LongHairGal
Correct in 10 years from now they will be trying to convince us that 20 year old gb members are off the 144,000, what a scam
raymond frantz
JoinedPosts by raymond frantz
-
39
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE 2 NEW GB MEMBERS APPOINTMENTS
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/rjr0ugtu6zu?si=d3zsz20ee33gytxi.
these new appointments are troubling, to say the least, especially considering the factors surrounding their selection.
these appointments raise key concerns about leadership, experience, and what is happening behind the scenes at the organization's headquarters.
-
-
raymond frantz
-
39
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE 2 NEW GB MEMBERS APPOINTMENTS
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/rjr0ugtu6zu?si=d3zsz20ee33gytxi.
these new appointments are troubling, to say the least, especially considering the factors surrounding their selection.
these appointments raise key concerns about leadership, experience, and what is happening behind the scenes at the organization's headquarters.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/RJR0UGtu6zU?si=D3ZsZ20EE33gYTxi
These new appointments are troubling, to say the least, especially considering the factors surrounding their selection. These appointments raise key concerns about leadership, experience, and what is happening behind the scenes at the organization's headquarters.
First of all, they are too young to be part of the 144,000.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is made up of individuals considered to be part of the 144,000 "anointed" Christians, a group traditionally believed to include older, spiritually mature men with decades of service. However, Jedele and Rumph, who are both younger, challenge this long-held view. This raises the question: Are they really the best candidates for the Governing Body, given their age? Traditionally, the anointed were seen as individuals with ye.ars of spiritual experience and wisdom. If this qualification is being overlooked, it leads me to wonder whether the historical importance of being "anointed" is being redefined, and what that means for the future of the organization. While they are not dropping the 144,000 teaching yet, they are definitely watering it down, and I'll make a video on that soon.
Secondly, these appointments bypass long-serving Governing Body helpers.
One of the most surprising aspects of these appointments is that both brothers leapfrogged over several Governing Body helpers who have served for decades in their positions. Many of these long-serving helpers, with their vast experience and seniority, would have seemed the more likely option for the role. Yet, they were passed over in favor of much younger men. This decision raises serious concerns about the selection process and shows that there is no legitimate process. It's all about who you know, not how good you are at your job, which is what we have come to know at the local level in our respective congregations. This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses is a silly religion based on nepotism, where whoever is the greatest bully at the top appoints his mates to key positions of authority. Why were experienced brothers bypassed? Is there a shift happening within the leadership structure, where seniority and experience no longer hold the same value? This disregard for experience and dedication indicates, I believe, a power struggle within the organization, where a younger group of men is being strategically positioned to take over from the older, more established members. This shift indicates that a whole generation of experienced brothers, who have long been loyal to the organization, are being sidelined in favor of a younger, less accomplished group. This internal dynamic points to deeper tensions or changes in how power and influence are being handled at the top.
Thirdly, there is definitely a replacement taking place of aging members like Gerrit Lösch, Stephen Lett, or David Splane, who was conspicuously missing from the program unless I missed him. Stephen Lett looks like he is going to drop dead any minute now. While it's normal for organizations to refresh their leadership, the gap in experience between the older members and their younger successors is vast. Lösch and Lett have been prominent figures for decades, playing crucial roles in shaping the doctrine and direction of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The decision to replace them with younger, less experienced individuals calls into question whether the leadership will continue to carry the same level of wisdom and understanding, which is already quite low as they have proven.
The fourth and final observation is the lack of major achievements or qualifications.
Perhaps one of the most puzzling aspects of these appointments is that neither Jedele nor Rumph seem to have the kind of significant achievements or qualifications that have typically marked previous Governing Body members. While they have served as helpers to the Service Committee, their roles appear relatively minor, with Rumph only starting his Bethel service as recently as 2020. This contrasts sharply with past appointees, who often had decades of proven leadership and tangible accomplishments. In most organizations, top leadership positions are awarded to those who have demonstrated a long track record of success and contribution, making these appointments seem even more unusual.
Moreover, there is an increasing disregard for the fact that this is a worldwide organization. It is concerning that the past four appointments have all been white and USA-based, overlooking the global nature of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If the organization truly represents a worldwide community, new appointments should reflect this diversity. Would it not make sense to have an African, Asian,European or South American appointment? This lack of geographical and cultural representation raises further questions about the inclusivity and global outlook of the organization's leadership and more evidence that this is an American religion or more accurately a United States religion.
