Posts by Journeyman

43

SECRET RECORDING 14TH APRIL:RALPH WALLS: MORE CHANGES ARE COMING!

by raymond frantz in

secret recording 14th april:ralph walls: more changes are coming!.

( broadcasted to all british congregations today).

https://youtu.be/owg4bqj7pd0?si=yvfpkkos_qoy9u10.

Journeyman

He opens by saying: "The Britain branch... England, Britain, is very special"
Ugh. Put me off right away. He couldn't even be bothered to learn and understand the difference between Britain and England.

What does that say for his attitude to accuracy, and his respect for his audience, knowing as he would've that he was coming to this country for a branch visit?

I bet some of the Scottish and Welsh brothers loved hearing that!

And then he says his talk will be based on the Revelation Climax book. Err. hang on, you can't even get that book anymore! Isn't that "old light" now, brother? 🤣

86

Prediction: no more changes for a long while

by slimboyfat in

i’ve noticed a pattern where things don’t go the way i expect them to go and/or whenever i realise there is a trend and, i mentally adjust for the idea that the trend will continue, the trend stops in its tracks.

so on that basis, and given many people, including myself, and active jws, have been asking ‘what changes will the governing body make next?’ perhaps the (disappointing) answer is: ‘nothing much for a while to come’.

maybe they’ve made the changes they want for now, and will wait a while and see how it’s received.

Journeyman

Yes, the congregation monthly donation arrangement will cover over any inbalance in publishers' donations for a while, since the burden is spread across all.

So for example, you might have only say, 10-20 out of a congregation of 100 giving a substantial amount each week, with maybe a similar number putting in change and the rest, nothing. But the 10-20 giving the most will mask the lack of contribution from the rest when taken in aggregate as a monthly donation to the Org. For a while at least.

But over time, if the number of those willing to donate larger sums continues to fall, and assuming those who currently donate most are middle-aged to elderly, long-time Witnesses who have limited outgoings and sufficient finances to be able to make larger donations, such ones will continue dying off and not being replaced by ones with very stable finances (even younger ones with a half-decent income are more subject to changes in their fortunes, due to family issues, job market, inflation or recession, etc, so less likely to routinely make substantial donations), the shortfall will eventually be noticeable even at a congregation level.

At that point, even the "congregational monthly donation" arrangement will be insufficient for the Org, so they'll have to think of something else by then.

I suspect it will be tied to individual donation arrangements via online using the JW org accounts, which they are gradually trying to get everyone tied into. You already have one of these if you are an elder, MS or fulltime servant, or someone who has volunteered to do any construction work or other projects through your local Bethel. Probably won't be long before they expect everyone to use a JW login account. Then they can monitor individual financial contributions and give targeted "encouragement" to anyone not thought to be giving enough (even though scripturally, Christians are not supposed to do that!)

19

I think I know what the GB is doing

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

read:.

but if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘my master is delaying,’b 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards.

hmm... let's see is anyone on the governing body a strict master and a drunkard?

Journeyman

I agree with markweatherill. If the GB are the "evil slave", then that would have to be all of them collectively, as the slave (if it's a collective body at all), is spoken of as being either one or the other.

As said, if they are the evil slave then they won't accept it anyway until it's too late. It parallels Matthew 22 where the man who arrives for the wedding feast isn't wearing the right garments: he thinks he's entitled to be there, but is not properly dressed. He's not "put on" the "clothing" that he should have done - not displaying the right qualities (the Christlike personality that is spoken of as being like a garment), and so the man is showing disrespect to the Groom. So he's shocked to be thrown out by the Groom when He arrives.

As to whether the GB know what they are doing, I think that while some of the changes they are making are right - removing Pharasaical rules about beards, ties, dresses, reporting hours, etc, for example - they are still culpable because they have not changed more serious matters that they know are causing problems and that they are failing on, which are causing real distress in congregations, such as tackling genuinely wrong behaviour (there was a thread about "engineering divorces", for example, which we know goes on and the GB has done little about it), including the painful results of judicial injustices, wrongly disfellowshipping, shunning and the heavy-handed application of internal "rules" which are not supported by scripture, etc.

