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.
What does he make? ... more than he should and less than he thinks he’s entitled to.
Ain't that the truth! 😂
As we enter a new month, his paid member numbers are now down to 315. The monthly change is no longer a steep drop but a painfully slow bleed. However, numbers are still on a downward trajectory, and certainly nowhere near ever returning to the 500+ our "hero" desires!
so i just caught a glimpse of this new wt magazine(study edition) of course.. from dec 28th titled.
"what do your prayers say about you".
so now they are focosing on every aspect of our lifes even our actions during prayer.
What was this? 16 years ago? No one follows that since.
Rattigan is right. I was surprised to see how old this thread is, as I can't remember this ever being a thing in the years I've been around congregations here in the UK, and that's longer than 16 years.
There have been cautions about not showing "too much" public affection between marriage mates so as not to upset those who are single, but holding hands during a prayer hasn't ever been taboo to my knowledge, in fact one couple (not native British, perhaps not surprisingly, as we are not known for strong displays of public affection) in my congregation routinely did this when they were with us over the 2-3 years they were living here in the past decade. Both are pioneers and he is an elder. And I did know one elderly British couple who held hands sometimes during prayers, which was very sweet to see as they had been in the congregation and married to one another for many decades (they are no longer alive).
As long as brothers don't hold each others' hands.
the 2013 revision of the nwt has destroyed some of the best phrases in the original version and rendered them utterly bland.
a case in point is isaiah 41:10 which was as evocative as it was peculiar in the original nwt.
do not be afraid, for i am with you.
I agree. Despite a lot of the complaints to the contrary by opposers, I found the original NWT to be largely free of doctrinal bias, and it also kept a good balance between the poetic language of early more "flowery" translations and clarity for the modern reader.
The Revised NWT (RNWT) as I call it, is a significant dumbing down of the language, and has been in parts slanted towards doctrinal bias to suit the GB and Org, particularly in regards to the use of words like "loyalty" and "elders" etc.
The examples you cite are good ones.
Is "Do not gaze about" really that hard to understand? Or does it in fact paint a good word picture?
Likewise with the concept of "holding fast" to something as opposed to "holding on to" it.
There are many other similar examples of the "dulling" of the language into a more bland form.
Also, there was never a sufficient explanation for removing the plural "you" (which used to be capitalised as "YOU"), which helped the reader to understand immediately whether the audience was a single individual or a collective.
Along with the increasingly narrow focus of Bible "studies" and articles - reusing the same basic scriptures and points over and over, leaving out references to other Bible translations and historians which they used to include in their literature, etc - it increasingly seems to me that the Org is trying to stifle intellectual inquiry and genuinely curious study of the Bible.
True, successive GBs have never been keen on wide research outside their own doctrines, but they never used to be as narrow and insular as they are becoming now, when it came to choice of language and discouraging further reading and research on theocratic topics.
Also, they have craftily made the meeting items much more dependent on pre-written content both in their design and in the reduction of the length of time, which makes it almost impossible to bring in additional material to expand on a subject, whether that's other Bible verses, or external sources - even the ones they used to like to use, like say, Herodotus or certain Bible encyclopaedias and commentaries.
The other way they do that is by inserting a video into a meeting item and then having questions asked about the video. It doubly takes up time: 1) viewing the video (which could be done at home), then 2) discussing what has already been shown! Absolutely no original input at all, nor any need to introduce other Bible references, even IF they relate to and expand on the topic.
if you have been seeing the world news, you probably aware that zelensky launch a drown attack on putin and almost killed him.
putin lost it and hit ukraine with the largest drone and missile attack of war so far, killing not only soldiers by many civilians.
even trump has said putin has changed.
Where are your sources for that? Because it is equally plausible Russia abandon the war post Putin.
Indeed. The current internal politics of Russia is such that, with Putin gone, it's likely they will be too busy infighting for a succession to think about launching nuclear attacks.
Their economy is tottering, their public services and manpower are at rock-bottom because they've lost so many men, their infrastructure is struggling, and as is now being painfully exposed, their military is weakened and has huge holes in their coverage.
