Posts by Journeyman

I know of at least three brothers who do not want to become elders, not due to a lack of capacity or availability, but due to a lack of agreement with the teachings.

True, and not only that, but also all the additional stuff which brothers are increasingly seeing as internal "admin" or "politics", not necessary spiritual activity. I'm thinking of all the jostling for position between elders, ministerial servants and pioneers; the constant obsession with doing more... more... more... and giving more materially; the other obsession with avoiding anything that looks even slightly of seeking material comfort or stability (better job, promotion, higher education or training) or of allowing personal time for yourself and your family - not to mention all the admin work demanded by the Org for elders to do regarding talks, accounts, congregational reports and activities, cleaning, maintenance, etc.

Few of these things are truly rooted in the Scriptures or essential for a Christian congregation to exist, and so many brothers are understandably seeing them as unnecessarily burdensome and are choosing to opt out.

11

Making Friends with Babylon the Great: Watchtower’s New Goal

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/iv_uifab-qg?si=ttnajiuizmtqlte9.

it began during the last annual meeting of 2014 and now is trikling down to their watchtower magazines, this new "live and let live" attitude towards people of other faiths, or as they were known as babylon the great soon to be dead in the hands of god members.but it is a new different story, so let's read paragraph 15 from study article 15:.

"jehovah is kind to both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Journeyman

This is nothing less than WT admittling that they never believed the old filty whore schtick about churches, just as they never believed the fear porn about the UN being the wild beast of Satan when they agreed to support UN objectives while they were listed as a UN NGO.

It's not quite as simple as that. It's quite possible for someone to believe two or more contradictory things - most of us do in some aspect or other of our life, whether religion, politics, our working life or whatever.

So within the JW org there are those, from top to bottom, who DO believe (and have always done so) that all other religions are "Babylon the Harlot", and that the UN is the prophesied "image of the Beast". The official teaching is still that all political elements will come together to attack JWs, so although it is less overtly stated that the UN will lead that attack, it is clearly still doctrine that the majority, if not all, of nations will come together to fight against God, which is basically the UN by any other name (or its successor, should there be such an organisation). JW teaching is still clear that the UN as an organisation is heading into oblivion because it fundamentally opposes God.

However, what IS happening is a lack of unity and clarity over many beliefs that used to be "set in stone". This is because the apparently ironclad certainty of Fred Franz's teachings before the 1990s has broken down and there is no longer such total consensus from the top down. I think it is these divisions and schisms that have led to the radical changes we have seen since the 2010s - "new" NWT bible, dumping of "types and anti-types", videos everywhere, JW ~~televangelist~~ Broadcasting channel, "original" songs, changes on ministry and fashions, and who knows what else to come - and was possibly even behind AMIII's departure from the GB.

Where it's going, who knows, but sooner or later the Org is going to get itself openly caught in a contradictory "Catch 22" kind of bind over its past, present and potential future teachings. It's already approaching that with the whole supposed justification for the total "divine authority" of the GB. The cracks have started to show since the Australian Royal Commission and then the WT where they admitted to not being "infallible". As time goes on and they have to concede more and more - including probably to secular courts and governments - their assumed unique spiritual position will look increasingly shaky, and once that goes, all the other reasons - the "incentives to stay" that Vidiot mentioned - will collapse.

The JW org has been so certain of its "destiny" up until recently, that I suspect the GB are now panicking behind closed doors, wondering what they should do to buy more time before they expect God to save them. I think at least a significant number of key figures still believe those main doctrines about Babylon and the UN, but they are trying to play clever - "theocratic warfare" - and please all sides, especially to protect the cashflow. That's bound to end badly, either way, since they've neither been honest with the "wordly" organisations, nor true to their own teachings (which, if true, would mean they have been doing exactly what they accuse "Babylon" of doing and "sharing with the world", which would displease God and Jesus too).

25

20250115**Ages For Ministerial Servants and Elders!

by Atlantis in

jw
friends

2025-01-15-ages for ministerial servants and elders.. see page 2. .

https://pdfupload.io/docs/1b0b5c00 .

https://imgbox.com/p3a9yjmr.