In conclusion, the appointment of these two Governing Body members has not only raised eyebrows but also highlighted what may be a power shift at the heart of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ headquarters. By bypassing more experienced and senior helpers, it appears that a younger generation of leaders is being positioned to take control, possibly indicating a struggle for influence within the leadership. At the same time, the lack of significant achievements or qualifications in these younger appointees raises questions about the future direction of the Governing Body. Are they truly ready to lead, or is this part of a larger internal strategy that values youth over experience? These are pressing concerns as the organization moves forward under new leadership. -
-
-
raymond frantz
Yes he said they are both anointed
-
2
WATCHTOWER WINS IN FRANCE AGAINST 🇫🇷 MIVILUDES
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/lkflr6sgyfm?si=j4gopnyfpy3wxnxs.
in what can only be described as a win for truth, justice, and religious freedom (depending on who you ask ofcourse), the paris administrative court has come to the defense of jehovah’s witnesses.
on june 14, 2024, the court ruled that miviludes, france’s government agency for monitoring cult-like behavior, had committed the heinous crime of defamation against jehovah’s witnesses.france unlike most other countries has an agency that monitors destructive cults and gets who is in their list: jehovah’s witnesses, i wonder why that is.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/LkFLR6SgyfM?si=j4GoPNYFPY3wxNXs
In what can only be described as a win for truth, justice, and religious freedom (depending on who you ask ofcourse), the Paris Administrative Court has come to the defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. On June 14, 2024, the court ruled that MIVILUDES, France’s government agency for monitoring cult-like behavior, had committed the heinous crime of defamation against Jehovah’s Witnesses.France unlike most other countries has an agency that monitors destructive cults and gets who is in their list: Jehovah’s Witnesses, I wonder why that is. So,how dare they accuse such a squeaky-clean group organisation! After all, it’s not like anyone has ever raised concerns about their handling of child abuse or their approach to education, right?
MIVILUDES, in its misguided attempt to protect society, dared to publish reports between 2018 and 2020 that suggested Jehovah’s Witnesses might discourage child abuse reporting to secular authorities. They even had the audacity to claim that the group didn’t exactly encourage its younger members to pursue higher education. Clearly, MIVILUDES forgot who they were dealing with: an organization that insists they are always right, regardless of what the rest of the world might think.
Naturally, Jehovah’s Witnesses were outraged at the mere suggestion that they might be anything less than paragons of virtue. So, they did what any wrongfully accused group would do – they sued for defamation. Because nothing says “we’re innocent” like dragging people to court.
In a stunning twist of logic, the Paris Administrative Court agreed with Jehovah’s Witnesses, declaring that MIVILUDES’ claims were defamatory. According to the court, the agency relied on flimsy evidence, like reports from the Australian Royal Commission and cases in the U.S. Apparently, the fact that these issues were highlighted on other continents was irrelevant because, as we all know, child abuse and educational manipulation never cross borders.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, had their own pristine documents ready to prove they were law-abiding citizens. The court was impressed by their 2008 letter to the French Minister of Justice, where they so kindly reminded their members to report abuse in accordance with French law. So, that settles it. If they said they follow the law in a letter, it must be true. Case closed.
MIVILUDES, clearly overstepping its bounds, claimed that Jehovah’s Witnesses encouraged members to handle serious offenses like child abuse internally. But according to the court, MIVILUDES failed to present enough “credible” evidence to support these claims in France. Apparently, three testimonies and a press article weren’t enough to prove that such a revered group would ever turn a blind eye to abuse. The fact that similar concerns have popped up in other countries is completely irrelevant.
MIVILUDES also had the nerve to accuse Jehovah’s Witnesses of discouraging their young followers from pursuing long-term studies. The court, however, quickly dismissed this as outdated nonsense, citing that MIVILUDES’ evidence was based on publications from 1975 and beyond. Why should we pay attention to decades of past teachings when we can just pretend they never existed?
Clearly, the court was not interested in holding Jehovah’s Witnesses accountable for anything that didn’t happen in the immediate past. After all, if no one has said anything recently about kids not going to college, it’s obviously not a problem.
The Paris court was quick to remind MIVILUDES that, as a governmental body, it must adhere to “balance, impartiality, and neutrality” – something it apparently failed at spectacularly. In what seems like an enormous leap of faith, the court ruled that MIVILUDES had spread “erroneous” and “misleading” information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, the agency was ordered to delete the defamatory statements within 15 days. That’ll teach them for trying to protect vulnerable people!
This legal triumph for Jehovah’s Witnesses will surely be celebrated as yet another example of Jehovah’s protection. How dare anyone suggest that their internal handling of abuse cases or their historical stance on education could be questionable? MIVILUDES, on the other hand, has been left with a harsh reminder that protecting people from potential harm must be done with airtight evidence — none of that “global pattern of behavior” nonsense, thank you very much.
In the end, the ruling simply reaffirms that if you want to accuse a high-control religious group of wrongdoing, you’d better come prepared with something more solid than international reports and outdated concerns. Otherwise, you might just find yourself on the losing end of a defamation case. Because, of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses have never done anything wrong – at least not in the past few years in France. -
12
Marcial--News and Update on Atlantis!
by Atlantis innews on the person you call (atlantis!).
(before he came to simon's board he was called the twin, the crawler, the titan, the scanner, and many other names to hide his identity.
he has never been caught and to this day the watchtower society has never known who he was.
