Posts by Disillusioned JW

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

Wow TD, that is an excellent point you made about the power of illustrations. It reminds me of something I saw yesterday which I planned to post about. See http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/preparation/preparation6.html which has an illustration on page 138 of Rutherford's book called Preparation. A direct link to the illustration is at http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/preparation/prepimages/p137.gif . It shows JWs (specifically of the anointed class?) inside of Christ's robe (I think) and appearing to be walking out of it (I think), with some standing outside of it. They are carrying books, probably WT books written by Rutherford. In at least one full color illustration in one of Rutherford's books the JWs (with the backing of Christ the king and of Jehovah) are holding up what are clearly books by Rutherford (of the so-called "rainbow" series due to the colors of the hardcovers). See http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/enemies/enemiesimages/p192b.jpg . That illustration also depicts a portable phonograph player with a record on the player, presumably one of Rutherford's records. The pope depicted in the illustration has the tongue of a serpent (or other reptile) and as having his head sticking out of the mouth of a reptile (probably a serpent).

Thanks for telling me about Jan Haugland.

Rockeman123, I was not "... saying that people who were baptized and fully active as a JWS cant awake to new found information that slowly changes their thinking about what they have been taught or persuaded to preach door to door." I also was not trying to convey such. I just thought it would have been obvious to anyone who was raised from infancy as a JW starting from the late 1950s and continuing for about 20 years, that the WT had made numerous failed predictions and numerous doctrinal changes. I thought that if someone saw that and was also the type person to consider such as being evidence of being a false prophet, then they/he/she would have left the religion before the mid 1980s. But I now realize I was wrong about that, especially since the mid 1980s wasn't long after the year 1975.

My perspective was different from yours. I was born after you, but even while a child in 1975 I knew of the WT's prediction about 1975 (including in regards to October) and when I got baptized years later (in the early 1980s) I also knew of some doctrinal changes. I knew of the latter because when the WT introduced a new doctrinal change they mentioned what the old doctrine was (at least partially). But I never thought of them as claiming to literally be a prophet (at least in anything they wrote from the 1950s onward), for the reasons I stated in other posts - though I thought about that idea carefully. However they did come as close as possible to claiming to literally be a prophet without going all the way of literally claiming to be a prophet, and perhaps that should be enough to condemn them (especially considering their policy regarding those whom they label as apostates for disagreeing with them). But I have a strong tendency to interpret statements literally and thus I didn't interpret them as claiming to be a prophet.

The WT gave reasons for the month of October in regards to their 1914 and 1975 dates and for the month that the creative days were thought to begin in. I think one of the reasons had to do with calendars of a number ancient cultures (including that of the Hebrews?) starting in the fall (I think). It should be noted that long before Russell was born James Ussher said that the first day of creation was Sunday 23 October 4004 BC. See https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm . He was wrong but his idea was very influential among fundamentalist-like creationist Christians.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, I might continue to defend the WT organization on certain matters (even after doing extensive research on those matters, for my commitment is to that which I consider to be truthful, whether the information is pro-WT or anti-WT), but I also criticize them on certain other matters. For examples of the latter consider the following.

I say they are wrong for believing that the Bible is the word of Jehovah God (or of any god), for I am convinced that no personal god exists (at least in relation to humans on Earth and even in regards to our universe). I disagree that blood transfusions (in which the donors of the blood are giving their consent to save human lives) are in conflict with the Bible's teaching. I disagree that Christ began ruling in 1914 (C.E./A.D.). I even disagree that Jesus Christ, or any supernatural Christ exists (however there have been those, and there might be those, who have received an anointing in a nonsupernatural sense). I believe it is wrong for the WT to have handled numerous quotes the way they did, even if I think I they believed they were justified to do so in that way. I intensely disapprove of their requiring JWs to believe everything the WT teaches on religious matters, knowing that the WT is a largely unreliable source for correct interpretations of the Bible (especially in regards to theology). I am appalled by their former use of Greber's NT 'translation' in support of the wordings of some of the verses in the NWT, especially considering that earlier they sharply condemned Greber's NT 'translation' as being as being inspired by the demons. [By the way, note my use of quote marks around the word "translation", thereby suggesting that I think Greber's book might not have been truly a translation of the NT.] I am appalled by their former status as an NGO of the UN, considering what they have said about the need to be no part of glorifying the UN and to be no part of the UN.

