it's ok now, or is this in fact an indication that Jackson was always against the "no beard" nonsense? (For the record, I agree with StephaneLaliberte that the fuss about beards was always ridiculous.)

2953

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

Allegedly questionable activities in the UK, Croatia and Thailand, illegal hallucinogens in Canada - our man is building up quite a list of countries where he might one day end up being on the run from the law! 🏃 🚓 🤣