Posts by konceptual99

63

"Even if this wasn't the truth, I would still stay. This is the best life to live..."

by HereIgo in

i was recently told this by a jw family member when trying to get through to them.

does this quote indicate that maybe such ones have considered that the jw's may not have the truth after all?

or is that just my wishful thinking?

konceptual99

It's not real worship to me. I just enjoy the social aspect, the interaction with my friends and family that are my everything.

This I can understand. The only thing is that many of your friends will be like my friends and conditional. I had a bizarre conversation with my wife the other day where I was updating her on my feelings and she said that if I fully stopped going to meetings it would affect our social life yet refused to accept that friends that were only friends if I went to the meetings were conditional ones.

The blood stance, I totally get it; "abstain from blood", Old and New Testament. So, JWs interpret it literally. So it is. How many lives are lost daily due to sacrifice to the 'Gods' of war? How many lives are lost daily to crime, to the practice of harmful habits such as drugs, smoking, excessive drinking? So, JWs decide to sacrifice their life following their interpretation of the text. So be it, and I get it.

This I can't understand since two wrongs don't make a right. Also, many of the examples you quote affect the adult individual however the Witness stance on blood can affect minors. It is also based on a completely illogical and hypocritical foundation where it's wrong to donate blood but acceptable to take fractions obtained from that donated by others. I hate the blood policy.

The abuse follow-up policies need improving. That is definitely coming due to all the recent exposure. By the way, this is a problem everywhere in society at large; one would have to isolate oneself to avoid it.

Granted it's an issue in society in general however the WTS lags behind so many other organisations, is obstructive when investigated and continues to obsfucate and distract instead of engage.

The shunning practice needs to be tweaked for sure. However, in many instances, this type of treatment is absolutely necessary. I take it as a case by case scenario.

What would you say would constitute an absolute necessity to shun?

Due to my indoctrination from birth,I can excuse it all. This is just a Faith with a different interpretation.

Really? "I was just following orders. I was brought up in the Hitler Youth and indoctrinated. I am sure that excuses my actions".

Faith is a form of trust. It should be based on experience and confidence. How can you have faith when so much of the so called evidence is unreliable?

I really can understand why you might choose to stay in for the sake of family but I don't understand your reasoning on the rest of it. Of course it's your life fella...

63

"Even if this wasn't the truth, I would still stay. This is the best life to live..."

by HereIgo in

i was recently told this by a jw family member when trying to get through to them.

does this quote indicate that maybe such ones have considered that the jw's may not have the truth after all?

or is that just my wishful thinking?

konceptual99

Anybody who knows about these things and remains part of the cult gives tacit support to oppression.

I think the principle of what you say is correct however does this mean that it is imperative to make a stand and completely remove one's self from the organisation. If one has not done so then are they morally compromised?

I don't quite understand DY's position as I don't see how anyone awake to TTATT can find happiness in worship - at the very least it calls into question the meaning of ritualising one's life in this way when you know it to be wrong.

But what about people like me who have been slowly fading for years, reducing my activity to all but nothing - showing my face at the meetings only to ease things for my wife. I am open with her but watch what I say to others to avoid the "apostate" tag.

I would like to completely stop. I would like to be honest with all and happy to lose conditional friends but don't as my wife does not want that and I respect that she has to live with my actions as well.

Am I supporting oppression? Should all us "PIMO" people just grow a pair, stop and just say to one and all we are no longer Witnesses?

8

Has the Governing Body /Jehovahs witnesses ever distanced themselves from the Williams Sisters claim of Beng a JW ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

i bring this up because of an article in the supplement of the sunday mail in victoria australia "stellar" that pregnant serena williams is a devout (ihate that word ) jehovahs witness.

i have sent a letter to the editor about it ,i wonder if it gets published.. has the wt ever distanced themselves from the claims that serena herself has claimed to be a witness ?

when accepting a win in one of her succesful matches ?.

konceptual99

There is also a lot of lazy journalism with "fact" checking done by juniors and Google.

As for her actions and being DF'ed. It would appear that she does not attend meetings, has not for a long time and it wouldn't surprise me if she was never that regular even as a young person. No elder could get close to her now. The WTS just let it lie because it's impractical to do otherwise. What do you expect them to do?

51

I was impressed by part of today's symposium entitled ' Safeguard your children from what is evil'

by UnshackleTheChains in

well i have to give credit where credit is due.

it was the part of today's symposium - build a house that will endure.

the part i was most impressed with was 'safeguard your children from "what is evil".

konceptual99

Your points are all valid Vid however I would suggest that it is possible to have a progressive child protection strategy and avoid undermining the org. The key is to separate secular and biblical requirements and obligations.

For me it's actually very simple. They just need to follow principles that are applied in multitudes of other organisations.

