by You Know 78 Replies latest jw friends

  • JT

    YO YO MAMA asked:

    "Do you think that we are idiots?"
    i beg all of you --please dont' anwser that question for him

    he just made it too easy for us--

  • dubla

    ah, another humorous thread that i missed up till now. i especially liked this quote from yk, that was proven unequivically incorrect according to the watchtower quotes:

    So, the argument that no one knows the correct vowels that should be inserted in the YHWH abbreviation is simply not true.
    interesting, isnt it, that the watchtower says specifically that no one knows for sure the correct vowels that should be inserted in the yhwh abbreviation? LOL.......note, no response from yk on this point, or any of the others for that matter.


    As I understand this thread, YK was answering questions to Danni. Why do you, ALanF, see it necessary to be the translator, or try to explain what YK explained.
    number one, if yk was specifically only trying to answer questions to danni, and he didnt want his answers to be open for discussion, then he wouldve contacted her privately instead of posting his claims on a PUBLIC forum, knowing full well his statements would be refuted.

    number two, why do you attack alan for sticking his nose in someone elses discussion? isnt that what youve done here as well?

    number three, alans clarifications were needed in this instance, especially since danni is apparently new to yks deception game. without seeing the other side of things, one could get caught up in yks scripture twisting web, and we want observers to get the whole story, right? oh i forgot, you are a proponent of the wtbts, and they never want both of the story exposed, do they?


  • AlanF

    To YoYoMama:

    :::: Q 6: Where does the rule not to talk with family members who left from the Jehovah's Witness come from?

    ::: That's not exactly the way it is. Disfellowshipping does not dissolve all family ties. For example, a disfellowshipped husband still talks with his wife and so forth.

    :: Here is yet another example of misleading. DF'ing cannot dissolve a marriage and cannot dissolve blood relations. A mother and daughter remain that no matter what.

    : what is misleading? You are saying the same thing that YK said.

    No, we are saying quite different things. Danni's question was 'why the prohibition on talking to family members?' You Know's answer had nothing to do with that. He gave an answer to a different question, but his answer was designed to look like it answered the original question. Thus it was misleading.

    The misleading is easy enough to see:

    Q: Why can't DF'd people talk to family members?
    A: DF'ing does not dissolve family ties.

    Put in such simple form, the deception is obvious: the 'answer' suggests, but does not state, that DF'ing does not involve a prohibition on talking to family members. The truth is a good deal more complicated than You Know's answer implies, and is as various people have explained, namely, that married people stay married and can talk to each other (but think of the legal complications the Society would face if it tried to claim that DF'ing dissolved a marriage), that blood relations are not changed by DF'ing (obviously, genes are not changed by sending S-77 forms to Brooklyn), that support of minors in a family remains the responsibility of the head of the household even if any of them are DF'd, that when a DF'd child reaches the age of 18 the Society encourages the parents to kick him out and have as little contact as possible, that DF'd people outside the immediate family are shunned as much as possible, and so forth. YK's answer was deceptively oversimplified.

    At the recent Kingdom Ministry Schools for elders the Society's policy was reiterated: It is desirable and may be possible for JWs to have almost no contact with DF'd relatives.

    The Society has also created the non-biblical idea of "absolute endangerment of spirituality", which allows a marriage mate to leave the other if they decide that their "spirituality" will be in danger by staying with the other mate. This notion is completely undefined and can be used in cases such as simple disagreement about religious ideas between a husband and wife. All the JW mate has to do is claim that they're afraid their "spirituality" is in danger by being exposed to the differing opinions. Then elders and the Society will not apply any sanctions if the JW leaves his or her mate -- quite the opposite from a case where the JW mate just decides to up and leave with a reason the elders don't agree with. In fact, experience shows that elders and JWs will sometimes conspire to screw the non-JW this way, hoping that that he or she will commit adultery in their eyes and free the JW for remarriage.

    In case you don't think this happens, I know from personal experience and from intimate conversations with others that this is exactly what these wonderful Christians often do.

    ::: Disfellowshipping though breaks a spiritual bond of brotherhood. The Bible lays down the principle that a little bit of yeast ferments a whole lot of dough. So the Bible says to remove corrupt individuals from our midst. Not physically of course; but, we withdraw friendship from those who don't live by the rules God lays down for his household.