It's a far bigger threat and fear that Russia would collapse into a form of civil war, with the various oligarchs and local leaders vying for power, and with the army, FSB and other state apparatus turning on each other. The biggest concern to the international community would be securing the nuclear assets, as it was when the Soviet Union first collapsed. There were dark talks of radioactive material being sold on the black market to make "dirty bombs" and of terrorist groups getting hold of them but those fears didn't materialise. We have to hope that if today's Russia collapses, it doesn't happen this time either.
if you have been seeing the world news, you probably aware that zelensky launch a drown attack on putin and almost killed him.
putin lost it and hit ukraine with the largest drone and missile attack of war so far, killing not only soldiers by many civilians.
even trump has said putin has changed.
😂
Even Trump has said Putin has changed. "I don't know what has happen to Putin, and I don't like it at all"
The concern now is that Zelensky doesn't seem to care if he starts a WW3 and takes the entire world with him.
The consensus is that if Putin had been killed, Russia would have launched Nuclear Bombs and wiped Ukraine. Then Europe would have launched Nukes at Russia,
Knowing this can happened, Germany is telling Ukraine to launch Missiles to Russia as soon as possible.
Of course, there will be elements in many governments - including the USA - that might privately wish Putin dead. But that is very different to openly helping and promoting to cause that outcome. The destabilisation that could be caused by Putin's sudden demise could be very bad for everyone: it's a classic dilemma of international politics - although the USA never learned that lesson after Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan... etc, etc, either!
So although it's understandable Ukraine's leaders may want to topple Putin, that threat is in fact worse if Trump refuses to help save the Ukrainian people, because what else are they to do? Putin will never negotiate and back down (unless militarily forced to) as everyone except the "useful idiot" Trump knew, and Trump himself - from the one major power that could force Russia to back down if they really tried - has shown himself to be completely biased in Putin's favour. So if Putin will not listen to Europe's leaders, deliberately avoids meaningful peace talks, and can safely ignore the USA for as long as their President is in his pocket, the only way for a nation at war to try to end the conflict is to defeat their enemy decisively: on the battlefield, and/or by beheading its leadership. It's not a pretty thought, but it's militarily common-sense.
As for Putin himself - if he has changed, it's because his dream of sweeping through the former Soviet states and reclaiming them again is looking further and further away. The once-mighty Soviet war machine is a shadow of its former self and he is both angry and disturbed that he cannot project his power as forcefully as he would like. However, he is still very capable of using espionage, cyberterrorism and other covert methods that the KGB and FSB are well-known for, to undermine his enemies.
There may be little likelihood of seeing Russian tanks roll across Europe (at least, not further west than Poland) any more - thank goodness - but Putin is still far from beaten, and with his politically and diplomatically inept ally Trump in the White House, he must still feel he has some cards to play at the international table.
the july 2025 watchtower has a paragraph that claims that it was the superior power and wisdom of jehovah that guided the gb into allowing jws to grow beards.. the study article is ‘can you still learn from basic bible teachings?’ under the subheading ‘jehovah is the creator’ paragraph 7 states-.
“ 7. what did rahela do to accept a change in direction?.
your answer.
The July 2025 Watchtower has a paragraph that claims that it was the superior power and wisdom of Jehovah that guided the GB into allowing jws to grow beards.Sadly, this paragraph is indeed from a real WT article - the July 2025 magazine is on the JW website now.
The crazy thing is, the GB still seem to be set on making a big deal out of the beards thing by drawing attention to it like this, despite already telling the R&F not to make a fuss about it. The best thing they can do now is stop going on about it and let the fact they ever made a needless issue of it fade into the past. But no, they still keep banging on about it like this!
Of course, these articles are usually written well in advance, so this heavy-handed reference was probably slipped in there back when this was still a "sensitive" issue - back when the GB were still making statements cautioning the R&F not to "speculate" or to "judge" whether the decision was right before or is right now.
Really, what a load of fuss over nothing. And dragging the name of Jehovah into this is at best insulting (why would the Creator be so concerned about such a trivial matter, especially when the Bible makes no indicate of any such ruling?) and at worst, blasphemous.
Just admit it was a stupid edict in the first place, and you're correcting a long-standing error, then move on.
alot of my witness friends were excited sisters can now wear pants and you can say hi to disfellowshiped folks but what about important stuff child molesters in the congregation you need 2 witnesses blood fractions are fine but not whole blood????
607 bce is from the 1880s wrong....anything else?
I'm still amazed by the beard nonsense. [..] Still astounded by the vast number of brothers who Immediately started growing one.