Journeyman

Eighteen for a Min Serv could be ok I suppose, depending on the individual, since they're really just congregational dogsbodies, assigned to administrative tasks and giving the odd platform item (which is not expected to be "teaching"). Elders are expected to keep an eye on them and "direct" them anyway (although I have seen congregations where they're often just left to themselves with little guidance).

But 21 for an elder - a role that is supposed to be about teaching, reproving, correcting and shepherding all in the flock - is crazy, for reasons that have been well discussed in many other threads.

How any CO or body of elders can really think a brother in a congregation who might be 21 or 22 is ready for that role amazes me. I wonder what the statistics are on how many congregations actually DO appoint men so young? We've had a few reports on here of some, but I would not be surprised if most congregations and COs will be hesitant to do so, even if only for selfish reasons (not wanting to see their choices go wrong if the young man burns out fast, and they get criticised, for example).

25

Jesus the Maintenance Man

by peacefulpete in

i posted on another thread what i thought was an interesting angle, seldom discussed regarding the role of god/logos in holding creation together and its maintenance.

most moderns think of the universe as a self-perpetuating machine, but ancients looked to the god/s to ensure order continued and fertility returned year after year.

we read, throughout the ot, of jews performing prescribed ritual and festivals to ensure god's blessing and providence.

Journeyman

KalebOutWest - thanks for your answers. I was genuinely interested to know.

Then you added the prayers of Jesus. These have nothing to do with Judaism.

The reason for additionally asking about Jesus is that, as he was raised a Jew, I was interested in knowing to what extent his teaching really was a "break" from what went before. It's said to be radically different by both Jews and Christians (Jews, often to discredit what he said as heretical; Christians so as to claim their belief as a refinement or improvement on what went before), so I was interested in hearing your thought on just how different his message really would have sounded. From what you say, it was indeed a marked difference.

25

Jesus the Maintenance Man

by peacefulpete in

i posted on another thread what i thought was an interesting angle, seldom discussed regarding the role of god/logos in holding creation together and its maintenance.

most moderns think of the universe as a self-perpetuating machine, but ancients looked to the god/s to ensure order continued and fertility returned year after year.

we read, throughout the ot, of jews performing prescribed ritual and festivals to ensure god's blessing and providence.

Journeyman

In fact, Jews do not believe that God actually listens to prayer. He might, but then again God might not. That is not what prayer is about in Judaism.
[...]
Instead of believing that one's prayers are being heard by God or one is asking God for something, like Jehovah's Witnesses do, Jews are doing something entirely different. Jews believe they are mostly hearing God talk to them.
[...]
There is little in the way of requests in Jewish prayer. Even when one is sick or one dies, prayer is blessing God, asking that one learns to accept their place in the constant changes of reality, blessing these as they come, etc.

That's fascinating, but if so, that raises questions in my mind.

Does the evidence indicate that was what Jewish prayer always meant, or was that what it came to mean through human scholarly and rabbinic traditions over the centuries? The indications from many specific prayers recorded in the Hebrew scriptures suggest those giving them often requested something personally and truly believed God would hear them, for example:
Abraham - "Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelek, his wife and his female slaves so they could have children again" (Genesis 20:17)
David - "Lord, the God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Israel, keep these desires and thoughts in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you. And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, statutes and decrees and to do everything to build the palatial structure for which I have provided." (1 Chronicles 29:18,19)
Jacob - "Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children." (Genesis 32:11)
Hannah - "In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the Lord, weeping bitterly. And she made a vow, saying, 'Lord Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head.'" (1 Samuel 1:10,11)

Some of those verses were mixed in with what your quote calls more fixed prayers which I can understand, but are clearly personal requests or pleadings - for example, David's words in 1 Chronicles.

On the other hand, if it was always understood to be that way, doesn't that mean that the kind of prayer Jesus taught his followers was radically different? Jesus clearly taught that prayer was intended to include direct personal requests, petitions, hopes, fears and desires, as well as the things you mention (wisdom to accept ones' place, thanksgiving to God, recognise his will, etc), and so was not mainly to be "fixed" in the same sort of way.

16

The Curious Case of Cameroon in Africa in the World Report

by LaFrancia in

we know that in africa warwick/watchtower is adopting a policy of more congregations with fewer publishers in each congregation.

this explains the growth of congregations in the 2024 world report.. cameroon world report 2019 vs. 2024.. with the same number of publishers the congregations grew by about 13%.. will there be many more curious cases out there?.