I intend to soon post negative comments about some recent discoveries I made in Rutherford's books called Preparation, Enemies, Religion, and Children, and what they reveal (to me at least) about the WT organization, not just about what they reveal about Rutherford. During the past few days the more I study the WT's old books the more negative I am becoming about the character of the WT organization, at least in regards to it's governing body and its writing department. But even now I still find it hard to believe that those currently taking the lead (and those who have done so in the past) of the JW religion and those on its team of writers don't believe in most of the teachings of the religion (though I think they might disbelieve some of the teachings, otherwise it would be hard to explain why teachings and policies often change considerably when a new person joins the governing body).

There is a difference in meaning for the phrase "false statement" and the word "lie". Some may make a false statement while believing it is a true statement. Someone doing so is being sincere and is thus not not lying, even if they are repeating the lie of someone else. But if one believes those people are lying then all people (other than those who don't speak and also don't write) are liars since we all have incorrect ideas and thus say incorrect things. A lie is false statement of specific type, namely one in which the person who told the false statement knew and/or believed/thought he/she was making a false statement and that it was done with the intention of deceiving (but not as a joke). [In a sense someone could even be lying while telling the truth if the person telling the truth thought he/she was telling a falsehood.] At least such has been my view since early childhood. From this view of mine it is very hard (at least for me) to know if someone is lying since it would require knowing if the person uttering the false statement knew he/she was uttering a false statement. Since I don't know the governing body members personally (nor the anonymous writers of the writing team) it is very hard for me to know if they are lying, instead of merely telling false statements which they sincerely consider to be true. However sometimes a person's (or an organization's) own literature will show he/she knew certain things to be true of which he/she later proclaimed the opposite to be true. It is granted though that people sometimes change their minds.

I found online a history of the WT at https://medium.com/@janhaugland/the-successor-problem-ed79df215f80 . I have only read a small percentage of its content but what I have read of it seems to be very well researched and very accurate. It appears to have useful information about the WT's history (and Rutherford's history). I wonder what caused Jan Haugland to have enough interest in Rutherford and the WT to motivate him to write the article.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

The WT didn't literally disregard Jesus' teaching of not knowing the "day and hour", since the WT craftily made predictions only of the year instead (though regarding the 1914 date it might have predicted the month also and maybe even the date of the month that the Gentile Times would end, but up to decades after the year 1914 the WT had been saying that Jesus had already returned in the 1870s and had already began ruling as king since the 1870s). But yes admittedly the words attributed to Jesus about the "day and hour" probably also apply to the year, especially if the words attributed to him are meant to apply to a time more than 1000 years after those words were first written.

Thanks though for informing me that you were raised a JW, however I am puzzled. If you believed from before the 1980s that the WT claimed to be a prophet and since you knew they got so many things wrong, why did you stay with them for so long? But, maybe you never became baptized as one and if so, then you were never fully/technically a JW. To me you write like you are someone who was never baptized as a JW, even if you were raised by JW parents. That is why I wondered if you were ever a JW. Even your recent post containing the claim of being a JW "from birth" sounds like the way people in many churches speak about themselves (other than claiming to be a JW). Unlike many churches JWs (and baptists) never baptize infants and thus people are never JWs from birth, though many people have been raised in the JW religion since birth. Admittedly though many unbaptized young people think of themselves as JWs and admittedly I had thought of myself as already a JW even before I was baptized as one. I guess I will cut you some slack on that point.

I had not read or heard that the WT now has buildings with swimming pools and tennis courts until reading your post (or if I did read such I hadn't given it much thought). In the mid or late 1990's an elder from my congregation told me that the governing body, even the President of the WT, take a vow of poverty and that their rooms at headquarters (Bethel) are only modest instead of lavish/expensive. I took his word to be true, especially since I hadn't found any proof to the opposite and since other JWs said that what I heard about the rooms of the governing body is true.

DNCall, thanks for the link but in my prior post of this topic thread I addressed that WT issue's use of the word "prophet", drawing attention to it very carefully (perhaps even craftily) having the word "prophet" in quote marks and the significance of having it in quote marks. If the word hadn't been in quote marks, then definitely the WT would have been saying all Christian JWs (not just the GB and not just the so-called anointed ones) are prophets, or one collective prophet as a group/class.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

waton, I don't see a high tolerance for crime among atheists, anymore than among theists. Just because one is against police brutality (that is, brutality done by the police) and manslaughter and murder done by the police, and against the death penalty, that doesn't mean one is against arrests and prison sentences for criminals. Atheists are more likely to be humanists than theists (and many humanists during the past 100 years tend to define humanism in such a way as to exclude belief in theism) and humanism tends to be against killing humans who are outside the womb (namely of ones who have been born). But paradoxically (to me at least) humanism tends to be in favor of people having the right to kill humans that are still in the womb (human embryos and even human fetuses that are not yet born).

