"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham ."
With a twist of lime and lemon. Shaken, not stirred.
Posts by SAHS
-
15New Light?
by Blind_Of_Lies inhave the faithful followers been informed of the new light yet?
i know its going to be in the july wt (i think) but i dont remember how far in advance those get released.
would someone who doesnt read this forum know about it yet?.
-
-
-
78
Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!
by BU2B ini caught yet another revisionist history deception in todays wt lesson.. .
here is a quote from paragraph 4 of the 2/15/13 study edition.
"decades before 1914, jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.".
-
-
SAHS
“BU2B,” you beat me to it and stole my thunder! That’s okay, mate. I was fairly sure someone was going to beat me to it.
I actually gave a comment in the Watchtower study this morning on that exact sentence in that very paragraph. My elder dad was doing the reading of the paragraphs, and I was sitting beside my mom. What I said (to the best of my recollection) was: “Originally, before 1914, they believed that 1914 would actually be the end of the time of the end, including Armageddon. They taught that the time of the end actually began in 1874 and that Jesus secured the throne of Kingdom power in 1878, and this was taught up until 1929, but that was clarified in 1932.”
In hindsight, I think that I might have been a little bit incorrect regarding the organization’s past teaching of 1874 as being the earliest beginning of the time of the end. I was going to mention the 1799 date, which seems to have been the earliest date they taught as being the beginning of the time of the end, but I wasn’t too sure about that one as I kind of ran out of time to research it further before the meeting this morning.
I was relying on the following specific post dated October 5, 2012 which I came across yesterday:
That particular post quoted a Paul Grundy, author of jwfacts.com, where he apparently quoted, “In 1914, the Watchtower was teaching that Jesus’ presence began in 1874 and his heavenly rulership began in 1878.” Then that post concluded with the following quote:
“ ‘Our belief that the Kingdom began to be set up, or brought into power, in April, 1878, be it observed, rests on exactly the same foundation as our belief that the Lord became present in Oct. 1874, and that the harvest began at that time.’—Thy Kingdom Come, p. 205.”
However, when I made my comment in the Watchtower study this morning, I probably should have just said that they taught that the time of the end actually began as far back as 1799 instead of saying it was 1874. It all starts to get rather confusing for anyone! All well, at least I probably got everyone thinking.
Afterward, when my mom asked me where I got my information from for my comment, I decided to play for my parents the following video I came across on YouTube which very nicely relates to this morning’s Watchtower study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnMeCpTxIU
Of course, my parents will never see the light (the real light, that is), as they spent the better part of their lives as very firm believers of whatever the Governing Body dispenses, whatever that is. (They’re now in their seventies.) All well. What can you do.
-
38
Newbie
by Stubborn Disbeliever ini'm new here, so i thought i'd start with an introduction and summary of my life, for the most part.
i have a tendancy to ramble ridiculously, so bear with me :) and this will be all over the place as thoughts take over the keyboard.. i was born a 5th generation jw.
i never really "felt" it, but was book smart about it.
-
-
SAHS
Welcome Stubborn Disbeliever! You’ve come to the right kind of place here.
As a lot of people come to realize, there are really two sets of standards which JW elders live by: the standards they’re supposed to live by; i.e., the standards by which the WT claims elders live by – kind, caring, “a hiding place from the wind and a place of concealment from the rainstorm” (Isaiah 32:2), etc. – which certainly would include living by the “law of the land” (certainly not assaulting their own child!) – and then there’s the actual standards which they live by . . . which, as we all know, are not the same thing.
The standards which JW elders follow, as I’ve found, are, put simply: whichever ones they think they can get away with. (Don’t bother looking for the love which is supposed to exist in all of this – many elders just conveniently toss that out the window. Yes, as long as they tow the WT line, that's apparently all that counts for them.)
-
108
July 15th Study Edition Is Up..
by confusedteenager innot sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but yeah.
they just posted up the new watchtower...with the confusing new information.. time for me to go dive into this "new light" and try to see what sense it makes.
of course cedars already nicely did a run down for us.. .
-
-
SAHS
The reason, as I see it, that the Faithful and Discreet Slave no longer comprises just one member, such as a president, but, rather, the Governing Body working as a group is to avoid any responsibility or culpability of any one single individual. This is called "diffusion of responsibility."
Moreover, by the Faithful and Discreet Slave NOT any longer including the anointed class as a whole but, rather, comprising exclusively just the Governing Body itself is that it can achieve more power and control; i.e., not having to share it with the general anointed class by having to consider their input.
