Posts by konceptual99

162

...The WBT$ Theft of Kingdom Hall Bank Accounts and JW Elders...

by OUTLAW in

.. the new wbt$ donation arrangement/ jw kingdom hall bank account theft... is a very hot topic right now... the wbt$ is literally going to clean out kingdom hall bank accounts,filled with donations from jws... that theft is going to happen world wide..the wbt$ is going to steal from 7 million plus jw`s... .. we have jw elders here on jwn,that know whats going on... they "serve" in kingdom halls,they are "supposed" to be looking after the welfare of the average jw... they know there is a 4 page letter,only one page will be read to the congregation..the rest will be kept secret... they know the wbt$ is about to steal jw donations..on a world wide scale!!!...

.. i would like to know what you active jw elders are going to do about this??!!...

are you going to let "your" congregation know about the other 3 secret pages?...

konceptual99

Posters here are still acting silly. Both the adjusted continuing montly donation and the possible one time special donation have to be approved through congregation resolution, which means a vote. All of these goofballs shouting "theft!" and "illegal use of already committed funds!" don't seem to understand the concept of the same group of people who made the donations in the first place voting as a group to change the allocation of those funds.

True enough in principle. The question is whether or not those presenting the resolution are presenting the full facts. The question is if those voting are fully briefed about the change and it's implications. You should well know that any resolution presented in matters like this is simply passed. The implications of this change go well beyond a simplistic view that "it's all just money donated to Jehovah" and those making the choice are ignorant of this, and not even willfully so.

Changes like this are always presented as being a choice, controlled by the congregation, but it's inevitably Hobson's Choice with the WTS choice being the only acceptable way.

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

konceptual99

I have given thought to what effect a typical business lawsuit might have in the case of a disfellowshipping: for defamation of character, interference with business, interference with professional reputation, etc. Does anyone think that would stick?? There are possibly real, definable financial damages (as opposed to "harrassment" and other more emotional damages)

As stated before, good luck with this. I wish something could stick but it won't. People have a choice who they talk to, who they choose to associate with. Unless there is a contractual obligation between two parties that is unilaterally broken then there is very little scope for any kind of civil action as far as I can see. For a professional opinion go and see a lawyer.

49

FAT BURNERS????

by DATA-DOG in

jw
friends

i need a good fat-burner.

i am getting some serious love handles, and a gross poochy belly.

yeah, yeah...i drink almost every night, and this has been going on for almost 2 years, blah, blah..hic!?

konceptual99

Like many things related to content on this board, listen to Cofty. He is right.

40

Did the GB ever receive new light without the passage of time forcing it upon them?

by Zoos in

1914 did not bring the end they were hoping for so new light shone down from above and corrected their understanding.. 1925 also led to unfulfilled expectations and so new light was bestowed.. .

(i could go through all the dates and expectations... but i won't.).

what if the new light about 1914 being the year that christ returned was provided before 1914?

konceptual99

Good topic - absolutely right. I have mentioned this to my wife a couple of times and you can see the gears of cognative dissonance turning. One day they hopefully will engage....

74

Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting

by Sapphy in

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.

oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!

"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".

konceptual99

" Surely the court testimony should be sufficient to see this guy df'ed."

It is dangerous to make such assumptions when we don't even know what is in the court transcripts. We don't know any arguments that the Defense made or any of the lines of questioning that they pursued.

If your sole argument is: "the jury convicted, therefore the evidence and testimony must be damning," then you should keep in mind that a jury also acquitted Rose of sexual indecency in 1995 (a jury also acuitted O.J. Simpson in 1995) If you think that the first verdict might have been wrong, then you also have to accept that there is an equal chance that the second verdict might also have been wrong. Any good lawyer will tell you that juries can be unpredictable and emotional. It is much safer to get the actual transcripts and read the arguments of the Prosecution and Defense for yourself, and then form your own opinion.

Hi Teary,

I can see your points and agree that the situation is perhaps not as clear cut as portrayed. What I don't understand however is why there is a such a double standard in all of this.

There are numerous examples of where individuals have faced kangeroo JCs, accused of some sin yet never known who their accusers (forming the legendary two witnesses) are let alone had the opportunity to grill them.

I can understand that, in principle, this guy could have been incorrectly found guilty. There is still the fact that during the trial witnesses are called to present evidence. I've not read the transcripts and I don't know how much of the witnesses' evidence was accepted but it was certainly enough to convince a jury to convict. The judge is perfectly free to control what evidence is viewed as acceptable or unacceptable and instruct the jury accordingly.

