can anyone tell me why this practice was stopped.
i was told the reason for the guards was to prevent apostates from "attacking" anyone up there and disrupting the program.
has anyonne witnessed an "attack" of apostates gone wild?
Yes, BigDog, we had several district conventions at the most famous Catholic University in the world, Notre Dame, but we were not allowed to play basketball at the YMCA because it stood for "Young Men's CHRISTIAN Association."
Those were the daze......days.
can anyone tell me why this practice was stopped.
i was told the reason for the guards was to prevent apostates from "attacking" anyone up there and disrupting the program.
has anyonne witnessed an "attack" of apostates gone wild?
Here are a couple of good ones..
At Notre Dame's Joyce Athletic Arena, for our district conventions, an announcement was made not to buy Cokes out of the Coke machines in the hallways. I believe attendants were place around them, too. Before we had to start bringing our own meals, I remember always drinking Shasta colas at district and circuit assemblies. I can't remember the last time I even saw a Shasta can....or a fruit bag for that matter.
At our circuit assemblies in Indianapolis, attendants used to walk around with rectangle signs that said things like "Quiet Please," or "Take your seats." Sometimes I miss being treated like a child.
dear friends,
i believe the judicial committee wheels are starting to turn.
let me explain why.
I don't think anyone here is taking a "victim stance." The fact that so many were baptized at such a young age, then disfellowshipped or simply disillusioned when they were older and wiser is worthy of reflection.
Most of us are looking at the underage baptisms apparently not so much as a contract, but, shall we say, an oath. I look at the oath I took as invalid. I was only 15 years old. For most crimes, had I committed any, they would have been removed from the public record at the age of 18. I am starting to see my baptism/oath/contract..call it what you will...in the same vein.
Therefore, I no longer recognize it as symbolizing my lifelong dedication to anything. I do agree with the earlier post that the elders will simply view that as renouncing my faith, i.e. disassociating myself.
This thread has been very helpful and has helped me reach a clear view of my underage, invalid baptism.
dear friends,
i believe the judicial committee wheels are starting to turn.
let me explain why.
Everyone, thanks for the input, so far. I will definitely be checking out the "Vicki Boer" case. I can't say I've ever heard of her, but I knew that I could not be the only XJW who ever thought about the legality of their underage baptism.
As far as the judicial committee goes...In my conversation with the elder, I can say there was a bit of one-upmanship going on. I told him I would be a lawyer in 3 years; he reminded me that he has been an elder for 10 years. I know, I know, my worldly education won't much to witnesses; they'll think I'm just an uppity, bitter XJW. But I'm not. I will miss the freedom to talk to them when I see them in town. I might even return if I was allowed to disagree, but everyone knows JWs are required to run with the organization: don't run ahead!!! don't run behind!!!! run with the organization...meaning believe what we believe while we believe it until we change it and then you change your beliefs, too. I told the elder last night that I don't want to run at all. I want to sit down and think about things for myself .
Back to the underage baptisms: I do remember reading some post somewhere concerning instructions to elders in judicial committees. The instruction was that if a brother involved in a judicial committee mentioned that he would be seeking legal action against the society, the judicial committee was to immediately inform headquarters for further instructions. I couldn't find anything on that in the "Pay Attention to Yourselves and The Flock" book online.
Not that it really matters, though. I'm not going to sue anyone. If they want to disfellowship me, they can go ahead. Beforehand, I'll probably visit a couple of congregations I used to go to so I can say goodbye. But I absolutely won't participate in any judicial committee meetings, just like I haven't disassociated myself. I view both of those actions as THEIR rules, not MINE. I will continue to simply refuse to participate in their form of worship: blind faith in an organization/corporation.
I just can't believe that a foolish decision I made in March of 1988, when I was 15 years old is the vehicle the JWs will use to officially condemn me to their members. Being committed for life to a decision made at such a young age is just plain wrong, like so many WTBS cult rules. If I was committed for life to all of the things I was committed to at age 15, I'd still masturbate everyday and have Star Trek posters on my wall.
The support on this site and several others for XJWs, soon to be XJWs, and even struggling, active JWs helped me so much to get out of the Kingdom Hall, into college, and onward to a better, calmer life. I always appreciate it.
dear friends,
i believe the judicial committee wheels are starting to turn.
let me explain why.