    :: Which in practice means that any DF'd person outside the immediate household must be shunned except for absolutely necessary family business.

    : As I understand this thread, YK was answering questions to Danni. Why do you, ALanF, see it necessary to be the translator, or try to explain what YK explained.

    First, anyone can reply to any thread on this board. If you don't want replies, don't post. Second, JWs who come online are notorious liars and there is a great need for people like Danni, who are looking for truthful information, to receive the truth about "the Truth".

    : Do you think that we are idiots?

    I think you are. I think You Know is far from an idiot, but he's a fanatic, probably insane, and a demonstrated liar.

    : Do you not think that we can weight what YK is saying, what you say, and others?

    Occasional comments from his few supporters prove that some can't. You obviously can't.

    : Do you think you are smarter that all of us in this board, so that you have to "explain" to us?

    I think that I'm far more truthful than the JW defenders on this board.

    : As I show on the first "quote", you are so desperate to disagree with YK, that you say he is misleading, and then you say the exact same thing. What's up with that?

    At this point you should have no trouble answering your own question. As a test, let's see you do it.


  • You Know
    You Know

    CYGNUS: If you get reinstated, I will come to Buffalo and buy you a beer or two. / You Know

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Hi Danni,

    This has been a very long, very interesting thread. Maybe I missed it somewhere, but has any contributor to this thread mentioned the FINE PRINT for police officers who are prospective members in the JW club?

    Ask your buddy You Know what will happen if you refuse to hand in your gun and badge once you've been dunked in the Jordan.

    Better start taking a hard look at the want ads.

  • California Sunshine
    California Sunshine


    You got me to thinking...

    Am I damaged goods?

    I have my health (not damaged there)
    I have a decent job (not damaged there)
    A happy marriage to someone who has never been a dub (not damaged there)

    So on and so forth.........

    there's only one area where damaged goods can be applied. Can you guess where?

    Bingo, you guessed it!


    I except that I am damaged there. Even after being out of the borg for more than 20 years. I used to think the scars would eventually fade and I guess they have some. I continue to work through the stuff in my own personal JW file (my mind and heart) and guess I always will.

    My advise to Danni is to run as fast as her feet can carry her from anyone or anything to do with the WTS.


    minds are like parachutes--they only function when open.

    In a world of peace and love, music would be the universal language...Thereau

  • Yadirf


    More seriously, given your comments, you have no choice but to acknowledge that the Society's ban on blood transfusions is not Scriptural.
    That is true. And there's several things about which the Society is mistaken about, yes things which are not exactly "Scriptural". Yet such doesn't mean that Jehovah's Witnesses are a false religion, or a cult. I think it must be admitted that the issue as to what is meant in the book of Acts regarding the command to "abstain" from blood is not particularly easy to understand. My "signature" scripture in fact suggests that the true religion would have adjustments to make with regard to MAJOR issues this side of the "time of the end". Surely those persons mentioned there (at Daniel 11:35) as "having insight" aren't stumbled over minor matters! Right? The blood issue is certainly a major issue, even as is the 1914 doctrine. Too, the mistaken idea that Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24:7 has already undergone fulfillment cannot be classified as anything other than major. The Society's situation compares very well with the scenario presented in Daniel 11:35.


    Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.

  • Englishman


    That's an interesting viewpoint of yours regarding blood which I shall think on. Have you any comments re shunning?

    The reason that I ask is that many here would not feel so antagonistic to the JW's if they looked a little closer at this belief, if they didn't feel that their families had been hijacked by JW's much of the heat against the WT would be dissipated. Seems to me to be a natural and instinctive reaction for people to be angry about this. You can't be shunned by your loved one's and then say that it is OK, you don't mind.


    Bring on the dancing girls!

  • Englishman

    Just bringimg my Q back to the top Friday, I may have posted it while you were still getting your ZZZzzzz's.

    Bring on the dancing girls!

  • Englishman

    Alan F,

    You said: The Society has also created the non-biblical idea of "absolute endangerment of spirituality", which allows a marriage mate to leave the other if they decide that their "spirituality" will be in danger by staying with the other mate.

    My old mate Ray, he who is married to Sausage Lucy, told me of this teaching last week. I disputed this and told him he was mistaken. Obviously he wasn't. Can you tell me when and how the WTS promulgated this belief?


    Bring on the dancing girls!

Share this