It's like Jesus accused the Pharisees of "straining out the gnat" but "gulping down the camel" - worrying over petty details, (like adminstrative and procedural stuff, what outfits can be worn, which form to fill in for which assignment, etc) but missing the "weightier things" like justice and mercy.

IMO, that's also why, despite the tinkering they are doing that they think might spare them the wrath of governments (eg: the Norway case), I don't believe they will be allowed to get away so lightly.,

I think it's interesting times in JW-land, and not necessarily for the reasons the GB expect. Watch this space!

21

Things you can not say in "field service" anymore.

by greenhornet in

jw
friends

many years ago we would be on someone's doorstep, when waiting for the house holder to come to the door we say something like ... yea after the big a this is going to be my house.

imagine saying that today with the common use of doorbell cameras and the squatting problem .

Journeyman

He replied, "I thought maybe you died and somebody nice moved in."

LOL! That's hilarious, although not of course in the "spirit" of the Christian ministry. But it's true that, whatever you might think of going door-to-door now, there really were some horrible people out there, sometimes. Still are of course, that's just life. Some people are always going to be nasty, or at least easily angered and "triggered", as they call it today.

On the subject of callous remarks by Witnesses, I was never comfortable hearing comments about "taking their home" or "they're having their reward in full" or things like that. Completely goes against the numerous Biblical instructions about not "coveting" your neighbours' property, not calling down evil on your enemies but praying for them, not wanting to acquire material things but being content to survive Armageddon with your life, and so on. Even the GB has said that Witnesses are supposed to view others as "potential brothers and sisters", so trash talking like that is hardly showing that kind of spirit.

To be fair, the society - during the 80s+ at least, when I was involved with them - didn't encourage that, except in one way, which I did used to find unchristian, which was the frequency of Watchtower articles that used to be all about how terrible "worldly" people and organisations were, but how "righteous" 'God's people' were when it came to things like marriage, honest at work, religious observance, etc. That must have fed the egos of so many in the congregations, especially those elders (and elderettes) and "full-time servants" who already think they're something special.

Fortunately, the org has toned that right down in recent years, but there was a period of a couple of decades where there were often study articles which were frankly boasting about JWs being so much better than anyone else. They've probably had to stop being so arrogant about JWs now they've finally realised how many problems there are in congregations: they have many more articles about how to cope with problems in marriages, families, how to resolve disputes with brothers, etc, these days, so I reckon the GB have had to wake up a bit more to reality!

2497

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

He doesn't have much interest or much ammunition from the latest JW changes, I don't think. They're mostly corrections of things that should've been changed years ago (reporting time, no beards, suits and ties only for men, no trousers for women, etc) and none of them are about his favourite subject: sex.

So I doubt he's really that interested, especially since he's already clearly desperate to move on with his life (although he can't resist the draw of the easy money from patrons).

If anyone still wants to visit his YT channel, feel free to challenge him on ~~this~~ anything. I am sure he will engage with you thoughtfully and respectfully and not act like a total obnoxious asshole in his replies. Good luck!!

Fixed it.

18

Were JW Celebrities Ever An Asset To The Organisation?

by NotFormer in

jw
friends

just wondering if the rich celebrities that occasionally were aligned with the wt gave enough to the 'tower to be a worthwhile presence within the organisation?.

my gut instinct is: "no".

i imagine that the jackson family gave a fair bit, but it was obviously never enough to buy michael the right to be held as being in good standing.

Journeyman

I agree with the OP and all that Vidiot said earlier.

Unlike just about any other religious group - and certainly in contrast with the likes of Scientology - the JW org has nothing to gain from celebrity endorsement and has never really had a comfortable relationship with celebs.

By its very nature, "true" JW lifestyle and theology leaves no room for celebrity culture and status. The very fact they celebrate the leaving behind of high-profile careers and highlight that members should be "no part of the world" heavily mitigates against any sort of celebrity culture in the org. You would certainly never get celebrity endorsements, like famous JWs appearing on the platform at a convention to flash a toothy smile and show off their latest suit/dress! The very idea is ridiculous!

