Disturbance during Memorial 2016.

by Ben131895 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Listener

  Greenhorn Christian - That's the first time I've ever heard that the generation began in 1992. I've only been out 4 years. Is this new or did I miss something?

  
  This was the year that Freddie Franz passed away and they are using him as an example to generalize about the second group, the overlapping anointed. Without being absolute they are saying that any anointed prior to this year would be part of this generation that would not pass away.
  
  You put an interesting slant on it because in effect it means the countdown of 'this generation' does now begin in 1992 (or thereabouts).
  ---
  These guys made a video afterwards discussing what went wrong, how they felt and what they were trying to achieve. Both were nervous and felt some level of personal closure.
  
  The organization spends thousands of hours inviting the public with written invitations, they then brag about the number of hours spent doing this and the amount of people that attended. Part of their charity status is due to the fact that they make themselves available to the public in general and particularly, the Kingdom Halls are open to the public. These guys are exercising their rights in regards to religious freedom.
  
  We don't blink an eyelid when we see objectors disrupt public political rallies.
• 

  ssn587

  Loved it
• 

  babygirl30

  I have never condoned this type of behavior - as someone else said - it really does make those of us who are ex-JWs look crazy. It truly is counter productive. Shoot, even if someone goes off at a work meeting, we all look at that person like they have 'issues'...so a religious meeting disturbance by one person is no different in my mind. Fighting JWs has to be done another way, but the belligerent way is NOT gonna work.
• 

  carla

  do you suppose they counted the guy who ate & drank? ha, just kidding.
  
• 

  maninthemiddle

  I agree with this being counter-productive. I believe just a few private conversations with those in attendance would be much more fruitful. If you are going to attend and pretend to be joe public, why not ask questions, use the Socratic method to make them think while not being disruptive.
• 

  rebel8

  Why not do legal protests, such as standing on a nearby public sidewalk and protesting that way?

  Rhetorical question. The answer is: These acts were done to serve the needs of the protestor, not the audience.

  Unfortunate choice of techniques.

  "Disrespecting the faith"--yeah, that was the intent, and there's nothing wrong with that.

  Being disruptive on private property, doing criminal things--->not ok.
  
• 

  pbrow

  The man stood up at a public event, said a few words and left without incident. Not your way? fine... that is your perogative. Was this self serving? Who cares? Those that choose to be controled will no doubt continue to want to be controlled. Screw them. Could this have jolted the conscious of a study or newcomer or MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL a born in kid who is trapped? Maybe.

  If there were 100 people in this hall and 99 of those people crawled even further under their rock and even one person thought for the first time to google jwfacts then it was absolutly worth it.

  pbrow
• 

  steve2

  pbrow, there is likely some confusion surrounding two different concepts, the first legality of protest, the second, effectiveness of protest.

  If it were an illegal act, absolutely no problem whatsoever with me or many of the other posters here: He could be threatened with legal action or charged. End of story. His responsibility.

  However, most posters have addressed the second concept: Effectiveness of protest.

  It is around this concept that most debate has revolved.
• 

  Listener

  Seems that there are some on here that would say Jesus was wrong in turning over the Money changers tables in the temple.
• 

  Pete Zahut

  

  Listener 31 minutes ago

  Seems that there are some on here that would say Jesus was wrong in turning over the Money changers tables in the temple.

  Not really a good comparison, Jesus was (supposedly) the Son of God....not a mere man who simply disagreed with what was being taught at some "kingdom hall" he no longer attends, as was the case in that video. To Jesus, the temple was his fathers house and a place of worship rather than a marketplace and he was (supposedly) sent to earth by GOD to personally carry out his will. Who does this guy in the video think he is that he can just walk into someone else's place of worship, intentionally stand up and disrupt their proceedings with an inflammatory act and start dictating how they should do things?