Dear Friends,
I believe the Judicial Committee wheels are starting to turn. Let me explain why. On Monday, February 14, 2005, my local newspaper published a story entitled "Bloodless Medicine" which implied how Jehovah's Witnesses have pushed for bloodless surgeries. The article implied that JWs have a total ban on blood transfusions. Because I know that is not true, and because I want JWs to know they have options (blood fractions, etc.), and because I hope JWs and others outside of the WTBS will see that the blood ban should be I abandonded altogether, I wrote a response letter to the editor which was published on Saturday, February 20, 2005. (The letter is below, in its entirety.)
The letter began "Formerly a faithful witness....." That line, apparently, has got the JC wheels rolling. Outside a grocer store yesterday, an elder approached me and talked to me for about twenty minutes. He let me know that he had heard about the letter; that it had already been discussed. After discussing with him all of the many reasons that I now believe that the society version of the so-called truth is simply not true, he pratically begged me to allow him and another brother to have a meeting with me. (They need two witness to disfellowship for abandoning your faith.)
Anyway, at the end of the conversation, he reminded me of my baptism and dedication. I told him that I was 15 years old when I was baptized and made the lifelong dedication. I reminded him that at age 15, a person is not allowed to drive, to vote, to give consent for sex, or to sign a legally binding contract. ?So,? I asked him, ?Why should I be obligated to a dedication I made when I was 15 years old??
Think about it. The society doesn't want its youth to date or to get married until past the "bloom of youth." But I have seen young people in the organization get baptized as early as 11 or 12 years old. And baptism and dedication is supposed to be the most important decision of one's life, even more important than marriage.
Although the society doesn't believe in infant baptism, they will hold a person in their 20s or 30s or older to a decision they made when they were 11 or 12 (or 15) years old and disfellowship them when they get old enough and wise enough to get out of the organization.
I haven't been to a meeting in years and I do not consider myself one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a cult and that blind faith is the cornerstone of every "good" witness. However, I don't really want to be disfellowshipped. I like the idea that I can still talk to JWs I see around town, although word is geting around that I'm an opposer.
I have done a little research on legal action against the WTBS in matters of disfellowshipping. I printed off a 9-page letter from www.randytv.com/secret/dfletter1987.htm which showed the case law precedents which are clearly in the society's favor in the matter of disfellowshipping their members.
However, I have not seen or read anything about legal action against the society in the area of contract law. I think that if a court viewed baptism as a contract, then the society would no longer be able to disfellowship any one of their members who was ever baptized as a minor. Since a minor can't enter into a legally binding contract, I don't think it's that big of a jump to think that a minor shouldn't be able to enter into a contract-like relationship with the WTBS.
What does everyone else think?
P.S. Good news all....This former janitor/pioneer was just accepted into law school a couple of weeks ago!!! Maybe I'm already thinking like a lawyer.
Lafayette, IN. Journal and Courier, February 14, 2005 Dear Editor: Formerly a faithful Jehovah's Witness, I was drawn to Tuesday's article "Bloodless Medicine" (J&C February 15). The article implied that Jehovah's Witnesses have an outright ban on blood transfusions. While many Jehovah's Witnesses believe this is true, in the June 15, 2000 issue of the Watchtower magazine, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the legal name for Jehovah's Witnesses, loosened the ban to allow transfusions of what they call "blood fractions." Quoting the Watchtower: "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to 'abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.' (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself. [...] Some Christians may conclude that [...] they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells." So transfusions of whole blood are wrong, but fractions are okay? It is an overwhelming sadness to know that good people die and allow their chidren to die because they adhere to such a curious policy. Concerning the Jehovah's Witness policy on banning whole blood, but banning blood fractions, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Raymond Franz, said "It is as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately, not as a sandwich." (In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz, Commentary Press, 1999, page 288).
i got into a debate with 2 other friends (one a mormon and the other jw, i'm rc) about the blood transfusion issue.
the jw friend cited: genesis 9:4,16 leviticus 7:26,27 & 17:14 acts 15:28,29 & 21:25
i cannot for the life of me see how anyone can read those and honestly beleve that what was ment was to reject blood to save life!