Journeyman

I think Careful could be on to something there. The Org has become obsessed with more and more localised and niche languages - a look at all their literature releases and the languages they claim on their website shows this. And foreign language groups and congregations are likely to be smaller, but more numerous in countries with many local tribes, languages and dialects, as can apply across Africa.

Although Fulano says that Cameroon is mostly French or English speaking, that World Atlas data does suggest more than a quarter of the population speak neither language, and recent news from Africa shows that the Francophone world there is getting sick of French colonial presence and increasingly rejecting French political and military influence, just as they have from English colonial powers, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were not a corresponding rise in take-up of local dialects and languages, as often happens when culture becomes politicised.

Apart from French and English, the Find A Meeting on the JW website says they have meetings in Cameroon in:

Douala
Ewondo
West African Pidgin
Cameroon Sign Language
Ghomala
Gbaya
Boulou
Toupouri
Awing

Some of them seem to be highly regional - for example, "Awing" only seems to exist in three congregations clustered in the NW of the country. According to Wikipedia the language is thought to have 19,000 native speakers in that region (2001 figures, so could be more now, but still quite a small population).

This article from last summer outlines some of the problems faced in Francophone Africa, and why they are leaning away from France and looking to increase their own independence.
https://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-meeting-of-french-speaking-africa-lawmakers-decry-instability-foreign-influence-/7633204.html

17

Footage from Recently Converted Kingdom Hall to a Mosque

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/kjqwfeuhpji?si=6ahbituygdyiq3za.

when jehovah’s witnesses dedicate their kingdom halls, they often refer to the example of solomon dedicating the temple in jerusalem.

it’s a solemn moment.

Journeyman

It's a double standard if they sell the Kingdom Halls to Christendom, Judaism or Islam.

I completely agree. Ok, sometimes the Org might not know who ends up with the site if it's sold via a property company first, so that's understandably out of their hands. But if they knowingly sell it on to another religious group, that's surely hypocrisy.

Buildings in the UK are generally categorised and sold as designated for a specific purpose, so if it's previously been for religious use it is known as category F1 which I believe is non-residential and non-commercial use but also covers schools, galleries, libraries and museums, so the org could still sell to one of those institutions instead without anyone having to apply for a change of use.

Picture this: a Kingdom Hall, dedicated with heartfelt prayers to Jehovah, sold to the highest bidder just a few years later. And not just any bidder—sometimes, to groups whose practices stand in stark contrast to biblical teachings.

Whether the building is knowingly sold to another religion or not, if they have a dedication to Jehovah for a Hall at the start, shouldn't they at the very least carry out some sort of "undedication" ceremony before leaving it? Otherwise they've effectively sold something "dedicated" to God to someone else who might have completely different attitudes (as in the example from the OP). It all seems very weird, not to say blasphemous if one is supposed to be a faithful believer.

5

Bible Lessons You Won't Learn From The GB

by Journeyman in

for those on this forum who still consider themselves christian or students of the bible, are there any bible principles you came across during your own study or research that were never brought out by the gb of the jws but that you found significant or profound?.

i don't mean doctrinal issues like the trinity, heaven & hell, etc, as these are issues christendom has been arguing over for centuries.

i mean simple, scriptural principles that the gb could've highlighted at any time, but for various reasons - some obvious, some less so - have chosen not to.. one that stood out to me is in 1 samuel chapters 2, 3 and 4.. young samuel has been dedicated to the temple and is being raised to serve god there.

Journeyman

For those on this forum who still consider themselves Christian or students of the Bible, are there any Bible principles you came across during your own study or research that were never brought out by the GB of the JWs but that you found significant or profound?

I don't mean doctrinal issues like the trinity, heaven & hell, etc, as these are issues Christendom has been arguing over for centuries. I mean simple, scriptural principles that the GB could've highlighted at any time, but for various reasons - some obvious, some less so - have chosen not to.

One that stood out to me is in 1 Samuel chapters 2, 3 and 4.