14

JW Science Quote Of The Day 8-27

by TD in

jw
friends

in the 1979 movie, "the china syndrome" there is a scene right after swat team members have retaken the control room from jack godell.

(jack lemon) kimberly wells (jane fonda) nervously whispers to richard adams, (michael douglas) "the reactor is the biggest bomb in there!

this reflected a belief, common in the 1970's that commercial nuclear reactors were capable of going up in a mushroom cloud like an atomic bomb.. although no one can deny that accidents and malfunctions at nuclear power plants can potentially be catastrophic, these reactors are not capable of a bomb-like reaction.

Disillusioned JW

Though you are correct in saying that thermonuclear is not the proper word to use for fission nuclear reactors, nonetheless fission nuclear reactors do generate enormous amounts of thermal energy (heat). That heat is then used to turn liquid water into steam to operate turbine electric generators which in turn generate electricity.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

Rocketman123, the poll doesn't say that all atheists are against the death penalty but rather that an overwhelming majority of them are. Likewise it doesn't say that all Christians are for the death penalty but rather that most of them are. I probably should have made that more clear in the wording of my title for this topic thread, but instead I used nearly verbatim the wording of the atheist's article which I posted a link to.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

Though generations become more conservative as they get older (except perhaps in the recent several years), the old people today are more liberal than old people of the same age group decades ago. Likewise people in their 20s and 30s today are more liberal than those in the same age groups decades ago. At least that is what polls of adult population of the USA say. Some of that change is attributed to access to information and ideas on the internet.

In my case while I was a teenager I was liberal regarding political views and human rights (despite being an active JW/[unbaptized JW]) and I have remained such, and in some aspects I have become even more liberal in those areas as I learned more. I also eventually became less "fundamentalist" and more theologically liberal in my interpretation of the Bible as a result of later reading what theologically liberal scholars of the Bible have written. After I learned more of the scientific evidence for biological evolution and the geological evidence that there was never a worldwide flood on Earth (at least not during the past 100 million years) I became an atheist and a philosophical naturalist.

I think the societal benefits that come from religious communities come from the promotion of standards of morality and ethics and the teaching of the benefits of such, as well as the promotion of some form of meditative and/or contemplative practice. I believe those characteristics can also be instilled in secular community organizations and in so-called nontheistic humanistic 'religions'. Two such 'religions' started by Jews (who were former rabbis, or who remained rabbis) are "Ethical Culture" and "Humanistic Judaism". Some people have called for "Humanistic Christianity" and even a nonsupernaturalistic "Secular Humanistic 'Christianity' ".

In my locality there is an ultra-liberal Presbyterian congregation in which one of the pastors is an atheist and he has announced to the congregation that he is an atheist. That congregation has allowed him to keep his position in the church. I visited the congregation one night when an atheist friend of mine (who is a medical doctor and a former Christian) gave a lecture there proving that science shows that biological evolution is true. The majority of the members of that congregation are elderly (including nearly all of those in attendance for the lecture about evolution). The focus of that congregation is not on theology but instead on other matters (I think it is on social justice matters). One pastor, minister, or elder of that congregation is a woman who said that Jesus was a man and never more than a man (never God or a god) and she referred to the findings of the Jesus Seminar. I think she is at least 50 years old.

44

Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it

by Disillusioned JW in

see https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .

i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.

i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.

Disillusioned JW

See https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ . I am an atheist and I disapprove of the death penalty. I remember Michael Dukakis, when he was a USA presidential candidate, saying I he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers. I was impressed by that view of his (though I was an active JW back then). I wished (and I still wish) he had defeated the Republican presidential candidate. What are your thoughts about the death penalty?

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

Rocketman123, where have they explicitly claimed to be a prophet? I have don't recall them ever making such a claim (unless they made the claim long before the year 1950) - and I looked extensively to see if they made such a claim. To my knowledge the closest they came (at least since the year 1950) to claiming to be a literal prophet is that they did say in a Watchtower (or an Awake!) article from the 1970s that Jehovah's witnesses are a ' "prophet" ' but they had the word "prophet" in quote marks, indicating that they were claiming to be like a prophet, instead of literally a prophet. By writing and publishing such though, admittedly they came very close to claiming to be an actual literal prophet.

Since you say they claimed to be a prophet, I think that most likely you never were a JW, for JWs (and probably virtually all ex-JWs) don't believe they ever claimed to be literally a prophet.