In my opinion, making the argument against the JW blood ban has gotten easier since the June 15, 2000 Watchtower's Question from readers which allowed what the society calls "blood fractions." I tell people that JWs DO NOT HAVE A BAN ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS!
Since they allow fractions, they allow transfusions. The transfusion ban is dead. The argument is easier to make now. Think about it. When the ban was an absolutely total ban on blood, organ transplants, etc., arguing against the ban was very difficult. The issue was black and white. Now, though, the Sociey allows organ transplants and a "little bit" of transfusions, which is like being a little bit pregnant. But make sure to make this point: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Socity ALLOWS TRANFUSIONS!!!
The only gray area now is on what they allow. They have opened the door to fractions....This makes the hypocrisy much more easy is prove. I love to quote Ray Franz, former member of the Governing Body who used the following illustration about the Society's blood policy:
"It is as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately, not as a sandwich." (In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz, Commentary Press, 1999, Page 288).
If you'd care to read my letter to the editor printed today, February 19, 2005, check out this link:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/85551/1.ashx
In conclusion, let me say this: In regards to my beliefs that blood transfusions should be allowed and that the non-doctor, non-blood expert, uneducated Governing Body should abandon their policy altogether, I no longer discuss the issue Scripturally, I use common sense and logic.
Good health to you!
dear friends, .
in today's edition of the lafayette, indiana journal and courier newpaper, my letter to the editor was printed in response to an article printed on tuesday, february 15, 2005 entitled "bloodless medicine.
" the article gave the impression that jws have a total ban on blood transfusions.
Dear Friends,
In today's edition of the Lafayette, Indiana Journal and Courier newpaper, my letter to the editor was printed in response to an article printed on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 entitled "Bloodless Medicine." The article gave the impression that JWs have a total ban on blood transfusions. Since I know that is not true, and since I want JW's to know they have alternatives, albeit always changing alternatives, to following the JW implied total ban on transfusions, I tried in 250 words or less to let them know of first the alternatives (transfusions of blood fractions) and second, the total hypocrisy of the JW ban. Of course I think the Society should abandon its policy altogether, but they won't. But I don't think their policy should be celebrated for the times people live without blood transfusions; the policy should be condemned for the times good people die for adhering to JW rules.
link the the letter: http://www.lafayettejc.com/news20050219/200502191local_opinion1108790919.shtml
link to the article: http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2005/LT050121.html
Because these links are often temporary, the letter is reprinted below.
Jehovah's Witnesses and bloodless surgery
Formerly a faithful Jehovah's Witness, I was drawn to the Feb. 15 article, "Bloodless medicine." The article implied that Jehovah's Witnesses have an outright ban on accepting blood transfusions. While many Jehovah's Witnesses think this is true, in the June 15, 2000, issue of the Watchtower magazine, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the legal name for Jehovah's Witnesses, loosened the ban to allow transfusions of what they call "blood fractions."
Quoting the Watchtower: "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to 'abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.' (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself. ... Some Christians may conclude that ... they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells."
So transfusions of whole blood are wrong, but fractions are OK? It is an overwhelming level of sadness to know that good people die and allow their children to die because they adhere to such a curious policy. Concerning the Jehovah's Witness policy on banning whole blood but allowing blood fractions, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Raymond Franz, said, "It is as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately, not as a sandwich." (In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz, Commentary Press, 1999, Page 288).
Bryan Coulter, West Lafayette
because i have a sense of humor about the many failed prophecies of the jw's, i've always wanted some ex-jw merchandise with some class and humor to go with it.
i've considered marketing a few of my ideas.....coffee mugs, shirts, etc.
there are so many areas to go (no blood, no military service, college = devil's propaganda, etc.
or........
because i have a sense of humor about the many failed prophecies of the jw's, i've always wanted some ex-jw merchandise with some class and humor to go with it.
i've considered marketing a few of my ideas.....coffee mugs, shirts, etc.
there are so many areas to go (no blood, no military service, college = devil's propaganda, etc.
because i have a sense of humor about the many failed prophecies of the jw's, i've always wanted some ex-jw merchandise with some class and humor to go with it.
i've considered marketing a few of my ideas.....coffee mugs, shirts, etc.
there are so many areas to go (no blood, no military service, college = devil's propaganda, etc.
