Recently disfellowshipped prominent Assembly overseer in Western Europe now speaking out against the Watchtower org.

by the research lady 226 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Spike Tassel

  whining is not one of the aspects of the fruit of the holy spirit
• 

  Hoping4Change

  Reniaa - I am just curious to know if you have read through the legal documentation that has been provided at http://www.watchtowerdocuments.com keeping in mind that these are legal documents from the courts of law; so none of it is anti-Jw driven or anti-jw propoganda. If you feel that Barbara has an axe to grind, never mind her commentary if you wish, but read through all of the testimony and look at the evidence. The "publicly" declared child abuse policy of the WTBTS may sound nice, but what matters is what actually happens in practice; from the top, down. The "imperfect men" defense does not stand, and no one should ever be made to believe that they need to "wait on Jehovah" to fix the organizational practices; nor should family be turned against family for directly questioning and opposing the leadership of the WTBTS on this matter. Those exposing this are not villans with axes to grind; declaring them as such (either directly or indirectly) should be considered a form of defamation of character. There is a problem, it needs fixing. I find it beyond imagination that Jehovah would require anyone to sit idle while children suffer. One other thing, everyone knows pedophilia is a societal problem and not just a JW problem; the way JW's have dealt with it IS a JW problem that deserves to be known by the public with its' leadership held accountable (just as how the Catholic Church dealt with it was a Catholic problem and it's leadership needs to be held accountable.)
• 

  LUKEWARM

  single mom with no partner and a challenged child is the lowest of the low in the congregation pecking order.

  Lets be fair to the argument and not get personal...
• 

  winstonchurchill

  Olin, You raise aninteresting point, and it made me think about yet another thinh WT gets wrong. The "End", or "Fall" or "destruction" of an entity does not imply that everybody must die.

  Roman empire fell: It didn't mean everybody died and vultures came to eat their rotting flesh.
  Berlin Wall came down, Communism fell, but there was no widespread dead of all communists.

  So from where does the WTS draw the conclusion that when the Bible talks about the destruction of all evil, the end of the current system of things, it means that everybody will die?
• 

  cognac

  So from where does the WTS draw the conclusion that when the Bible talks about the destruction of all evil, the end of the current system of things, it means that everybody will die?

  I always figured it was from that scripture about narrow is the road leading to everlasting life where broad is the road that leads to destruction...
• 

  gubberningbody

  Another thing. The two witness rule is BS because that was part of the mosaic law (which was in force in Judea in the 1st century) and we're not under it.
• 

  sammielee24

  The idea that anyone is 'stumbled' as Reniaa put it is nonsense and trite.

  Stumbled from what? A publishing company? Big deal! So someone goes out and buys People magazine and stops buying the Enquirer - they were 'stumbled' from the truth in the Enquirer??? A person isn't stumbled from their faith by reading an opinion or a book - they leave a faith because they no longer believe it is in their best interests to follow. In the case of the Watchtower, they are not God so if someone reads a book the Watchtower doesn't approve of, it most assuredly doesn't meant that they have forsaken their relationship with God.

  The word apostasy is so over used and misused by JW's it would amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

  If the WTS were the absolute 'truth', nothing a person reads would change that. It isn't thus the fear.......sammieswife.
• 

  sir82

  Olin, You raise aninteresting point, and it made me think about yet another thinh WT gets wrong. The "End", or "Fall" or "destruction" of an entity does not imply that everybody must die.

  Roman empire fell: It didn't mean everybody died and vultures came to eat their rotting flesh.
  Berlin Wall came down, Communism fell, but there was no widespread dead of all communists.

  So from where does the WTS draw the conclusion that when the Bible talks about the destruction of all evil, the end of the current system of things, it means that everybody will die?

  One of the more scholarly types can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Russell's original idea was that Armageddon would mean the destruction of only the "wicked" - primarily exploitative politcal and military leaders and their minions. A very high percentage of the "common man" would live through it and on into the earthly paradise.

  Even after his death that idea held for a while - hence "millions now living [before 1925] will never die".

  The idea that Armageddon would mean horrific torturous fiery death for 99.9% of the world's population came later in Rutherford's tenure - probably prompted by his alcohol-fueled fantasies of revenge on his "enemies".

  That idea is completely ingrained into JW thought - too much to jettison it as they have many of Rutherford's other loopy ideas.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  what is "stumbled", any way?

  Just as Moses was told to be "God" to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), the WTS feels they've been told to be "God" to the world, or so it seems
• 

  winstonchurchill

  Another thing. The two witness rule is BS because that was part of the mosaic law (which was in force in Judea in the 1st century) and we're not under it.

  Under the Law it was necessary to have to witnesses, because punishment often involved death, so you better had back up evidence.

  As we were freed from being under that law, there should be no punishment. But since JW's believe being DF'd is a "Spiritual Death Sentence" (Corny, uh?) they think two witnesses are needed, to avoid "condemning to eternal destruction" an innocent on the word of just one witness. And there's where JW (shoud I say 'we'?) are wrong: There's no basis for JCs, investigations, and judgments at all. If someone leaves, just say bye, If someone starts living contrary to Bible's moral principles, confesses and asks for help, then help. But child molestation is a totally different thing: If an innocent child makes an acussation, it should be investigated and turned to authorities. By it's nature, there cannot be a second witness to the crime. Period!