The only JW celebrities where there is no discomfort caused to either them or to the org, are the ones who are low-key and frankly fairly anonymous, like Hank Marvin, George Benson, etc. The loud, proud, flamboyant or high-profile types (like MJ and Prince used to be) have never really benefited the org, nor did they themselves benefit from association with it.

He spoke out against the practice of when a G.B member took to the Platform at a big Convention, the audience would clap them vigorously , before they had spoken a word, dad said that was idolizing them.
Later in life I saw first hand how J.W's sucked up to, and fawned over, prominent Bethel guys, and how those guys, and the G.B are the same, absolutely LOVED the adoration !

Yes, unfortunately, in the absence of a 'real' celebrity culture, the GB turned into the 'celebrities' (along with certain prominent 'helpers'), and that's got much worse since the arrival of the awful JW Broadcasting. The only decent feature of JWB is the ability to show different congregations from around the world, but the high-profile of the GB and their cheesy "we all love you verrry much", coupled with Disney-fied cartoon Bible stories and increasingly desperate use of dramatised scenes is all pretty tiresome.

2497

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

There is no such thing as Universal Basic Income here in the UK at the moment. There's a lot of talk about introducing it, and some pilot programmes proposed, but the benefit for people on low incomes who have not paid enough National Insurance contributions is Universal Credit.

Universal Credit is not very generous especially by the standards of what Lloyd will be used to, and one of the rules for eligibility is that you must have £16,000 in savings or less, which I doubt is true of him given his number of patrons (even though they're falling) and his regular spending on holidays. Here are the current rates, and from this he would only get about £400-800 per month. https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

To put that in context, the average monthly rent for a 1-bed flat is between £600-800, even outside London and South-East England. In the SE, it's well above that. So even if he gets Housing Benefit to help with his rent, it won't cover it all and he will barely have anything left.

Even if he claims some kind of disability, as a single, middle-aged, white British-born male he will have no priorities when it comes to further benefits, housing or anything like that.

For this reason, coupled with the fact that there are people over here who he would not want to encounter, and there may yet be legal difficulties for him if he settles back here, I really do not believe he would return to the UK permanently unless it was completely unavoidable.

43

How do JWs know that less than 150,000 Christians existed before the 20th Century?

by Vanderhoven7 in

according to watchtower, only anointed christians existed between the first and 20th centuries.

the great crowd of other sheep only began forming after the 20th century started.. how do they support this conclusion?

.

Journeyman

For me, I can see the point that all of the 144,000 have not yet been sealed, otherwise the end would have come by now, but that does not mean that there were never many faithful Christians between the Apostles and the Bible Students, as the org has claimed in the past. They confuse the number of believers with the number of ones bought from the earth to rule in heaven. The two numbers are clearly not the same and never have been.

The GB, while claiming to leave "matters to Jehovah", are still presumptuous about who they believe goes to heaven. They assume, firstly, that all their 'anointed' definitely will, but are much more coy about the possibility that any others from history will, or have done. For example, they often extol individuals from history who were 'martyrs' for Bible truths, like Wycliffe or Tyndale, etc, yet they are very hesitant to say those ones may have a heavenly resting place, yet they are adamant that their own organisation's leaders definitely do!

But scripturally speaking, that gift is not for men to decide, but only the Father.

To me, it's perfectly possible for there to have been hundreds of thousands of faithful Christians through history (by that I mean, honest-hearted though not worshipping correctly), yet only some of those selected by God to form part of the 144,000, because he's not just looking for being "faithful", but for more than that. And besides, it's His decision, not ours. Only he can read the entirety of a person's character, faith and so on, and he knows the best individuals to take to heaven to rule.

It may well be, for example, that the list of characteristics given of those ones in Revelation are literal - that they are virgins (never having had a mate means they were fully attentive on God all the time, without distraction - like Jesus) and they were executed or martyred for their faith (to surrender your life for your love of Christ would be the ultimate sacrifice, just as Jesus himself gave for us), possibly even that they are all male and are ultimately descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel (not that they would all be Jewish, but their lineage would eventually trace back that far).

