Hi Cab1000,
I sent you an e-mail for a gmail invite. Many thanks!
Mark
.
i have 50 gmail invites.
if you would like one, just send me an email to [email protected].
Hi Cab1000,
I sent you an e-mail for a gmail invite. Many thanks!
Mark
the society's new book 'organized to do jehovah's will', to be released in the congregations .
on the 20th of march, introduces a change in the df and da announcements.
announcements will read the same: "[name of person] is no longer one of jehovah's .
Elsewhere,
I'm afraid I don't have an easy way of posting the contents of the book in .pdf format,
but I'm sure someone will do so soon.
All,
I totally agree with your comments. The motivation behind this move is the advice of
the society's legal department, but I'm sure they will advertize the change to the rank
and file as an attempt at simplification. So now the elder bodies have a new inquisitorial
whip to crack at the 'spiritually weak' members of the congregation. I'm sure that, as we
speak, the service department is preparing instructions on how to use their new 'toy'.
Watch out for the 2005 elders' school.
Mark
the society's new book 'organized to do jehovah's will', to be released in the congregations .
on the 20th of march, introduces a change in the df and da announcements.
announcements will read the same: "[name of person] is no longer one of jehovah's .
The society's new book 'Organized to do Jehovah's Will', to be released in the congregations
on the 20th of March, introduces a change in the DF and DA announcements. Now both
announcements will read the same: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's
Witnesses."
The book also redefines the notion of a disassociation to apply to an individual who"deliberately
repudiates his Christian standing, rejecting the congregation by his actions or by
stating that he no longer wants to be recognized as or known as one of Jehovah's
Witnesses" (p. 155).
This change (the old book made no reference to the person's actions), is in line with the
society's policy of DA-ing those who do not comply with its instructions regarding blood,
voting, joining the military, etc., while avoiding the potential legal problems of
disfellowshipping in such cases.
I believe the society will tighten its grip on the publishers even more. No changes in sight.
Mark
recently my father and i have been arguing over scriptual interpretation getting nowhere so i wrote him this email to see what his reaction would be...check it out!!.
here is my email to him...maybe we should take a break from these conversations on.
interpretation of scripture.
Jared,
Judging by his e-mail, I believe your dad is beginning to wake up from the WT nightmare. He doesn't speak like a
'true' believer. Best of luck there. However, I think you might have a problem getting reinstated if you have a girlfriend, beard
and the rest. Many elders will take that to be a 'bad attitude' and will 'encourage' (= harass) you to give them up as a sign of
your repentance before they let you back in the congregation. If you were DF over some issue with a girl, then
keeping a relationship alive will definitely be a no-no for the body of elders. If it was a 'rebellious attitude' of some sort,
then using a non-aproved translation at the meetings (or keeping a beard, the utter sign of rebellion in the witness world! )
won't help you at all. You see, those men attach a great importance to the smallest of things. It also feels like the elders
might try to get back at your dad through you and harass you for longer than you think, I don't know. Anyway, best of luck,
whatever you decide to do.
Mark
someone informed me today that in two months time there will be a "special announcement" to all congregations.
everyone must be present at the kingdom hall for it.
my elders already know what it is, but won't tell me.
There's no need to speculate. The announcement IS about the release of their new 'Organized' book.
'Organized to do God's Will', I think it's called. Every publisher, baptized or not, will be given a copy
of the new book at the end of that meeting. A rather uninteresting development, if you ask me.
No doubt many will be disappointed. The friends will go to the Kingdom Hall expecting to hear something
that changes the unbearable routines of witness life, and all they will end up with is yet another cheap
paperback rehash.
Mark
someone informed me today that in two months time there will be a "special announcement" to all congregations.
everyone must be present at the kingdom hall for it.
my elders already know what it is, but won't tell me.
They will be releasing the new edition of the 'Organized' book to publishers on that date.
Mark.
when a witness encounters injustices engendered by the watchtower and considers them.
with clarity of mind, he is likely to suppose that , at worst, the old men who run things.
are sincere but misguided.
Metatron,
I'm sure there are high-ranking witnesses of both types. But in my opinion
there's one common trait that they all share: whether sincere old men or
deliberate deceivers, they thoroughly idolize the Watchtower organization and
there is nothing they wouldn't do to protect it or to advance its interests.
Many witnesses, high-ranking and otherwise, realize the ethical and doctrinal
problems that sit deep withing the organization, but yet they're willing to suspend their
concerns indefinitely for the sake of their 'mother' organization.
Mark.
the ?blood card?
and dpa have been combined into one document that folds into a business card size.
(unfolded it measures 6.75 x 8.5 inches / 17 x 21.5 cm.
A letter was sent to all congregations in my state (the whole of the US?) asking the secretary to
destroy the instructions for filling out the DPA/blood card. These instructions, which were to
be distributed together with the DPA/blood card to each baptized publisher, had arrived to the
congregation only a couple of weeks before. Now, how's that for tacking in the wind?
The letter also included a modification to the written outline for the talk in the service meeting.
It said that those who thought their wishes regarding medical treatment were not represented
by either of the three options (a) - (c) in sections 3 and 4, would have other options
available in a document to be added to the DPA/blood card. The letter did not elaborate
on the details, and asked that no DPA/blood card should be completed until we
receive further information from 'mother'.
There really seems to be a power struggle among the Bether four star generals.
Mark.
(i'm sorry i originally posted this topic in the friends forum... i don't know how to delete the one there.
in my opinion, there is definitely a new trend in the way the wts
the medical use of blood fractions?
(I'm sorry I originally posted this topic in the Friends forum... I don't know how to delete the one there. ) In my opinion, there is definitely a new trend in the way the WTS
deals with the medical use of blood fractions.