The elders are perfectly free to take that evidence into account. They are perfectly free to listen to accusations privately. There was no need to permit a cross-examination in such a setting. It does not happen in any other JC circumstance and could have been handled very differently.

What I am interested to know is the circumstances that promted this sequence of events. I can understand your point of logic on the choice of the women in this matter however what is not know is what the context of this choice to meet the elders and Rose in this circumstances were. It seems wholely inappropriate to engage the various parties in this manner - even in a court of law there is the option for the victim not to have to face the alleged perpetrator.

Whatever the context, it seems to me to be yet another example of, at best, a ridiculous level of naivety on the part of the elders. They no doubt were operating under the instruction of the WTS Legal department so this has to be an institutional level of ignorance on how these matters could be handled in a way that meets the needs of "scriptural" justice whilst recognising the psychological impact on victims.

74

Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting

by Sapphy in

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.

oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!

"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".

konceptual99

The irony is that its almost impossible for one accused of things like apostacy on hearsay and rumour to know who their accusers are let alone face them in an extended committee. Surely the court testimony should be sufficient to see this guy df'ed.

14

Watchtower publications with corrected titles ;)

by processor in

over the decades, there were many watchtower publications with misprints on the cover.

here are the corrected versions.. .

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

konceptual99

Love 'em, especially the "Pure Nonsense" assembly programme.

43

Do you think JWs are dangerous, if yes why? If not, why?

by suavojr in

jw
friends

personally the jws to me are not dangerous.

on the other hand, many do think they are in fact a dangerous cult.

why are they dangerous?.

konceptual99

If you are looking for a yes/no answer then it has to be yes however the reality is very much more grey.

I am a Jehovah's Witness, at least nominally. Do I consider myself dangerous? Not at all. Having said that I am still extricating myself from the religion and therefore am still exposing my family, including children, to the teachings of the WTBTS. I guess I could be considered dangerous by some for doing that.

Do I consider any of the people I know in the WTS as dangerous? No. They are generally pretty decent people, with decent lives and are far less likely to commit acts of violence or abuse against me or my family than some of strangers that live in my vacinity. Would they shun me if I was disfellowshipped? Would they support me in refusing a blood transfusion for my child (not that I would of course)? Would they watch me suffer if they thought I was an aposate? In the majority, yes. I guess that makes them dangerous.

In most aspects of their day to day lives Witnesses are no more and, in many ways, significantly less dangerous than much of the population. It's when push comes to shove on matters such as blood, shunning, education, financial independance, charity and so on that their unwavering adherence to WTS dogma becomes dangerous. Their refusal to think for themselves pushes them into life changing decisions that often affect entire families, including those too young to make their own choice. They act without reason, in blind faith. That is dangerous and although the outcome may not be life threatening (although it can be) it can still be life changing for the worse.

The worst of this however, when the decisions are life threatening or make large, negative and material differences to the lives of others that can last for years, destroying people in the process.

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

konceptual99

Good luck getting most Western nations to force the WTS to drop it's charitable & tax exempt status over DF. In most places the "freedom of religion" card trumps the shunning issue and the judiciary have no stomach for a fight at that level. On top of that the WTS do a magnificant job of twisting the policy so that the it's not seen as a top down policy, rather something for individuals to determine at a personal level. They can quote "family business". They can say it's individual conscience. They can also plead that it's not a human right to force someone else to talk to you if they choose not to.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

konceptual99

One of the biggest aspects of my mental awakening has been my realisation that as the capabilities of science has increased so the need for essentially "woo" explainations for things not understood has decreased.

The inability of science to currently reanimate dead things does not mean there has to be a supernatural force at work keeping things alive. It simply means that science cannot monitor and control the sub-atomic bio-chemical processes that are taking place. I am sure that at some point these processes shall be measurable.

There are many things that are beyond the ability of scientists to measure or observe at the current time. What they are able to do however, is predict what the nature of these things may be. There will be things that they know nothing about right now and cannot even predict the existence of but, as science advances, so too will the realisation that these aspects of the universe exist.

My personal opinion is that the "spirit" world does not exist so there is little sense trying to define what the nature of a spirit being is.

For the sake of argument, however, I am sure that if there were such a thing then it's nature could be, at some point in time, measured and observed. At the very least, it's nature could be predicted and explained using mathematics, physics, chemisty and biology.

Any other conclusion is simply a variation on the "it wos God wot dun it" theme.