So they can sort of have it both ways now. No one can point the finger to any one single individual person, BUT that mighty current group of eight still gets to share, just among themselves, all the power and glory which up until fairly recently had been bestowed on the entire anointed Faithful and Descreet Slave as a class.
-
12
The Cult Test
by AndDontCallMeShirley inafter reading this, is there any doubt watchtower is a cult?.
the following information describes cults in general but is not specifically focused on the jehovah's witnesses, although they are mentioned several times.
the characteristics of cults are so much in line with wt tactics, down to similar phrases and buzzwords.. .
-
-
SAHS
I have actually just finished reading ALL of the series of Web pages in the Orange Papers Web site (“http://www.orange-papers.org”) under the general “Cult Test” section as well as the comparison of same to Alcoholics Anonymous. It was quite a lengthy and detailed read.
Although I do, in fact, agree with the material under the general “Cult Test,” I must, however, take exception to the rather unfair, unwarranted, and inordinately vehement vilification of Alcoholics Anonymous.
I myself, in addition to having being born into a Jehovah’s Witness family in 1966, have also been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) on and off for several years. Although I have relapsed quite a few times – admittedly due to my not having actually been “working the program” in my earlier exposure – I must say that AA, of anything, certainly does NOT appear to be a cult.
AA has helped bring me almost a year-and-a-half of current continuous sobriety, and it has most definitely saved countless people much untold misery and death. Although I do not deny the fundamentalist-like and somewhat unsavory history of both the old Oxford Group and the AA founders, William (Bill) Wilson and Dr. Robert (Bob) Smith, I just cannot fathom AA to be a “cult” in the general, classic sense. There is no current dictator or “guru” forcing his/her every whim on the populace, such as the case in the infamous cults cited (Jim Jones, Moonies, etc.) or in the case of rogue nations such as North Korea or Cuba.
As the 12 Traditions of AA clearly state, their “leaders” are “but trusted servants” . . . and “THEY DO NOT GOVERN.” That certainly does NOT seem to be a cult to me. Orange Papers seems to be almost trying to crucify this very noble and practical support group as though it were some kind of antisocial, fascist neo-Nazi group of religious extremists.
Come on, Orange Papers. You could be a little more fair and less melodramatic about AA – yes, the founders and history are not perfect (big surprise?), but the reality is that IT IS SAVING LIVES!!
-
18
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 03-17-2013 WT Study (DRAWING CLOSE)
by blondie inview of money and pride?.
jehovah?.
comments.
-
-
SAHS
In Paragraph 15:" Indeed,
resting our hope on our savings,
investments, or ability to earn money
in this system amounts to resting our
hope on “the god of this system,” Satan. "
And, of course, the WT has been investing in the markets all along - including at least 50% ownership in RAND CAM ENGINE CORP., which produces military equipment for the US NAVY!!
-
15
Part 2 of Botzwana's story....The final part.
by Botzwana inhttp://monstercafesaltillo.blogspot.mx/2013/03/my-story-as-jehovahs-witness-part-2.html.
again comments are appreciated..
-
-
SAHS
Congratulations on coming out in the open about your new freedom from the clutches of the Watchtower. After looking at all those other jokers (Mormons, Christian Scientology, Moonies, Hare Krishna, etc.), you come to realize that the Watchtower is really just another scam among many. All the best to you and yours.
(I tried posting on your Website, but it just deleted it when I clicked on "Publish" and I had to retype it.)
-
26
Hypocritical comments by JWs regarding the Catholic Church in light of the new Pope.
by Theocratic Sedition ini'm curious, what can you expect to hear from jws this week?
or have you heard anything already.
since awakening, i find it to be hilarious when jws badmouth catholics and the pope but are completely oblivious to how hypocritical they are considering the gb and other wt heavyweights..
-
-
SAHS
Roberta804:" Truth be told, every other religion I know of EXCEPT JWs, do a lot of good by feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, providing help for the infirmed, teach our children, heal the sick, comfort the dying and help those with addictions and so much more. "
Very true. In that respect, there is vast difference between the JWs and others.
Unlike the JWs, the Catholic churches, as well as various Protestant churches, do benefit the community by providing food for the poor, sponsoring addiction and grief counseling, etc., which can readily be seen. On the other hand, the public shunning thing - even shunning because of openly differing on some doctrinal issues (automatically considering the person as "disassociated") - and not to mention many other oddities (birthdays, blood, beards, and on and on, blah, blah, blah), seem to be quite peculiar to the JWs.