The most recent publication on this topic (e.g. W06/15/2004), and the newly
released blood document (dpa-E), which will be distributed during this week?s
service meeting, are written in a way that clearly discourages the use of fractions
of the so-called ?four primary components? of blood. Let me illustrate my claim.
First, as I think Blondie already pointed out in one of her weekly commentaries,
the W06/15/2004, especially in pp. 23-24, presented the use of blood fractions in
a clearly negative light. For example, whereas those considering use of blood
fractions were encouraged to spend time weighing in on the potentially bad
consequences of their actions, in particular with regard to ?stumbling? others,
no such encoragement was given to those who refuse blood fractions. The
discussion of 1 Cor. 8: 12 in paragraph 13 also appeared to imply that refusing
blood fractions was evidence of being spiritually ?strong? (or at least this is how
many witnesses I know personally understood this paragraph). The WTS knows
full well that the witnesses will invariably pick up these subtle messages and
give them the force of law, so a biased presentation of the issues is often
enough for their purposes.
The newly released blood document (dpa-E) is fundamentally different from
the old one in the way witnesses can express their wishes regarding the medical
use of blood fractions. The new blood document reads as follows:
?3. Regarding minor fractions of blood: [initial those that apply]
(a) I REFUSE ALL
(b) I REFUSE ALL EXCEPT:
(c) I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but the details will
have to be discussed with me if I am conscious or with my health-care agent
in case of my incapacity.? (from dpa-E 11/04)
Compare this to the old document (from dpa-E 1/01):
?(5) Medical products [initial one of the three choices below]
(a) I refuse all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(b) I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(c) I want to qualify either 5a or 5b, and my instructions about this are as follows: ??
The long-winded language used by the WTS in phrasing option (3c) speaks for
itself (notice also the deft use of capitalization in the first two options only).
The net effect of this change is that witnesses no longer have the ability to
express in a simple way that they wish to accept all blood fractions. The term
'minor blood fraction' is also problematic, because what the WTS considers 'minor'
may in reality be 'major' for just about everyone else, as we all know. For example,
can hemoglobin be considered a 'minor' blood fraction?
This week's service meeting concludes with a 10 min. part entitled 'The
Role of Conscience'. This talk is based on W06/15, 2004, pp. 23-24, and is
designed to reinforce the idea that one should think twice about accepting
blood fractions. Witnesses are intellectually lazy. They would rather initial the
REFUSE ALL option and deal with the consequences, than investigate other
options or face a physician that may challenge their beliefs.
Is this the beginning of yet another doctrinal flip-flop? Will the WTS go back on
the medical use of blood fractions? The WTS may be experiencing tension from
opposing factions within the highest levels of the organization, and this back- and-
forth may simply be the result of the GB's latest compromise in a never ending
balancing act.
So, what do you think?
Mark
in my opinion, there is definitely a new trend in the way the wts
deals with the medical use of blood fractions.
the most recent publication on this topic (e.g.
In my opinion, there is definitely a new trend in the way the WTS
deals with the medical use of blood fractions.
The most recent publication on this topic (e.g. W06/15/2004), and the newly
released blood document (dpa-E), which will be distributed during this week?s
service meeting, are written in a way that clearly discourages the use of fractions
of the so-called ?four primary components? of blood. Let me illustrate my claim.
First, as I think Blondie already pointed out in one of her weekly commentaries,
the W06/15/2004, especially in pp. 23-24, presented the use of blood fractions in
a clearly negative light. For example, whereas those considering use of blood
fractions were encouraged to spend time weighing in on the potentially bad
consequences of their actions, in particular with regard to ?stumbling? others,
no such encoragement was given to those who refuse blood fractions. The
discussion of 1 Cor. 8: 12 in paragraph 13 also appeared to imply that refusing
blood fractions was evidence of being spiritually ?strong? (or at least this is how
many witnesses I know personally understood this paragraph). The WTS knows
full well that the witnesses will invariably pick up these subtle messages and
give them the force of law, so a biased presentation of the issues is often
enough for their purposes.
The newly released blood document (dpa-E) is fundamentally different from
the old one in the way witnesses can express their wishes regarding the medical
use of blood fractions. The new blood document reads as follows:
?3. Regarding minor fractions of blood: [initial those that apply]
(a) I REFUSE ALL
(b) I REFUSE ALL EXCEPT:(c) I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but the details will
have to be discussed with me if I am conscious or with my health-care agent
in case of my incapacity.? (from dpa-E 11/04)
Compare this to the old document (from dpa-E 1/01):
?(5) Medical products [initial one of the three choices below]
(a) I refuse all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(b) I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(c) I want to qualify either 5a or 5b, and my instructions about this are as follows: ??
The long-winded language used by the WTS in phrasing option (3c) speaks for
itself (notice also the deft use of capitalization in the first two options only).
The net effect of this change is that witnesses no longer have the ability to
express in a simple way that they wish to accept all blood fractions. The term
'minor blood fraction' is also problematic, because what the WTS considers 'minor'
may in reality be 'major' for just about everyone else, as we all know. For example,
can hemoglobin be considered a 'minor' blood fraction?
This week's service meeting concludes with a
10 min. part entitled 'TheRole of Conscience'. This talk is based on W06/15, 2004, pp. 23-24, and is
designed to reinforce the idea that one should think twice about accepting
blood fractions. Witnesses are intellectually lazy. They would rather initial the
REFUSE ALL option and deal with the consequences, than investigate other
options or face a physician that may challenge their beliefs.
Is this the beginning of yet another doctrinal flip-flop? Will the WTS go back on
the medical use of blood fractions? The WTS may be experiencing tension from
opposing factions within the highest levels of the organization, and this back- and-
forth may simply be the result of the GB's latest compromise in a never ending
balancing act.
So, what do you think?
Mark