They simply have to say that the investigation of a child abuse allegation is a secular matter and should be conducted by the secular authorities. As soon as an allegation is made then they should proactively support the alleged victim and their family to report to the authorities. They should then step back save for putting some restrictions as far as possible on the access an alleged abuser has to victims and others potentially at risk whilst in a congregational context.

Once the authorities have investigated then they can proceed with their congregational investigation which then has the prospect of having a "second witness" in the form of the evidence and actions of the secular authorities.

This is no different to what happens,for example, with a teacher who has a accusation raised against them, They are suspended whilst the authorities investigate and then appropriate action regarding their position is taken once the allegations have been investigated.

I don't see how this undermines the org. They maintain their internal judicial process. No one has to go through horrible Q&A sessions with window cleaners since it's the authorities that will investigate. They don't preempt the secular process.

Also, I am not sure I agree that the problem is endemic. Is there any evidence that there are more child abusers amongst Jehovah's Witnesses that elsewhere in society? I agree 100% that the procedures have allowed abusers to carry on their practices and there is no doubt that the risk of this continuing is great but that in itself does not prove that the incidence of abuse is any higher than society in general.

I don't think that the R&F actually believe it does not happen in the organisation or that the fact it does means it's not God Organisation. This isn't 1955 any more. Times have changed and I think the vast majority would welcome great transparency and the proactive involvement of the authorities. Most of them come up with the arguments about the elders not being the police already.

Change to the policies does not automatically open the floodgates for litigation. The authorities have their own cases to answer about poor performance and action historically. Understanding of the problem and how to deal with it has changed immeasurably over the past 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. I think simply saying "times have changed and our policies can be improved so we are committed to improve, to reduce risk, to help keep our young people safe" is something it's actually hard to disagree with or criticise.

I simply cannot get my head around why they cannot take significantly larger steps in progressing the policies. It really isn't rocket science.

26

This convention talk offended me

by Isambard Crater in

here are my notes from the r.c yesterday, the talk called "jehovah – the greatest example of endurance".

many of you will understand why i found it offensive.. jehovah has taken the hard option of choosing to endure:.

reproach to his holy name.

konceptual99

Isambard - just my previous thoughts on the matter. For me it was the most offensive talk of the whole assembly.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5086785333886976/_post/4900462136393728

26

This convention talk offended me

by Isambard Crater in

here are my notes from the r.c yesterday, the talk called "jehovah – the greatest example of endurance".

many of you will understand why i found it offensive.. jehovah has taken the hard option of choosing to endure:.

reproach to his holy name.

konceptual99

I hated this talk for all the same reasons above. People (esp women) loved it but I thought Jehovah came across as a whinging egotist, moaning we should be feel sorry for him whilst we all carry on regardless.

I can't believe that in a convention centred on not giving up they had the balls to put Jehovah's ego above human suffering.

10

What is Ibid?

by Belladonna75 in

hi all, i'm diving deep into historical jw literature research and i keep seeing ibid as a frequently cited source - what is this?

i've tried the old google, but no luck.

does this stand for something (i'm probably missing something incredibly obvious) or have i spent too many hours reading 1930s the golden age magazines and depleted all my electrons already?

konceptual99

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibid.

11

Reject WT Thinking - November 2017 WT article commented (p. 20)

by Master_Bob in

i really liked this kind of articles when back in borg, because they address the issues i was most concerned about.

or at least i thought that they address, because they don't.

i marked all the deceptive techniques and logical manipulations they use as a mental exercise and would like to share with you.

konceptual99

Great analysis. Thanks for posting.

43

New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall

by pale.emperor in

has anyone else heard this?

a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?

a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.

konceptual99

Interesting video SBF - I'd forgotten that one. I think anyone with any experience of attending meetings will recognise that over the years DF'ed people sit at the back. I think that regardless of what the WT says about it not being a rule the practice continues for a number of reasons:

1 - practicality. Coming in and leaving during the song means it's easier to slip in and out when at the back.

2 - reserved seating. Often the back rows and/or the second school (as shown in the video) are reserved for late comers and families.

3 - culture. The rules that are rules even when the WT says they are not rules. The recent beard thing in the WT is another good example

4 - WT subliminal indoctrination. This video is a good example. "We'll tell you it's not a rule but what we show you reflects the age old cultural norm". The same happens time and time again with beards - "we've told you it's ok to have a beard and will not prevent spiritual (aka WT career) progression but we will show men shaving all the time".

As has been said numerous times on the thread, it's all ultimately about control.

43

New Announcement At The 2017 - DF'd People To Sit At The Back Of The Hall

by pale.emperor in

has anyone else heard this?

a poster on another thread said it's a new rule brought in at this years convention.. last year they were told to shun even non df people and now this?

a religion cant force someone where to plonk their ass surely?.

konceptual99

I should add that the above article has a footnote to confirm it updates previous direction in The Watchtower of April 1, 1953, page 223.

This is referenced by Blondie in this thread...

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/253276/_post/4747564