Young Samuel has been dedicated to the temple and is being raised to serve God there. He is under the High Priest Eli and his two sons Hophni and Phineas. Eli is shown to be a weak father and leader (1 Samuel 3:13, 18), while his two sons are corrupt, behaving selfishly and misleading the rest of the priests (1 Samuel 2:12-17).

Despite these bad examples at the very top of God's "earthly organisation", Samuel continues to do what is right and ends up blessed, while Hophni, Phineas and Eli all die prematurely (1 Samuel 2:31,34, 1 Samuel 3:12-14, 1 Samuel 4:17,18) .

The lesson: Sometimes, bad people, or at least, weak people who make bad decisions, rise to the top of an organisation, and this can also apply in God's earthly arrangements.

Another example is High Priest Aaron when Moses went up to Mount Sinai to receive the Commandments. He foolishly let the people persuade him into making a golden calf, then led them in using it to worship God. Imagine how difficult that could've been for an Israelite who DIDN'T want to do that. Would they have been considered "disobedient to divine direction" at the time?

And it was not only in pre-Christian times. Paul warned his brothers about "certain men" who had slipped into the congregation and were teaching false and corrupting things to mislead others.

So sometimes, the men leading God's "earthly arrangement" will be wrong, and even wicked in their intentions. At times like that, it is up to individual worshippers to continue to do what is right, ignoring their false leaders if necessary, since each of us carry our own load of responsibility before God (Galatians 6:5) and we must obey God rather than men, if the two are in conflict (Acts 5:29).

Why the GB don't highlight this lesson: Obviously, it would undermine their own claim of exclusive favour from Jehovah God and their demand for total obedience. It would highlight the facts that 1) men at the top of any human organisation can sometimes be wrong, or even wicked, and 2) not everything said from the top of such an organisation may be correct.

The other related principles glossed over are that more will be demanded of those taking the lead, and they will receive a "greater judgement". (Luke 12:48, James 3:1)

Sometimes the Org will dance around this subject, like in this week's study WT on Injustice where they weakly acknowledge in paragraph 2 that some Witnesses might be treated "unjustly either by those outside the congregation or by those inside the congregation" - giving an example of one brother who was falsely accused of stealing from the contributions - but they will never come out and admit that a whole body of elders might be corrupt, or that specific instructions or direction from the GB might prove to be wrong or misleading, and that God and Jesus will judge these ones even more strongly.

14

The Greeks had a word for it, but the Watchtower didn't

by Nathan Natas in

i recall as though it was only 60 years ago, sitting in the kingdom hall on those horrible chairs, learning of the four forms of love: agape, philia, storge and eros.. the watchtower never mentioned pragma.. pragma: this is a committed, compassionate love that often grows as two partners continue to cherish and care for each other.

this type of love is associated with being together for a long time.

in some cases, the passion of eros can grow into pragma over time, this forging a lasting bond.. i think i know why; the watchtower isn't into committed, compassionate, cherishing and caring, are they?.

Journeyman

Interesting topic. Yes, apparently there are 8 types of love theorised by Greek philosophy, not just four.

A quick Google search shows even some other sites about philosophy, love or psychology only refer to 5 or 6, so there seems to be some confusion or cherry-picking about the exact number that "matter", but it appears the total number was 8:

Agape - unconditional love
Eros - romantic love
Ludus - playful love
Mania - obsessive love
Philautia - self-love
Philia - friendly love
Pragma - committed love
Storge - familial love

Except... again, a ninth type is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the subject, which leaves out three of the others (Ludus, Mania, Pragma), giving only a total of 6:

Xenia - hospitable love

So was it 8 or 9? Perhaps a Greek, or someone with knowledge of Greek philosophy, will be able to clarify?

I did a quick search of the WT online library and can find no mention of "Pragma" or "Xenia" on there, but 88 for "Agape", a dozen for "Storge" and even about 40 for "Eros".

While I can understand that Ludus, Mania and Philautia are not mentioned by the GB, it's curious that the org has never made mention of Pragma or Xenia, since they seems to fit well with Christian principles. Yet the GB never even mention them in passing.

EDITED: I discovered later that "Xenia" is also known as "Philoxenia" - love of strangers. Apparently, the latter word IS in the WT online library about six times on the subject of hospitality. Still no "Pragma" though!