Posts by credulity

25

JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities

by Room 215 in

a newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .

(translated from the italian) .

source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.

credulity

I found the following paragraph troubling...

"some of the data collected by the members of that community who engage in preaching are sent by them to the congregations of that community which compile lists from that data of persons who no longer wish to receive visits from those members. Thus, in the course of their preaching, those members make at least some of the data collected accessible to a potentially unlimited number of persons."

...to the extent that it might conflate "do not call" lists with the more sensitive information contained in the ministry notes of individual JWs. As is so often the case with the CJEU, the quality and depth of its legal reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.

On the other hand, taking into account the wider fact that JWs regularly share ministry experiences at meetings and conventions which often include details about the private lives and beliefs of householders (and although the name of the householder is not disclosed when recounting an experience, the name can easily be learnt through gossip or otherwise), I don't disagree with the Grand Chamber's ultimate decision. I expect most householders would to surprised and annoyed to learn that details they shared with JWs who called on them were noted by those JWs and, in particular, then shared with a (much) wider audience.

8

Politically Neutral? Can a legalistic organization claim that status?

by OrphanCrow in

i found a document that discusses the canadian tax law for religions.. http://www.carters.ca/pub/seminar/church/2010/kjc0824.pdf.

i have long held the view that the org/wts says that it is non-political yet they behave like a political organization.

and it bothers me that religions are restricted from political activity yet the org has always been political.

credulity

"Perhaps WGH was (technically) not retained by WT but acting independently from WT..."

I can't envisage it being legally relevant whether legal work is done in-house or not. However, OrphanCrow overlooks the important sentence "An organization established for a political purpose". "established for". An organisation established for the sole purpose of opposing fox hunting - advocating that the current law is retained or is changed, as applicable - is established for a political purpose and cannot be charitable. WTS is not "established for" a political purpose of this kind. It is more like a charity established to provide aid for persons with a certain illness which might, incidentally, lobby for changes to the law which would assist persons with the illness in question. As long as such lobbying doesn't become a dominant and resource-hogging activity of the charity, a national charity regulator shouldn't have a problem with the lobbying.

It is, nevertheless, deceptive of Glen How & Associates to present itself as a neutral and commercial law firm, when it is nothing more than a legal front for WTS, its sole client.

13

Watchtower UK's Robert Li asks: "Can you lend me £75 million?"

by Fay Dehr in

anyone got a spare £75 million, for a good cause?.

go to the uk charity commission accounts for watchtower bible and tract society of great britain: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/documentlist.aspx?registeredcharitynumber=1077961&subsidiarynumber=0&doctype=accountlist

now download the accounts for 2017. see page.4 (signed by robert li on p.7, april 2018) .

credulity

@Fay Dehr: "Am I thinking too simplistically?"

Legally, yes. 'Public benefit' has an archaic and legalistic definition, which the UK Parliament did not take the opportunity to reform when it last considered the scope of charitable status a years ago (and, having so considered it, will not be further considering for the foreseeable future - change is too politically difficult unless public opinion sways against religious dogma in general). The 'Church of Scientology' was rejected charitable status, not because it couldn't demonstrate 'public benefit' (as legally defined) in the round, but because its lack of a belief in a supreme deity akin to traditional religions put it outside the charitable category of the 'advancement of religion' (as legally defined).

117

Lloyd’s new book

by jwfacts in

i see there has already been discussion over lloyd’s new book how to leave the jehovah's witnesses.

this includes discussion around his personality, motives and financial gains.

i have written a foreword for this book, because it is an important topic that has not been covered in such a complete format before.

credulity

I would like to emphasise the point made by '_Morpheus' about the non-commercial feel of the jwfacts website and congratulate Paul for this. The jwfacts website was the first independent source of information I consulted where I felt that the thoughtful and thorough presentation of information and lack of any possible commercial bias meant I could wholeheartedly trust the source. Any hint of commercial bias, however unfounded, would have, for a time (the length of which I cannot know), put me off reading the information.

Having since viewed the 'Cedars channel' videos, I know that Lloyd presents doctrinal information in a way that is not affected by commercial bias. But had Lloyd's videos existed while I was still 'in', I would have been put off as soon as I realised they had a partly commercial aspect, just as I never had any desire at the time to purchase Ray Franz' main book!

I have no objection to a person who invests a great deal of time in helping to share important information with others receiving remuneration for their efforts, and I have since come to buy Ray's books, including the most recently published edition of Crisis of Conscience in hardback purely to show my appreciate for that work. But I still wish to emphasise the important role which I feel Paul's approach plays in, for at least some jws, breaking down that initial mental barrier to the acceptance of information presented by third parties.

10

The ever-broadening, ever-deepening, ONGOING FLOOD TIDE of spiritual food

by credulity in

midway through the "congregation bible study" at this week's midweek meeting, a paragraph of the "god's kingdom rules" book stated as supposed evidence that "god's kingdom rules":.

