The site that shall not be named ...

by Afterburn 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Afterburn

    I know people are concerned about adding positively to JW stats on the site that shall not be named, but I don't think the argument is a valid one, because they are going to see cause to brag on themselves whether the stats rise, stagnate, or fall. It's built into their self-conceits. Here's the menu you get when you create a user account on that site.

    If the only thing you had to judge the cult by was this screen, what would you think was probably very important to them about their interactions with validated users accounts?

    'Announcements' may as well be labeled 'Find a Propaganda Center Near You or Donate' ... here's all I found when I clicked on Announcements:

    Seems to me that donations is what they most want from their registered users. But that's just a feeling I got.

    Under their Terms of Use, Medical Section, I found this:

    They seem a bit worried about lawsuits, to me.

  • Moster

    Unreal and Wow - only things that come to mind. Then again they have to get money for the pedophile lawsuits from somewhere.

  • Afterburn

    I'm actually finding some dismaying stuff available without a login from their site. The second of these two Questions From Readers, Watchtower April 1, 1953:

    I had been given to understand the views on disfellowshipping had hardened over a span of some decades, but this seems a very harsh view by the early 1950s.

    Since the disfellowshiped one is no longer a participant in the meetings at the Kingdom Hall, and since it is no longer his rightful place of religious association, he having been disconnected from that association by disfellowshiping, and in attendance at Kingdom Hall now, not by invitation or welcome but by his unwanted intrusion ...

    Yeah ... pretty dark.

    Here's the October 1, 1956 reference to the study article discussing why "Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce."

    Pops you right to the very paragraph. On their site.

    The same cult that tells adherents to "wait on Jehovah" has never shown the slightest inclination to do that among the cult's leadership. That's why there are ever growing mountains of "old light" piling up behind the cult's leadership.

  • slimboyfat

    I’m a bit unclear, but the 1953 WT seems to be talking about a specific situation where someone turns apostate, joins another religion, but for some reason still wants to attend the KH with a spouse. Which seems a strange scenario, but might explain the “unwanted intrusion” comment. It may not be a blanket statement that all DFed people are unwelcome, but there is enough Watchtower imprecision and ambiguity that it’s not entirely clear. Ironic since this QFR was apparently prompted by yet more imprecise language in an earlier QFR.

    I do find it interesting that the 1953 article disallows the DFed person from sitting with family, because more recently Watchtower has claimed that they place no formal restrictions on where DFed people can sit in the KH.

    When I was young it was traditional for DFed people to sit at the back in shame, sometimes quite a few. These days there are no DFed people at the back any more, just sick and nervous people who prefer to sit at the back for one reason or another.

  • Afterburn

    sbf, the question and response both clarify that the context is "apostate or disfellowshipped."

  • slimboyfat

    That is true. But it does otherwise seem to be addressing a particular usual scenario. I am not sure what the intent of the Wathtower writer was because it seems ambiguous, and I’ve not read the original QFR. It is certainly possible the writer really meant to say that all DFed people are an “unwanted intrusion”, but I’m not 100% sure.

  • Afterburn

    Ambiguity is common among high-control groups. It allows for cover from civil torts while leaving the door wide open for sticklers for "righteousness" (whatever the group has branded that to mean) to be as Draconian and as Machiavellian as they please in their pursuit of that conceptual ideal.

  • Earnest

    The QFR of the November 15, 1952, Watchtower was :

    In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?

    In part, it answered :

    Satan’s influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God's organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.

    The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person—no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: “If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah's sanctified nation]." (Matt. 18:17, N W ) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.

Share this