Supposing The WT DOES Monitor This Site..

by Englishman 81 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • FairMind
    FairMind
    They are probably trying to ID as many people as they can from what is presented here.

    They probably have joined the site under the "theocratic warefare" guise and post etc, to see what they can find out about the others.

    Yes, I would agree! I'm very curious though about how many active JWs actually visit this site. If everybody coming here with a few exceptions such as myself are ex-JWs, then we are all merely preaching to the choir. Maybe Simon could share with us how many hits this site gets in a typical month from "different" IP addresses? This number less the number of registered site members would give us an idea of approximately how many active JWs come here to browse .

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208
    BTW, mkr, I recognize your zip so if you really really want to remain anon on here and "go back someday" as a WT-CPA, maybe you should change your ID?

    I would rather be boiled in cat piss then go back there!!!! Those f*ckers don't scare me a bit

  • Neo
    Neo
    I think he meant the accounts about immorality in the congregations - the record that goes to the service dept on DF'g cases. Is that right ithinkisee?

    Ooops, a bit too obvious. Sounds like it went over my head. Thanks, Jeff.

    The Society has been monitoring Internet sites since the mid-1990s. The guys they assign to monitoring aren't assigned for long -- too discouraging, and too dangerous to their "spiritual health". Yep, a healthy dose of the truth is horribly dangerous to JWs.

    Indeed. So, for about a decade, the WT voluntarily exposed quite a few of their higher-ups to "apostate propaganda." At the same time they were saying "stay away from apostate sites!" to the R&F. Kinda double standards, I guess...

    Okay, let's say the WTS does monitor this site. Why? What purpose does it serve?

    They want to antecipate possible legal cases. An exJW may tell here in the forum about their desire to sue the WT. The lawyers can stay one step ahead on cases like this if people disclose too much personal information.

    I also think they search for possible flaws in their publications that can be brought up in court. For example, in around 2001/2002, JWD posters kept hamming on WT's "theocratic warfare" thing (aka lying) because of WT behaviour in recent court cases. And not too long after that they came up with a QFR article on telling the truth in court.

    Neo

  • Neo
    Neo

    *** w03 1/15 p. 21 Questions From Readers ***

    Questions

    From Readers

    Is

    it Scripturally acceptable for a Christian to place his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth in court?

    Each individual must make a personal decision in this regard. (Galatians 6:5) However, there is no Biblical objection to taking an oath to tell the truth in court.

    Oath taking has long been a widespread practice. In ancient times, for instance, the Greeks raised a hand toward heaven or touched an altar while taking an oath. When a Roman juror took an oath, he held a stone in his hand and swore: "If I knowingly deceive, while he saves the city and citadel, may [the god] Jupiter cast me away from all that is good, as I do this stone."?Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John McClintock and James Strong, Volume VII, page 260.

    Such acts were indications of mankind?s inclination to recognize the existence of a divine power who is able to observe humans and to whom they are accountable. From ancient times, true worshipers of Jehovah realized that he knew what they said and did. (Proverbs 5:21; 15:3) They took oaths in the presence of God, as it were, or with him as a witness. For example, this was done by Boaz, David, Solomon, and Zedekiah. (Ruth 3:13; 2 Samuel 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23, 24; Jeremiah 38:16) Worshipers of the true God also allowed others to put them under oath. That was so in the case of Abraham and of Jesus Christ.?Genesis 21:22-24; Matthew 26:63, 64.

    A person taking an oath before Jehovah sometimes made an accompanying gesture. Abram (Abraham) told the king of Sodom: "I do lift up my hand in an oath to Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth." (Genesis 14:22) An angel speaking to the prophet Daniel "proceeded to raise his right hand and his left hand to the heavens and to swear by the One who is alive for time indefinite." (Daniel 12:7) Even God is referred to as symbolically raising his hand in an oath.?Deuteronomy 32:40; Isaiah 62:8.

    There is no Scriptural objection to taking an oath. However, a Christian does not have to take an oath so as to back up every statement that he makes. Jesus said: "Just let your word Yes mean Yes, your No, No." (Matthew 5:33-37) The disciple James made a similar point. When he said "stop swearing," he was warning against frivolous oath taking. (James 5:12) Neither Jesus nor James said that it is wrong to take an oath to tell the truth in court.

    What, then, if a Christian in court is asked to swear that his testimony is truthful? He may feel that he can take such an oath. Otherwise, he may be permitted to give an affirmation that he is not lying.?Galatians 1:20.

    When courtroom procedure involves either raising a hand or placing it on the Bible when swearing, a Christian may choose to comply. He may have in mind the Scriptural examples of accompanying an oath with a gesture. For a Christian, more important than making a certain gesture when taking an oath is that he remembers that he is swearing before God to tell the truth. Such an oath is a serious matter. If a Christian feels that he can and should answer a question put to him in such circumstances, then he should bear in mind that he is under oath to tell the truth, which, of course, is what a Christian wants to speak at all times.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    I don't think the GB would asign anybody to monitor this site,,too dangereous,,besides what would this person be looking for? It just doesn't seem likely that the GB would assign someone because if they ever did then if that person became an apostate he would really become a thorn in thier flesh,, exposing conversations they had reporting back to the GB. Too risky IMO. But:

    I think that many members of the Governing Body themselves on a regular basis do read this site in order to plan certain stratagy, in order to plan what to write in up comming publications,, in an effort to try and counter act what the opposition (us) are saying.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Mike,

    I have to say that many posters do fit the profile of what the WTS expects of those who leave the flock. Gnashing of teeth, permissivness, independent thinking, blashpemy etc. etc. This in itself would forge a cocoon of emotional distance and superiority around the roaming paralegals who search the Board.

    What strikes me as puzzling though is how the numerous people that I know of in Bethel who have read 'Crisis Of Conscience', acknowledge its veracity, and yet an still remain hypnotized by the Organization. That is cognitive dissonance at its most thorough.

    If anybody doubts that this Board is monitored, they need only look as far as Just2Laws and Joyzabel who when disfellowshipped, were I understand presented with incriminating evidence taken from the very board as 'witnesses' against them.

    Best regards - HS

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Frankie,

    I don't think the GB would asign anybody to monitor this site,,too dangereous,,besides what would this person be looking for?

    They may not be assigned by the GB but more likely by Legal, and they definately *do* trawl this Board. I know this an as absolute as I have heard it first hand from someone assigned to do this work as part of their Legal research.

    Best regards - HS

  • gumby
    gumby
    I have to say that many posters do fit the profile of what the WTS expects of those who leave the flock. Gnashing of teeth, permissivness, independent thinking, blashpemy etc. etc. This in itself would forge a cocoon of emotional distance and superiority around the roaming paralegals who search the Board.

    Why do you say that Hillary? Thousands have exited seeing these things and didn't form a cocoon around them.......ya big butterfly brain! They are as human as we are.

    Gumby

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    If anyone has any PROOF then please post it on my thread.

    There is a lot of hot air and little substantiation on this site!!!

  • Golf
    Golf

    Personally, I hope they do!


    Golf

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit