Posts by Journeyman

27

God’s wisdom in allowing bearded JWs July 25 Watchtower

by Listener in

the july 2025 watchtower has a paragraph that claims that it was the superior power and wisdom of jehovah that guided the gb into allowing jws to grow beards.. the study article is ‘can you still learn from basic bible teachings?’ under the subheading ‘jehovah is the creator’ paragraph 7 states-.

“ 7. what did rahela do to accept a change in direction?.

your answer.

Journeyman

The July 2025 Watchtower has a paragraph that claims that it was the superior power and wisdom of Jehovah that guided the GB into allowing jws to grow beards.

Sadly, this paragraph is indeed from a real WT article - the July 2025 magazine is on the JW website now.

The crazy thing is, the GB still seem to be set on making a big deal out of the beards thing by drawing attention to it like this, despite already telling the R&F not to make a fuss about it. The best thing they can do now is stop going on about it and let the fact they ever made a needless issue of it fade into the past. But no, they still keep banging on about it like this!

Of course, these articles are usually written well in advance, so this heavy-handed reference was probably slipped in there back when this was still a "sensitive" issue - back when the GB were still making statements cautioning the R&F not to "speculate" or to "judge" whether the decision was right before or is right now.

Really, what a load of fuss over nothing. And dragging the name of Jehovah into this is at best insulting (why would the Creator be so concerned about such a trivial matter, especially when the Bible makes no indicate of any such ruling?) and at worst, blasphemous.

Just admit it was a stupid edict in the first place, and you're correcting a long-standing error, then move on.

36

Sisters can now wear pants. Any more important changes

by Witness 007 in

alot of my witness friends were excited sisters can now wear pants and you can say hi to disfellowshiped folks but what about important stuff child molesters in the congregation you need 2 witnesses blood fractions are fine but not whole blood????

607 bce is from the 1880s wrong....anything else?

Journeyman

I'm still amazed by the beard nonsense. [..] Still astounded by the vast number of brothers who Immediately started growing one.

I completely agree. I've never liked having a beard - once I get a few days of stubble growth, I have to get rid of it - so the beard "controversy" was no issue to me, except that it always seemed ridiculous as a "rule". Surely, IF you were going to make a rule about beards, it would make more sense to say that men HAVE to have a beard, rather than say they SHOULDN'T, given Bible history (for example Leviticus 19:27)?

Then, when the "ban" was lifted, suddenly so many elders started growing beards! It seems bizarre to me. Were all these men really desperate to wear a beard but felt supressed by the GB "ruling"? Or was it a case of "kid in a sweetshop", that once something previously 'taboo' was made acceptable, they all wanted to rush to have a piece of that?

Over time, some have since shaved their beards off again but many have not, so I presume for many it was that they really did want to grow one (or perhaps their wife wanted them to), but they felt unable to.

Regarding birthdays, I understand what Rattigan means to an extent. Being born is an accident of circumstances for us (or fate, if you believe in that) - not something we put effort into. Whereas, making a marriage last another year requires effort from both parties.

However, you could say that surviving another year IS an achievement, especially it would have been so in previous cultures and societies when lifespans were short and there was high child mortality. The sad fact is that celebrating birthdays probably arose as a result of the fact that few children lived into adulthood.

Again, birthdays are something I'm 'agnostic' about. I have no kids or siblings, and never felt bothered about my own one way or another, so I don't really feel I have a strong opinion on the subject.

3

Jacob and the Rock'n Rollers

by peacefulpete in

somehow i had never noticed a detail in the jacob at the well story.

gen 29 (lxx).

1 and jacob started and went to the land of the east to laban, the son of bathuel the syrian, and the brother of rebecca, mother of jacob and esau.2 and he looks, and behold!

Journeyman

EDIT: Oops! So good I posted it twice...

3

Jacob and the Rock'n Rollers

by peacefulpete in

somehow i had never noticed a detail in the jacob at the well story.

gen 29 (lxx).

1 and jacob started and went to the land of the east to laban, the son of bathuel the syrian, and the brother of rebecca, mother of jacob and esau.2 and he looks, and behold!

Journeyman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyJHh451Y4

9

WT JUNE 2025 MODESTLY accept what YOU do not know

by blondie in

jw
friends

pp.

14-19 just some quote and a few comments from me, very, very repetitious.

the gb seems to think that the rank and file came up the years 1914, 1925, 1975, generation (70-80 years from 1914=1994), overlapping generations.

Journeyman

It is the title that is strange to me. If they had said "cannot know" instead of "do not know" it would make sense. For example, if I don't know calculus, but want to know calculus, what does modesty have to do with it? All I need to do is go to my local college and take a calculus class. Now if Jesus says that only the Father knows the day and the hour, then I modestly accept the fact that I cannot know that. They are conflating modesty with ignorance, i.e. not knowing something is virtuous because you are modest and humble. With Watchtower's new doctrine of "willful ignorance", which psychologists will tell you is done to avoid taking responsibility, now it is virtuous to be irresponsible because you are modest. Humility is conflated with ignorance.

finishedmystery - you make a great point there. I also noticed that distinction.

Having skimmed through the article though, in fairness there is nothing I can see that is a "bait and switch" between "cannot know" and "do not know", except para 7 where there's the line blondie quoted and analysed: "We do well to focus on what we do know — that the last days began in 1914", and some JW-specific figures about their ministry.

One of the footnotes does also say: "Jesus will take the lead in the war against Satan’s wicked world, so it is reasonable to conclude that he now knows the date for Armageddon and for when he will “complete his conquest.”—Rev. 6:2; 19:11-16." but I don't think that's quite so presumptuous.

Perhaps surprisingly, there is not even a mention in the article about obeying the direction of the organisation, even though in at least 3-4 paragraphs, there is an opportunity to slip it in. They don't even add it to the pictures and captions, which is usually a good place to insert chest-thumping for the Org if they can't include it in the text.

Almost the entire article is genuinely about the things we cannot know right now - when "the end" will come, what God will choose to do, and what will happen to us tomorrow - and surprisingly, nowhere in the text does it recommend turning to an "organisation" for the answers. However, it's worth noting that the opening song for the study is "SONG 123: Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order", which DOES of course go on about obeying direction, so there is a not-so-subtle message laid down there, which seems suspiciously out of sync with the overall content of the article otherwise.

So I think for this one, I'll put it down to the (increasingly common) poor use of language in WT articles of late - the article should really be called "Modestly accept what you CANNOT know", or perhaps "Modestly accept what you do not YET know".

23

3 Changes The Watchtower Made on Babylon The Great in the Last 6 Months

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/vpws6ncqpla?si=dqnf7-hupfr4pdta.

for decades, jehovah’s witnesses have been banging on about babylon the great—the so-called world empire of false religion—being on the brink of collapse.

any day now, they assured us, churches would empty out, priests would be left twiddling their thumbs, and humanity would collectively bin organised religion.

Journeyman

EDIT: posted common in wrong thread - apologies!

15

What "message" does the J.W Org. have to offer that will attract new members ?

by Phizzy in

the message they have been pushing for 150 years or so is "the end is near !"..

in the educated, civilised world, people think " yea ?

maybe because of economic meltdown exacerbated by climate change, but not from some intervention by a non-existent god".. "would you like a free bible study ?

Journeyman

But if they kill themselves before the GT starts, they will get an automatic resurrection pass to paradise where they will learn Jehovah’s Witnesses were right all along.

This is complete nonsense, and a caricature of what the current GB are saying. (Not that I'm a fan of their most recent spoutings, but let's be accurate here.)

At no time have the JWs taught that there is an "automatic resurrection pass" for anyone not a JW themselves. Of course, from a Biblical perspective, there IS no such thing as "an automatic resurrection pass" for ANYONE, since resurrection is dependent on God's mercy (grace) in applying Christ's ransom. He can choose to resurrect whomever he wishes - or choose not to. You don't get to sail through doing whatever you please. Yes, he promises to give life to those obeying him and his son, but even that is spoken of in terms that require effort and perseverance like "exerting yourself", a "narrow gate" and so on.

All this nonsense of characterising the change in the JWs teaching - whether it is correct or not - as a licence to do as you please is just as stupid as the suggestions that one should "stay PIMO and sit on the fence and see where things are going, then just jump at the end", etc, as if you can just fool God and "slip in under the net" at the last minute.

IF there is such a thing as the whole resurrection/judgement as Christians believe, the idea that some pathetic bags of skin and water like us humans can "gotcha!" the creator of the universe in that way is ridiculous.

26

WT June 2025: We Are Not Blind We Just Don't Know

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/7xumqjq3zfc?si=ivcg96t4dtgze4ft.

so this is from the brand new watchtower study edition of june 2025 which has just been posted on jw.org .under the title: modestly accept what you do not know, a let’s read paragraphs in question 4 &5: “read matthew 24:36. we do not know when the end of this system of things will come.

even jesus, while on earth, did not know the ‘day and hour.’ he later told the apostles that jehovah, who is the great timekeeper, keeps the timing of certain events ‘in his own jurisdiction,’ or authority.

Journeyman

Personally, I am glad that they are now admitting that they do not know. It is better than making things up.

That's true, but it's going to come with an enormous backlash in payback (which is already starting). You can't string "generations" of people along for a lifetime then say "sorry, we were wrong" without expecting serious repercussions.

The error was in the arrogance of claiming to have "secret" knowledge of dates and times in the first place, and assuming YOU were right, even if the previous guy wasn't, time and again, despite the fact that the Bible itself warns against that very thing.

That, coupled with the R&F being encouraged to put their hope in the wrong thing (ie: imminent "salvation" and quick "rewards", rather than on service to God and Jesus for the long term as a "net good" in its own right)

One of the main reasons why I have never felt as badly let down as many others who have associated with JWs for decades - including many who were "exemplary" for years - is that I never believed the "it's just around the corner" thing, with all the comments like "oh, you'll never leave school in this system", "you'll never retire in this system", etc, etc. I always felt that, when you look back at the sweep of history, even just since the days of the Millennial movement, Barbour, Russell and all that lot - people had come and gone believing the end was "imminent" and it wasn't then, so why right now? It seems the height of arrogance to assume YOU and YOUR era will be the ones, when many have gone before who were mistaken (no offence intended to any ex-JWs who sincerely believed that in the past - I mean from the point of view of those teaching that idea.)

I've always felt that when God decides it's time, he will do it. Just because 1914 was a massively significant year from the perspective of human history, does not mean it has the actual meaning the JWs think it has. But for all the things they have changed recently, they are still adamantly insisting they have nothing even SLIGHTLY wrong with the teaching on what happened in heaven in 1914.

And Listener is right that they are still doubling down on the message "well, we are still God's only channel, so although we were wrong in the past and we can't claim to be infallible now, you should still listen to us exclusively and obey what we say". That way lies madness, and guaranteed failure.

2

Is the 2024 annual meeting new light already obsolete?

by nowwhat? in

the latest new light was jehovah was going to "put it into their (the nations) heart to give over their power to the united nations.

with the june watchtower now out which is to be studied in september would be the time when they study the annual meeting new light.

instead we get the "we don't know" when the end is coming!

Journeyman

Thanks for the clarifications, Duran. You know, when I read or watch many of the recent GB "new light" or "clarifications", I increasingly get the sense they don't even know - or care about - their own organisation's history.

They often get the detail of a lot of their own supposed teachings wrong, both when retelling them, and when saying "we now have a change of thought!"

You'd have thought with all the supposed technology they have at NY Bethel, they'd at least be able to search the databases of their own historic articles properly! Many of us on here can find statements of the WT organisation far more accurately than they can! (And I don't just mean faults and flaws - we can often find better explanations of their own teachings from their own past than they give in talks today).

I put it down to personal arrogance - the current GB are too busy thinking how they can promote their own "new" theories to suit what they want to do in the near future, and can't be bothered to properly check the history and context of their own predecessors' writings.

16

Will They Change the Memorial Talk This Year?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/o5almnehew4?si=kdgrjgbiutjkvcxe.

i’m hoping the memorial talk will be different.

change the talk!

Journeyman

Some years ago the Memorial talk was completely changed. From that time on there has been no mention of Nisan 14 and the Israelites in Egypt, killing the lamb, sprinkling the blood etc. The complete Passover part was removed. Even the song, "'twas Nisan 14 when your glory was seen...." was removed and substituted with another.
Can anyone remember the year this change took place? I never heard any explanation as to why the change but just assumed they had discovered they were celebrating on the wrong after all.
George

I can't remember WHEN it was done, but yes I remember that. It struck me at the time that it was "dumbing down" the message (little did I know then how much more was going to come down the line), especially as the Memorial is the first time many get to learn about "the ransom" and how significant it was, and how it linked right back to promises and acts of God from centuries before.

The Memorial songs back then seemed more dignified too, and they were uplifting, rousing songs, especially the second, which usually ended the meeting. One was about the meal itself, one about Jesus Christ.

"The Lord’s Evening Meal": [jworg] /en/library/books/Sing-Praises-to-Jehovah-Small-Size/The-Lords-Evening-Meal/
"Hail Jehovah's Firstborn": [jworg] /en/library/books/Sing-Praises-to-Jehovah-Small-Size/Hail-Jehovahs-Firstborn/

Then they put in two awful dirges of songs for a few years, now recently they've changed them again to one about the anointed as a "special possession" (which wouldn't be so bad if the GB hadn't also planted themselves in the forefront as being the ONLY spokesmen for that entire group) and another which, admittedly, is about being "grateful for the ransom" and does include lyrics acknowledging Jesus' willing sacrifice, but is a less memorable and rousing song than they used to end with.

They used to refer to the fact that at the end of the "Lord's evening meal", Matthew and Mark say Jesus and the eleven "sang songs of praise" before going out into the night, so a rousing song seemed a good way to end what should really be a joyful commemoration, because of what it stood for.

My pet peeve about the memorial is their obsession with just once a year and it has to correspond with Nisan 14 as the same as the passover night.

I have no problem with that at all. It seems perfectly reasonable. The Passover was an annual event. The "last supper" was held on a Passover, and so it's logical that when Jesus said "keep doing this in remembrance of me", to hold it annually.

For centuries and across most of the earth, "remembrances" are generally annual: birthdays, wedding and death anniversaries, commemorations of significant world events. For example, in the UK and Commonwealth countries, the event called "Remembrance Day" marking the sacrifice of armed forces personnel in conflicts is observed annually on 11th November, in commemoration of the ending of WWI on 11/11/18. So an annual event seems perfectly reasonable to me for both practical and scriptural reasons.

I think the concept of the Catholic Mass is overdoing it with frequency.

Now that, I do agree with. Daily or weekly or even multiple times a day seems overkill, and easily loses the significance of the event. Given the parallel with the Passover and the calendar (whether solar or lunar), annual seems most sensible. Of course, there is a debate of which "year" it should be held according to, but again, reasonably, I would say it should be according to the calendar used by the nation of Israel at the time Jesus was on earth. I'm no expert on that, and I believe the JWs don't always get that calculation right, but they are one of the few organisations claiming to be Christian who seem at least to be trying to align their observation to the original conditions.