"spiritual provisions flow to us like an ever-broadening and ever-deepening river.

our bible-based publications - as well as recordings and videos, our meetings and conventions, and the material published on our web site - together amount to an ongoing flood tide of spiritual sustenance... are you not thrilled to see the fulfillment of jehovah’s promises of abundance in your daily life?".

credulity

Midway through the "Congregation Bible Study" at this week's midweek meeting, a paragraph of the "God's Kingdom Rules" book stated as supposed evidence that "god's kingdom rules":

"Spiritual provisions flow to us like an EVER-BROADENING and EVER-DEEPENING river. Our Bible-based publications - as well as recordings and videos, our meetings and conventions, and the material published on our Web site - together amount to an ONGOING FLOOD TIDE of spiritual sustenance... Are you not thrilled to see the fulfillment of Jehovah’s promises of ABUNDANCE in your daily life?"

(Apologies for the capitalization.)

As with the paragraphs covered in the midweek meeting a few weeks ago praising the organisation's practice of "not soliciting" for money, it is fascinating to see how rapidly the "God's Kingdom Rules" book has gone out of date. I wonder what is running through the minds of JWs in attendance as the above is read out at the same time as the output of "spiritual food", both in printed and electronic form and including the recently introduced videos, is falling off a cliff?

50

Crisis of Conscience: December 12, 2015 - 50 weeks later

by Jehalapeno in

jw
friends

on december 12, 2015 this statement was made by the copyright holder:.

i am presently considering three different routes to publishing crisis of conscience.

i hope to make a decision within days and plan to publish within weeks.. it has now been 50 weeks since that statement.. has the book been published yet?

credulity

sparrowdown
I wonder if WT would ever make an offer to obtain the rights (god knows they have the theocratic warfare mentality and the $$$) and then leave them in a vault somewhere forever with any other copies they have hoovered up off eBay.

Copies of the book are held by both the British Library and the Library of Congress, so physical copies of the book would remain in the public domain (from highly authoritative sources) even if Watchtower attempted to acquire all second-hand copies offered for sale.

36

“Sing Out Joyfully” to Jehovah

by wifibandit in

borg link warning: “sing out joyfully” to jehovah.

non-borg pdf mirror: “sing out joyfully” to jehovah.

.

credulity

(Not so) subliminal messages aside, parts of the "new" new songbook are hilarious.

e.g. Song 109 ("Love Intensely From the Heart") has been cut to just one verse and the lyrics are embarrassingly bad (primary rhymes in asterisks, secondary rhymes in carets):

"When our love is pure and intense, we make Jehovah's heart rejoice. Love is his greatest *quality*, something that we hold ^dear^. Warm affection glows in our hearts, making a loyal friendship grow. Love always acts *unselfishly*, proving our love ^sincere^. When we see a friend in need, we'll be there to lend a helping *hand*. Truly we can be a friend, someone who can *understand*. Jesus showed what love really means, helping us see Jehovah's love, touching our hearts and moving us. Tender feeling are a *start*. Love intensely from the *heart*."

Compare the 1984 lyrics (115 - "Have Intense Love For One Another"):

"Love that is intense and *pure*, helps us all things to *endure*, and God's favour to *secure*, serving him ^aright^. Through such love our God did *send*, Jesus Christ our loyal *Friend*, our relationship to *mend*, and with Him ^unite^. We who fear Jehovah *God*, let our feet with love be *shod*, as we walk the way Christ *trod*, showing heartfelt ^love^. In this hateful world *today*, love intense we must *display*, it is the surpassing *way*; copies God ^above^, copies God ^above^."

The 1984 lyrics were clever. The 2009 lyrics, while substantially changed (particularly to account for the annoying every-note-must-match-a-syllable mentality), maintained the rhymes and did eliminate the repetition at the end (which was a positive step). The 2016 lyrics, in comparison, lack structure. And is "glows" supposed to rhyme with "grow"? Or "need" with "means"!? When something sounds almost right but doesn't fit, one gets the impression that little thought was put into the lyrics.

---

If one adopts the JW mindset that humans are endowed with the god-given ability to sing, which should be enjoyed and exercised accordingly, one must also wonder what the rationale is for cutting songs to less than two minutes. I've always considered the "Love Intensely" song, while not the easiest to sing, to be one of the most musically superior songs, and two verses (as was the case originally in 1984, and then in 2009) was perfect, at 3.5 minutes. It wasn't too short, but nor did it drag (unlike "Be Forgiving" [Song 56 in 1966, Song 110 in 1984] which, at almost six minutes if played at the right tempo, although a pleasant enough melody, started to REALLY drag by the fourth verse!).

Perhaps sub-2-minute songs are now preferred because they make toilet breaks impossible?

---

Finally, the Kingdom Melodies are no longer displayed on the JW website, although they are still accessible if you still have the old link. I expect they will be deleted in due course.

34