The point of this thread, however, is the fact that the JWs have always been making hypocritical comments regarding the Catholic Church when, in fact, there ARE some SPECIFIC similarities between the two, namely the hierarchical structure, which is so authoritarian in both cases that it almost resembles India's caste system (i.e., the entrenched and constantly reinforced "pecking order"), as well as the pedophilia thing, and also the propensity to "go beyond the things written." In these very SPECIFIC ways, the two have significant similarities – and the point is that there are way too many of these SPECIFIC similarities for the JWs to be constantly making hypocritical comments from their "holier than thou" high horse. But, of course, the Catholic Church is NOT the same in many of the other things that really matter (the essence of the "law of the Christ"), such as those things you outlined above.
Take care.
-
53
Hello
by newdawnfades ini am a long time lurker who has finally decided to post.
i am still in along with my wife, kids and extended family.
i am in my 40s and was raised in the org.
-
-
SAHS
Hi newdawnfades, and welcome! I too am in my 40s, and I'm a born-in who has had a complete change of beliefs about the WT during the last twelve years or so, thanks in no small part to this great discussion board. I had thought that I probably sinned against the holy spirit (thus my username, SAHS) since my teens, but now, after learning all this important and objective information, I actually feel a lot better.
One thing I would say is that, regardless of whether or not you want to play it safe with the gradual fade approach, it's a good idea to always leave little though-provoking tidbits of information for your family in the form of a question and then let them grapple with it themselves. Kind of like the "cliff hanger" approach that JWs use with the householders in the field service - leave a question for them to think about and then get back to them later. For example, you could ask one of your family members a question about, for example, some of the many "new light" teachings from the WT that you find hard to understand comparted to earlier teachings and then offer to get together after a while to compare notes. Then offer some interesting point which you stumbled upon somethere on the Internet (don't mention any particular Web site, such as this one - just say that you forgot exactly where you got it from). Just keep dropping little crumbs of factual information relating to the actual history of the organization itself and how it relates to its current teachings.
Just be careful. Mention one simple point at a time, and discretion. And don't forget to keep up with those "cliff hangers"!
-
40
Another visit from the elders
by jonno12225 inso i have another visit from the elder this week.
this time they want to speak with my wife, still a believer and myself.
i think they want to know my position about my children attending the meetings and some other things.. while preparing myself for it i though of a challenge for the elders and my wife.
-
-
SAHS
Whatever you do should be according to your own objective and self-integrity. Allow me to present the following three possibilities:
1. If you just want to avoid being disfellowshipped at all cost, then either
-- avoid the meeting altogether, or
-- allow the meeting, but be at their mercy and just give the standard "Sir, yes sir!" response to everything (it's okay to just switch your brain to the "off" mode in that case).
2. If, on the other hand, you don't really care about being disfellowshipped (or judged to be not an "approved associate" if you were never baptized) and the consequences that would entail, then
-- in that case, I would familiarize myself with all the pertinent issues relating to the trueness and authenticity of the Governing Body's claims of being the sole mouthpiece for God (right from Russell down to the latest change of the FDS comprising just the current GB) and let them have it from both barrels right in the face - BOOM!
3. The third option: if you want to be reasonably careful about avoiding being disfellowshipped/disassociated and want to keep your family together BUT you would also like to stand up for yourself and stand up for the idea of fairness, justice, and open-mindedness, then
-- in that case (which is the one I would be more inclined to choose myself), I would allow a brief meeting but I would just say to them something like, "Oh, and by the way, I was just wondering about a couple of things I was curious about that I thought perhaps you could shed some light on . . . ," and ask them, in somewhat of a matter-of-fact manner, about the missing Jesus in the April 15, 2013 Watchtower (I think that's the one) and also the change at the October 2012 annual meeting about the FDS comprising just the current GB, and, without raising suspicions or seeming dogmatic about it, just leave it up to them to give you an answer. This approach would at least give the elders, as well as your wife, something to at least think about; it would plant a little seed in their minds which they would have to come to terms with personally. If they ask you directly whether or not you believe that the GB is God's sole spirit-anointed organization, you don't have to answer either Yes or No but, instead, you could just say something like, "Don't get me wrong, brothers, I would certainly like to believe whatever the truth is, but to be honest I'm not absolutely sure given certain new technicalities I've become aware of, and I would welcome any thoughts you might have based on solid evidence." So, instead of just sticking your neck right out for them to chop it off, I would still give them something to think about - and put the burden of proof on them. If they really are intelligent and reasonable people, they should be able to offer you at least some little crumb of insight on these matters, and if (when!) they just end up putting their foot in their mouth, then, . . . . Voila!