Probably most (or many) ministers of the churches and most scholarly Christian authors of commentaries on the Bible believe they are guided by God's holy spirit in what they say (and interpret) about the Bible (including biblical prophecies), yet they disagree in some of what they say among themselves (especially among people of different denominations). By your definition that would make them false prophets, but the majority of Christian people don't consider them to be such.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, it is true that I need to "make sure of" certain things before accepting them as true, but not for all things. The stronger the claim and/or the greater significance to the claim to me, the more evidence I need to convince me to accept/believe the claim. If the claim is a strong one and/or a very significant one then I don't want to believe it upon hearsay (or second-hand) evidence, unless I consider that source of evidence to be reliable (such as a news organization that I trust).

By the way your statement of "make sure of all things" reminds me of the WT book called "Make Sure Of All Things - Hold Fast To What Is Fine" (1965 edition) and the Bible verse (1 Thessalonians 5:21 [1961 NWT edition]) it is based upon. I am impressed by that book (in regards to the approach it uses to convince people) because for the most part it merely quoted Bible verses rather than engages in argumentation/reasoning. It lets the Bible speak for itself, on specific topics.

Regarding whether the WT/JW religion is a cult, whenever I look up the Jehovah's Witnesses religion in a dictionary or an encyclopedia, no matter which dictionary or encyclopedia I use, the dictionary never says they are cult. Instead the dictionary or encyclopedia says they are a sect (or a more benign word or phrase is used instead). Furthermore, I own two college sociology textbooks. One of them mentions the JWs and when I look at what it and other college sociology textbooks say about the JWs they never say they are cult. Instead they say they are a sect, or use a more benign word or phrase - such as "a new religion".

One college sociology textbook which I own is called Experience Sociology: SOC 204 Sociology in Everyday Life, SOC 205 Social Change in Societies (copyright 2013). Pages 330-331 of that book says "Those with power in society--including established churches---sometimes label small religious communities whose beliefs and practices are at odds with the dominant culture as cults, often to discredit them." The italics and bold face in that quote are included in the book. That sentence in the book is the only place I saw the book use the word "cult".

The other college sociology textbook I own is called Essentials of Sociology - Fifth Edition (copyright 2002). On page 334 in a box called "Concept Summary: Distinctions Between Churches and Sects" it classifies sects as having the following characteristics. "Degree of tension with society" - "High"; "Attitude toward other institutions and religion" - "Intolerant; rejecting"; "Type of authority" - Charismatic; "Organization" - Informal; "Membership" - "Alienated", and "Examples" - Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, Nation of Islam". Notice it lists the Jehovah's Witnesses as an example of a sect and notice that is its lists of the characteristics of a sect excellent fit the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Page 332 of the same textbook under the heading of "Sectlike Religions" has the following paragraph.

"Within the category of religious organizations that have greater tension with society there is great deal of variability. We can distinguish three levels of tension. First are cults, with the greatest tension, then sects, and finally established sects. The latter begin to approach institutionalization."

The subheading of "Sects" has the following two paragraphs.

"Within the general category of sectlike religions, those called sects occupy a medium position. They reject the social world in which they live, but they embrace the religious heritage of the surrounding society. The Amish are an excellent example. They base their lives on a strict reading of the Bible and remain aloof from the contemporary world.

Sects often view themselves as restoring true faith, which has been mislaid by religious institutions too eager to compromise with society. They see themselves as preservers of religious tradition rather than innovators. Like the Reformation churches of Calvin and Luther, they believe they are cleansing the church of its secular associations. However offbeat it may be in comparison to mainline churches, if a religious group in the United States uses the Bible as its source of inspiration and guidance, then it is probably a sect rather than a cult." [The boldface in that quote is by me, the boldface is not in the quoted passage of the book but the sentence is.] By that sociology college textbook [Essentials of Sociology - Fifth Edition (copyright 2002)] the JWs are explicitly called and defined as a sect and not a cult.

The edition of the high school textbook which I used in my high school's required course in government/civics is called "Magruder's American Governemnt - 1978" (copyright 1978). On multiple pages it mentions the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 133 it says the following. "Many important religious freedom cases have been carried to the Supreme Court over the years by Jehovah's Witnesses, a fundamentalist group which very actively promotes its beliefs. Perhaps the stormiest controversy the sect stirred came from its defiance of compulsory flag salute requirements." Note it says it is a sect.

The JWs are a sect which denies being a sect. They are also a very high control religious group which is now very cult-like, but they are still not a cult according the vast majority of sociologists (scientists of sociology) and according to me.

'I rest my case'.