"Reproach on Jehovah's name"

Phizzy

The longer I am away from the cult, the more very childish and downright silly it seems in many many ways.

Just another example of the childlike way they do not think things through is their obsession with "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name", that concept was used to stop JW's doing all sorts of stuff, a lot of it quite normal.

But the worst aspect of this concept is that they cover up the evil within their Org any way they can.

Yet they only have to look back on all the cover-ups of the past, by other religions, by Politicians etc etc to see that an open acknowledgement and an open dealing with the situation at the time is far better.

Cover-ups get exposed in the end, and leave you looking far worse than if dealt with honestly.

jookbeard

its daft isnt it Stan?, the malevolent, genocidal, perverted ,vengeful,voyeuristic maniac god of the Bible who was supposed to create man in his own image and we are supposedly likened to be his own children and we are the ones who are supposed to be bringing reproach on his name? my language could get stronger but it would violate the forum rules!

Freeandclear

Yes that phrase is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because in reality it's not bringing "reproach upon Jehovah's name" at all, it's "bringing reproach upon the Watchtower Society's name"

smh.....

jookbeard

do they or anyone else think he may have brought reproach on his own name? screw him/her

MissFit

That phrase is a powerful tool for keeping people in line. It can be used to justify disfellowshipping or cause to fear disfelloiwshipping. This phrase defined my childhood and left me looking over my shoulder with panic as I evaluated my every action.

One of the first thoughts that went through my 12 year old head when I discovered that my "Elder" foster father was molesting my sisters ,was how can I stop him without "bringing reproach on Jehovah?"

You were right: cover up it was. Tell the elders and not the authorities. Not even the case worker. Tell no one . No reproach....my responsibility, my duty.

WTWizard

The being that brought the most reproach on joke-hova's name is joke-hova itself. The most damning book about Christi-SCAM-ity (and Judaism) is the Bible itself. The washtowel's own publications do more damage to the washtowel than any apostates. You want proof that joke-hova wants to enslave mankind? Look no farther than the Bible--it's right there in plain sight, if people would just look for it.

Joe Grundy

"Yet they only have to look back on all the cover-ups of the past, by other religions, by Politicians etc etc to see that an open acknowledgement and an open dealing with the situation at the time is far better.

Cover-ups get exposed in the end, and leave you looking far worse than if dealt with honestly."

I think you're absolutely right on this.

I keep banging on about the ARC hearings, but that's because I think that they are so important. Impartial, courteous, clinical, informed, forensic - and absolutely devastating IMHO to the jw org.

Even if everyone of the pitiful shower knew that they couldn't do or admit anything for fear of the GB, Jackson was handed a golden opportunity to 'fess up, agree to changes,and project a new and more wholesome image. What did he do? Smugly obfuscate, dodge the questions and generally sit like a fat superior slug (my personal view). Was he also in fear of the rest of the GB? I can visualise him returning to the bosom of the GB, much back-slapping, and 'well done Geoff, we showed those worldlies!' before sitting down to draft their written response which was, IMHO, cringe-worthy.

There is some excuse (being charitable) for most of the jw 'worthies' who gave evidence. Generally uneducated, used to being surrounded by those who are discouraged from challenging their authority, This particularly applies to Jackson. IIRC he was baptised at 15 and a gung-ho jw thereafter. So uneducated, inexperienced, naieve and especially in recent years surrounded by sychophants. But no excuse for him, really, because he should know his limitations.

One of the bits I most 'enjoyed' (maybe not the right word) was the evidence of the Oz branch lawyer, Toole. All other jw witnesses were only significant/qualified within the organisation (which as Shania Twain said 'don't impress me much') but here was (apparently) a ('worldly') qualified and experienced lawyer who could be expected to engage with SC Assisting Stewart on equal terms. It didn't work out like that and ARC reported him to the Law Society (or its equivalent) - he could be struck off.

VAG have a problem world-wide with their vehicles and reputation. It is interesting to compare their response with that of the jws.

If you're up to your neck in shit, sometimes it's best to stop digging the hole and put your hands up. This may not apply if you're 'waiting on jehovah' to pull you out and hose you down.

steve2

Well the biggest "reproach" is transforming their name from Jehovah's Witnesses to JW org - so I guess the buzz phrase in the organization will now be 'not bringing reproach upon our initials'.

cha ching

I have ALWAYS hated that phrase, "it will bring reproach on Jehovah's name"

If Jehovah wrote about all the crap that happened "in his org" in the Hebrew scriptures, he wasn't worried about "bringing reproach on his name" ... even tho his number one guy, Satan, screeed him in the garden of Eden...

I called a spade a spade... Why can't we?

steve2

Forget about the genocidal maniacal God of the Bible, The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society has done an excellent job in its 130 plus year-history of bringing mountainous reproach upon itself.

"Reproach on Jehovah's name"

Share this