Fury after reading Watchtower article for this week

by Eclectic 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Eclectic

    @ Chariklo

    I never said they are not lovely, nice and spiritual. Many people are, maybe including the Pope. My point is they DO NOT follow Paul's example concerning not being an economic burden on others, specially fellow christians. Are you a baptized member of JWs? Then ask your elders how much cost every visit (meals, gas, transport, car rental...) and who pays it. For me, they are not a burden at all, because I do not put money into the contribution boxes, but it means others must pay for me. If I am not wrong (please correct me) every publisher must pay (in a certain european country) 4€ per year for their rental cars. It was voted in every congregation, but we all know how votations are, by a show of hands. So YES will always win. Every JW know that, and I am amazed how this paragraph can state they are an exemple about not being a burden.

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    @Charliko, you are mostly right, but i wonder if you already made the experience of what it's like when they are coming after you... nice people turn bad and ugly really fast when it comes to certain beliefs.

  • OnTheWayOut

    I get the point. To be a C.O., you have to be a burden on the congregations. It's the way that's set up.

    So it's really hypocrisy for Watchtower to set up a burden then talk about how they aren't a burden. It would be better to leave the travelling "elders" out of the statement. But WTS is a dangerous mind-control cult. They put it there so that we will agree with the thought that C.O.'s do not add an "expensive" burden. The key word is "expensive." By agreeing with WTS, members are reinforcing the idea that they do all they can to keep expenses low. That way, we won't question anything they do, including deficits at the assemblies or selling property in Brooklyn or collecting funds for a disaster via the worldwide work slush fund.

  • moomanchu

    Of course the CO's & DO's are $$$ burdens.

    Also special pioneers like my brother & sis in law are $$$$ burdens.

    Since my sister in law is a sister in the org. all she does is field service.

    Following Paul's example my a$$.

  • cantleave

    As an elder I was always out of pocket. I would give my time to the society and congregation and never expected anything in return. I would frequently give people lifts without expectation of compensation. I would say many elders do this and genuinely want to help the congregation.

    I also know of some elders who expect much in return, maybe not financially, but certainly in terms of status and other reciprocal benefits.

  • fresia

    what about the pioneers being catered for at the pioneer schools every year, b/s cooking and providing meals, this is just catering to an elite group, and its a burden on the congregation. Most come from families where they are looked after, no rent etc.

    Seems to me the r/f are bleed at every oppotunity.

  • TheOldHippie

    I would not call it a burden. The huge main part of the KH / congregation expenses are loans, electricity, municipality taxes, and to a smaller degree assembly hall expenses. The amount paid for covering the CO car is a tiny fraction. Some JW give him a small amount during his visit - but burden? I know for the purists, things should be 100 % and one should not compare with other religious groups, but if I look around and watch the various other groups, most of them pay their pastors a salary, and there is always the demand for money money money. Compared to various other groups, there can not be said to be any burden at all. Nowadays, when the congregational finances are not read out at the meetings, one tends to forget all about the economy and not much is donated. So burden? Not at all.

  • SirNose586
    Compared to various other groups, there can not be said to be any burden at all.

    Yeah, got to give it to ya, Hippie, as much as I grew to hate the C.O. arrangement, you can't call his visit a burden. Perhaps a temporary extra expense at best.

    I liked the warm, friendly old C.O.s that came by. Shuen was good; Erskine was good too, had a lot of jokes. Don't know if anyone outside of socal knows these guys, but I really did like them. They had this humble nature and grandfatherly charm about them that I really couldn't find fault with. I was sad to see them move on.

    Then there came these two company a**holes, Casino and Misterfeld. Misterfeld was named in the Encino lawsuit; perhaps he's someone people know. But Casino? Never liked the guy. Boring, coma-inducing tone of voice. Huge headed guy with slick silver hair, Brooklyn accent...he reminded me of Peter Popoff. Get this, he chewed out some sister because she described something as "cool." What???? That phrase has been around longer than he's been alive!! "Cool." And the greatest part about it was that she chewed him out in return, using Bible scriptures. Nice one. Take that you square company jerk! He was big on meeting punctuality, but really, that's when I started being critical of C.Os. Listen you pampered company man with a special dietary needs wife (weren't all C.O's wives like that??), these people bust their a**es at jobs all day, and then scramble back home to eat and get dressed, only to have them harangued for not doing enough. I really didn't think it was fair for a man who did nothing but drive around and have people kiss his a** tell others to get to the meetings on time. F*** you. Seriously.

    Misterfeld, like Casino, was another company bore. Seriously, I got so many naps when they spoke. He was another square. And speaking of shapes, get this, gang: he gave everyone a "round tuit," a colored piece of paper in the shape of a circle. "So now," he'd smirk, "you can't say 'I'll get a round to it,' because now, friends, you have a round tuit." Ooooooh, I could have STRANGLED him with his nondescript necktie for that stinker. And he never liked reading the congregation stats, because as it turned out, they were falling in certain areas. For a couple years I didn't know what was going on...well, it was censorship. That was going on. Hated that guy.

    So there is a point to all this: if the C.O's good at what he does, hey, why not foot the bill for him? Forget about these company jerks, though.

  • Pistoff

    The only reason someone could say the CO's and DO's are not a burden is because the cost is spread out, and there are so few of them.

    All of the costs incurred by traveling bro's are covered by the congregations: their car, their travel expense and even their health care.

    Plus they are housed and fed by the local congregation, and handed cash during the week.

    They are not at all the same as the (not an) apostle Paul; Paul paid his way. The CO's and DO's do not.

    That makes them a 'burden'.

    The whole paragraph is a strawman anyway, by describing the total care for the CO's as a possible 'burden' and then saying they are NOT a burden.

    Their expense is carried by the congregations.

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    There has to be a point when it dawns on Casino, Misterfeld, et al, that they've thrown their lives away on a delusion.

Share this