After all, Revelation makes it clear these ones who become heavenly kings have these characteristics, and all attempts to explain symbolic versions of those qualities often appear forced, whereas to literally fill those characteristics would be completely in keeping with scriptural history, rather as Jesus fitted the foretold Messiah both symbolically and in terms of behaviour and heredity.

Individuals are invited to heaven not just for being 'faithful', so it's impossible to claim there were never more than a handful of 'acceptable' Christians before 1914. No human has the right to assert that - that's entirely in God's hands to determine. One of the reasons for the resurrection and Thousand Year reign is to enable previously "honest-hearted" ones to be restored to life and grow to full knowledge and perfection, so how can the org know that there may not be thousands - maybe even millions - from history who identified as Christians who God will allow to live again in Paradise because their faith was genuine, even if it wasn't all "according to accurate knowledge"? (And even today, how do we know whose faith is entirely "according to accurate knowledge"?)

39

Faithful Slave Appointment: What are the assumptions of Watchtower Matthew 24:45-47 Eschatology?

by Vanderhoven7 in

text: matthew 24:45-47.

45 “who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?

46 it will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.

Journeyman

To get back on track to the original question, the thing that always made me suspicious of the GB interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47 is that they have always stated that Jesus' warning of an "evil slave" in the rest of the chapter was not literal - that he was not saying that there was a risk the "slave" could turn bad.

That appears to completely contradict the pattern set by all the other parables and illustrations Jesus gave. Wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, broad road and narrow road, wise virgins and foolish virgins, house built on rock vs house build on sand, etc - every one of those was a warning of the potential or danger of choosing to be on the wrong "side" by making bad or foolish choices. Yet mysteriously, the one parable that did not contain that message is the one about the faithful slave? How convenient.

Oh no, they say - the "slave" has proved itself faithful and so could never turn evil!

Then what was the whole point of the illustration in the first place? Jesus was clearly warning the "slave" (whether we identify the slave as an individual or a group - and that's another question) that he/they could go either way: do as the master wanted and be faithful, or become lazy and arrogant and "beat their fellow slaves", for which they will be later judged as "evil" when the master returns. There is no lesson or warning and the whole thing becomes pointless if there was never any risk or chance that the "slave" could become corrupted or turn evil.

Instead, the clear warning is that anyone wishing to identify themselves as that slave MUST be doing what the master wants in serving the "household", or risk being judged "evil" on His return. But no, that's too stark a message for the GB to tolerate and it would hold them too accountable for their liking, so they choose to claim the master has already come, observed them and declared them faithful - with no real scriptural proof, and in a way that is very dangerous to presume. By disregarding Jesus' warning and claiming he has already returned and declared them righteous, they in fact make themselves even more likely to be identified as the "evil slave", because it makes them too self-confident and presumptuous of their own position. and adamant that the Master will bless them when He returns "in Kingdom power"!

It also interestingly parallels Matthew 22:11. where a wedding guest presumes he's entitled to be at the feast, but is thrown out by the King at the last minute when He arrives and finds the guest not properly 'dressed'. There is a presumption among JWs, from the top downwards, that all GB members (and anyone else declared 'anointed') are definitely heaven-bound and certain to become part of the Bride of Christ, even though that privilege is not for men to claim, but only God. (That also links to my view of the GB interpretation of the 144,000 too, which is being discussed on this thread).

130

List of UK Travelling Overseers in 2013

by soiledumpling in

hi pepeep am attempting to get a current list of uk travelling overseers.

left 4 years ago and have heard rumours of many new ones.

.

Journeyman

This is an old thread, but it mentioned Doug Turnbull who some on here knew (or knew of) so I thought I'd post here that I heard that the pioneer sister he married then dumped (causing the big scandal back in the day) died last month at the age of 90. She was still a pioneer right up until recently when her health took a turn.

Other names on this thread I recognise:
Anton Irons
Mike Spurr
Mike Purbrick (universally loathed, it seems!)
David Rastall
Dennis Dutton
Mel Parkin
Ron Drage
David Algar
Alan Stokes
.. and more.

So many memories, so many lives.. slipped or slipping away.
"Time and unforeseen occurrence befalls them all" indeed!