I never understood the logic of NEEDING a witness to accept child abuse allegations and yet NOT NEEDING a witness if a JW says that their mate is an adulterer. In that case, the one who alleges that unfaithfulness was carried on by the other mate must tell the elders and put into writing. IF the elders believe the "innocent" mate, that mate is free to remarry!
What Doctrines or JW Views Did You Not Find Too Believable?
by minimus 80 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
james_woods
Kind of like how the Catholics cannot divorce, but it is relatively easy to annull a marriage, Minimus.
-
minimus
Yes, but I never understood why Silentlambs and others involved in child abuse issues have never used this fact to prove Watchtower does not need 2 witnesses to establish a matter!
-
james_woods
Quite so, Minimus. Child molesters can get away with it for decades, even change congregations - but if a single pioneer brother should sleep on a single pioneer sister's couch overnight - both of them could be disfellowshipped without evidence of the deed itself. Even if they both deny anything happened in bed.
Not that I can think of any scripture to back that up ---
-
FirstLastName
As a kid, I was very curious about the dinosaurs. Why did Jehovah create them and then destroy them? Were they an experiement to Jehovah? What was their purpose? Did Jehovah kill them off, cause he got the great idea to make man and then the dinosaurs were to dangerous?
My dad, the elder, told me that God made them to be prehistoric "lawn mowers" - they maintained the vegitation before man came along and became the gardener. My dad was a gardener BTW.
I think back now and I think my dads answer was pretty clever. He probably did not even know himself and just made it up on the fly.
-
saltyoldlady
Ditto to so many of the above - remember reasoning with a sister who had been in a long time that if the elders were spirit appointed because their appointments had to be approved by the higher ups in the org than the Pioneers must also be spirit appointed - LOL - I did come to accept the idea that if the brothers qualified for a position per the scriptures then they were spirit appointed but not because the GB "approved" the decision of the local elder body.
But one item that troubled me greatly was the idea that a divorce could be executed only for adultery (not even child molestation or porneia at one time in the 70's and earlier) and then I often saw people in the congregation "admit" they had gone out and deliberately committed adultery just so they could not only get divorced but also so they could re-marry. Somehow that just didn't seem like good logic to me - and yet I saw this repeated oh so many times over the years - even deliberate wife swapping was happening in more than one congregation in my area - and yet the poor sister who had married an emotionally and physically abusive man, perhaps even a confirmed alcoholic or gambler, couldn't walk away from the relationship with dignity - she was required to stay inside the marriage union even though it was destroying her own and the children's lives or she could leave but must remain celibate the rest of their lives. I understood the need to "work" on one's marriage and work diligently but the utter cruelty of such hide-bound rigidity was evident in many a case also. I understood the scriptural principle that healing a marriage was a glorious victory and to be preferred but sheer mindless endurance at the same time seemed anything but sainthood or emotionally healthy to me. Perhaps I am found guilty of fighting against the scriptures themselves here - but in one area it is applied rigidly and yet there is also the scripture that says a man is NOT to marry a divorced woman and that particular item could be glanced over - ignored. Logic again missing - in this second item "loving-kindness" could be applied but in the other it is a firm, rigid, stance that cannot bend under any circumstances.
Seemed to me at times as though the WTS was lacking "common sense" in its applications of scriptural principles and laws.
-
saltyoldlady
Another view that flabbergasted me was the day the Red Revelation book announced that Abaddon (Apollyon) was Jesus Christ - the day before I had been teaching he was the Devil. Of course I understood the change had to be made to be consistent with the view that the locusts coming out of the pit represented US - but in Christendom I'd been taught they were demons. Maybe instead of the light getting brighter the light bulb just went out!
And another one that used to embarass me was the claim that the two oilive trees were a couple of WTS brothers back in 1918 or that the corpse that lay on the streets dead for three days was the GB in prison and their getting out was the same as resurrection for all the world to see - these personalized interpretations of the Holy Scriptures seemed demeaning to God in my mind.
-
LongHairGal
SALTYOLDLADY:
Welcome to the Board. I like reading your posts very much and it takes courage to be an older person who leaves the religion when they have spent so much time there. Good luck on your journey.
I, too, remember the throwaway marriages in the religion and the formula for getting a new wife: brother goes out and commits fornication, gets disfellowshipped and divorced. Then PRESTO! he comes back after an interval with his new (younger and prettier) wife. After a while, the new couple would be commenting at meetings like nothing was ever wrong. Yes, I saw a few of these over the years and they made me sick - even if I liked the couple. I knew it was basically wrong. If you confided in somebody you would be told "well,...imperfection you know". I got tired of hearing that excuse.
I also thought it was a stretch of the imagination when the religion used to apply scriptures to themselves as though they were the fulfillment, as mentioned in your post above (GB in prison, etc.) And this was in the early days when I was pretty much a 'believer'. I certainly did not swallow this even though I kept my doubts to myself.
I always felt it was the the height of presumptuousness on anybody's part to make divine claims about themselves. Sorry, but I am one of those people who needs to hear a voice from heaven to convince me.
-
Millions
What doctrines did I not find too believable? I didn't find any of them too believable, they were all only just about believable and even then they all required a certain stretch of the imagination!
Doctrines I found rather difficult to believe, if that was the intention (yes I am a pedant :P), include:
- that the seven trumpet blasts and the pouring out of the seven bowls of the anger of God in Revelation, corresponded to some insignificant convention talks in the USA between 1922 and 1928.
- that resurrected ones could never again be married.
- that spending thousands and thousands of dollars to restore the Hotel Bossert and other Brooklyn properties back to original condition was an acceptable use of dedicated funds and dedicated time, when the standard places of worship by contrast are constructed on a shoestring budget.
Can't face going over the murky past any further to pick out some more.
-
TD
Another view that flabbergasted me was the day the Red Revelation book announced that Abaddon (Apollyon) was Jesus Christ - the day before I had been teaching he was the Devil.
Similar to that is the view that Jesus is the 'Avenger of blood' and mankind is the unintentional manslayer. Unless you stay in the 'city of refuge' Jesus will kill you. The city of refuge is of course, the JW organization.
The implausible thing about this is it puts the believer in an adversarial relationship with the one who is supposed to be their Saviour, making Jesus your enemy.
Ya can't make this stuff up!