-
-
raymond frantz
He is a legend to the exjw community and will always be remembered for putting himself on the line to keep us informed.I wish more pimo elders would do 1% of what he did for us.
-
27
JWhub
by Mikejw ini’m an elder who is pima, i’m amazed how much info is available to all elders.
you can see all private details of every member of the congregation.
i wonder how these sisters feel about their private details being available to these creepy elders?.
-
-
raymond frantz
Well that will be great Mike , I can't see how you can traced though
-
27
JWhub
by Mikejw ini’m an elder who is pima, i’m amazed how much info is available to all elders.
you can see all private details of every member of the congregation.
i wonder how these sisters feel about their private details being available to these creepy elders?.
-
-
raymond frantz
Where is that video Gorb?
-
6
Atlantis
by Marcial inplease give us news of him as soon as you can.
atlantis has done so much that it would be too ungrateful to forget him.
i am so indebted to him.
-
-
raymond frantz
Me too
-
27
JWhub
by Mikejw ini’m an elder who is pima, i’m amazed how much info is available to all elders.
you can see all private details of every member of the congregation.
i wonder how these sisters feel about their private details being available to these creepy elders?.
-
-
raymond frantz
For all pimo elders on this site it would be great if you could supply the exjw community with all internal memos like Atlantis did, to my knowledge I don't know of any other elder to do that on a regular basis, I wonder why that is?
-
6
MAJOR WIN FOR THE WATCHTOWER IN EUROPE ON THE BLOOD ISSUE
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/xhpnp8xtsk4?si=kq55iap5anhlehgd.
so on the 17th of september the european court of human rights (echr) condemned spain over a case involving a jehovah’s witness who was given a blood transfusion during emergency surgery, against her will, this case was well documented earlier last year as a victory for the exjw community and a sign that european countries are turning on the watchtower, unfortunately this was a shortlived victory since the finally authority are no longer countries and their courts but nefarious organizations like the echr that over rule their decisions, and i'm afraid this is the same way is going to go if the victory in norway ends up in strasburg in the hands of the echr.. the case involved an ecuadorian national residing in spain, who was given a transfusion despite her religious objections.
spain found itself in a difficult position when confronted with this case.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/xhPNp8xtsK4?si=KQ55Iap5anhleHgd
So on the 17th of September the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Spain over a case involving a Jehovah’s Witness who was given a blood transfusion during emergency surgery, against her will, this case was well documented earlier last year as a victory for the exjw community and a sign that European countries are turning on the Watchtower, unfortunately this was a shortlived victory since the finally authority are no longer countries and their courts but nefarious organizations like the ECHR that over rule their decisions, and I'm afraid this is the same way is going to go if the victory in Norway ends up in Strasburg in the hands of the ECHR.
The case involved an Ecuadorian national residing in Spain, who was given a transfusion despite her religious objections.
Spain found itself in a difficult position when confronted with this case. The country had to make a decision in a life-or-death situation where medical professionals believed a blood transfusion was necessary to save Rosa’s life. Despite knowing her religious beliefs prohibited receiving blood, the urgency of the situation led the hospital to proceed without consent. Spain's defense argued that medical professionals acted with the best intentions, prioritizing the immediate need to save a life. However, the ECHR ruled that this decision violated Rosa’s right to personal autonomy and religious freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court’s ruling once again sided with the religious freedoms of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as it has done repeatedly in the past. The ECHR has consistently maintained that religious beliefs must be respected, even when they conflict with medical opinions.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have a long-standing objection to blood transfusions, rooted in their religious teachings. They believe that accepting blood violates God’s law, and thus refuse transfusions, even in critical medical situations. This position, however, has resulted in a hidden tragedy for many followers. By refusing blood transfusions, Jehovah’s Witnesses are often put in life-threatening situations where their adherence to doctrine comes at the ultimate price: their lives. This refusal is nothing more than a form of human sacrifice, where individuals are coerced by religious teachings into giving up their lives. In ancient times pagan priests would sacrifice innocent lives on the altar to appease their gods and in the same way these modern day priests of Satan sacrifice innocent lives under the vice of doctrine to appease their god who is not the god of the Bible but their blood thirsty dark lord. .
The ECHR, by consistently siding with Jehovah’s Witnesses in these cases, reinforces the idea that religious freedom should be respected above all else. However, this raises difficult ethical questions. Should the rights of individuals to adhere to their religious beliefs be upheld when those beliefs endanger their lives? And where is the line between personal freedom and the state's responsibility to protect life?
The court’s unwavering support of Jehovah’s Witnesses, while grounded in human rights principles, has led to concerns that it indirectly endorses a doctrine that results in preventable deaths. The refusal to receive a blood transfusion, seen by some as a choice, may in reality be a coerced decision made under pressure from a community that demands compliance at any cost.
Ultimately, while religious freedoms are essential to democratic societies, the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions poses uncomfortable questions about the limits of those freedoms. How many more lives will be lost before a balance is struck between respecting religious beliefs and protecting the sanctity of life?