I completely agree. I've never liked having a beard - once I get a few days of stubble growth, I have to get rid of it - so the beard "controversy" was no issue to me, except that it always seemed ridiculous as a "rule". Surely, IF you were going to make a rule about beards, it would make more sense to say that men HAVE to have a beard, rather than say they SHOULDN'T, given Bible history (for example Leviticus 19:27)?
Then, when the "ban" was lifted, suddenly so many elders started growing beards! It seems bizarre to me. Were all these men really desperate to wear a beard but felt supressed by the GB "ruling"? Or was it a case of "kid in a sweetshop", that once something previously 'taboo' was made acceptable, they all wanted to rush to have a piece of that?
Over time, some have since shaved their beards off again but many have not, so I presume for many it was that they really did want to grow one (or perhaps their wife wanted them to), but they felt unable to.
Regarding birthdays, I understand what Rattigan means to an extent. Being born is an accident of circumstances for us (or fate, if you believe in that) - not something we put effort into. Whereas, making a marriage last another year requires effort from both parties.
However, you could say that surviving another year IS an achievement, especially it would have been so in previous cultures and societies when lifespans were short and there was high child mortality. The sad fact is that celebrating birthdays probably arose as a result of the fact that few children lived into adulthood.
Again, birthdays are something I'm 'agnostic' about. I have no kids or siblings, and never felt bothered about my own one way or another, so I don't really feel I have a strong opinion on the subject.
somehow i had never noticed a detail in the jacob at the well story.
gen 29 (lxx).
1 and jacob started and went to the land of the east to laban, the son of bathuel the syrian, and the brother of rebecca, mother of jacob and esau.2 and he looks, and behold!
EDIT: Oops! So good I posted it twice...
somehow i had never noticed a detail in the jacob at the well story.
gen 29 (lxx).
1 and jacob started and went to the land of the east to laban, the son of bathuel the syrian, and the brother of rebecca, mother of jacob and esau.2 and he looks, and behold!
pp.
14-19 just some quote and a few comments from me, very, very repetitious.
the gb seems to think that the rank and file came up the years 1914, 1925, 1975, generation (70-80 years from 1914=1994), overlapping generations.
It is the title that is strange to me. If they had said "cannot know" instead of "do not know" it would make sense. For example, if I don't know calculus, but want to know calculus, what does modesty have to do with it? All I need to do is go to my local college and take a calculus class. Now if Jesus says that only the Father knows the day and the hour, then I modestly accept the fact that I cannot know that. They are conflating modesty with ignorance, i.e. not knowing something is virtuous because you are modest and humble. With Watchtower's new doctrine of "willful ignorance", which psychologists will tell you is done to avoid taking responsibility, now it is virtuous to be irresponsible because you are modest. Humility is conflated with ignorance.
finishedmystery - you make a great point there. I also noticed that distinction.
Having skimmed through the article though, in fairness there is nothing I can see that is a "bait and switch" between "cannot know" and "do not know", except para 7 where there's the line blondie quoted and analysed: "We do well to focus on what we do know — that the last days began in 1914", and some JW-specific figures about their ministry.
One of the footnotes does also say: "Jesus will take the lead in the war against Satan’s wicked world, so it is reasonable to conclude that he now knows the date for Armageddon and for when he will “complete his conquest.”—Rev. 6:2; 19:11-16." but I don't think that's quite so presumptuous.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is not even a mention in the article about obeying the direction of the organisation, even though in at least 3-4 paragraphs, there is an opportunity to slip it in. They don't even add it to the pictures and captions, which is usually a good place to insert chest-thumping for the Org if they can't include it in the text.
Almost the entire article is genuinely about the things we cannot know right now - when "the end" will come, what God will choose to do, and what will happen to us tomorrow - and surprisingly, nowhere in the text does it recommend turning to an "organisation" for the answers. However, it's worth noting that the opening song for the study is "SONG 123: Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order", which DOES of course go on about obeying direction, so there is a not-so-subtle message laid down there, which seems suspiciously out of sync with the overall content of the article otherwise.
So I think for this one, I'll put it down to the (increasingly common) poor use of language in WT articles of late - the article should really be called "Modestly accept what you CANNOT know", or perhaps "Modestly accept what you do not YET know".
