...or on a train or whatever, and it was just the two of you, and the it was going to be a reasonably long trip... what would you say to him?
would you try to reason with him that the witnesses are wrong?
tell him what things need to change and why?
LOL! I think I'd be like Awakened at Gilead. I'd grin and let him know, then act according to his response. If they want head games, let's get to it. I'm totally comfortable in that situation.
Sometimes though, they react in ways that will astonish you, including the telling of their own doubts. Talk about serendipity! It happens!
LoneWolf
i know that this has been a popular post in the past.
but after my last post, it got me thinking.
i used to always use those stupid field service report slips as scratch paper.
LOL! Yup, there's been some crazy ones!
I was nearly DFed one time for using the phrase "let me act as the Devil's advocate" in a scriptural discussion. However, they only laid 4 or 5 concrete blocks edgewise and let it go, 'cause I had a habit of turning these things around on them and embarrassing the 7734 (Hell, upside down and backwards) publically whenever they got too snotty about something. Keeping pompous asses in a state of perpetual outrage was both fun and to the public's long term benefit, I figured. After all, doesn't the proverb say "Answer a fool that he may not become wise in his own eyes."?
Sure enough, they ended up cooking up a completely false charge (which they openly admitted) and "volunteered" me to leave. I figured I didn't lose anything and they are still mad at me for not going through a world of emotional hurt because of it. (Grin) (That was about 20 years ago.)
I think one the worst ones I ever heard of was some a$$ of an elder whose son was enamored of another family's daughter. That other family didn't approve of his son and didn't want him hanging around her. The elder had a conniption fit, went barging into their home and proceeded to bawl the parents out right in front of their kids, demanding that they allow his son access to their daughter!
He has no idea how lucky he was that I wasn't the head of that family! I'd have removed his gonads with a dull saw and fed them to him, with catsup. And forget the anesthesia. I've long felt that any fool with that much arrogance is fair game and deserves anything he gets.
This attitude has paid off too. After I was DFed I expected my family to get looked down on like most families do with a DFed member. To my surprise they have been treated well, with my son's closest friends being elder's sons. In this respect, I'll happily hand it to them - they've done well in that regard.
'Nuff for now. I could go on all night.
LoneWolf
i dont get on here very often, but when i saw this i figured that you would like to know about it.
it seems that the catholic church here in oregon (u. s.
) is doing everything possible to shield its assets from the sex-abuse liability they have incurred.
Hi, sKally! --- Good to hear from you too! All is as well as can be expected, I suppose. (Grin) Hope you are too. My best to you!
Greendawn and No Apologies --- True, they are resourceful. However, the courts are not unaware of the extreme measures that some go to in order to protect their assets. They can only go so far --- or so long. Steady as she goes is the secret. The WTBTS wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t fall in a day.
Look at the cigarette companies and the years of litigation they resisted before they finally cracked. As far as I’m concerned, this is the way it should be. Considering the agony the Society has put so many others through, it seems apropos that they should have plenty of time to experience the same agony.
IT Support --- I’m not sure as to the exact way they handle that. I copied the most interesting parts of the article straight out of the newspaper itself. When I found the link afterwards on their website, it looked to me like the copies were identical. What you’ve posted looks like it’s shorter. You may have an archived version that is shortened to save space. Notice that the link above is no longer active, probably because they consider it “old news” and no longer of interest.
i dont get on here very often, but when i saw this i figured that you would like to know about it.
it seems that the catholic church here in oregon (u. s.
) is doing everything possible to shield its assets from the sex-abuse liability they have incurred.
i dont get on here very often, but when i saw this i figured that you would like to know about it.
it seems that the catholic church here in oregon (u. s.
) is doing everything possible to shield its assets from the sex-abuse liability they have incurred.
Hi, all.
I don’t get on here very often, but when I saw this I figured that you would like to know about it.
It seems that the Catholic Church here in Oregon (U. S. A.) is doing everything possible to shield its assets from the sex-abuse liability they have incurred. Their current action will almost certainly have large ramifications in the similar lawsuits that are filed against the Witnesses. In that light, check this out
Eugene Register Guard – Saturday, (Front page) By Julia Silverman of The Associated Press ----
“ --- Around the middle of next month, thousands of households will get a letter informing them that, as parishioners of the 124 Catholic churches in , they are officially part of the class of defendants in the Portland Archdiocese’s bankruptcy case.
“U. S. Bankruptcy Judge Perris formally certified the class on Friday.
“The action is nearly unprecedented: Commonly, it is the plaintiffs, not the defendants, who organize as a class in civil cases.
“But in this case, parishioners will argue that it is they --- not the archdiocese --- who own the parishes’ $600 million in assets and property.
“If they lose the argument, then that money will be considered fair game for the 235 men and women who have sued the church, alleging that they suffered sexual abuse at the hands of priests.”
Now consider these points:
Picture every Witness family in the country receiving a letter like this one. Can you think of any better publicity? It will be directed directly to the very ones that the Society wants to keep in the dark, and will make it impossible to carry on the deception. Talk about shouting secrets from the housetops! It makes Dateline look like a piker, because this threatens their pocketbooks.
I look for chaos in the ranks.
The WTBTS has made it quite an issue that they, the Society, own the Kingdom Hall’s, etc. It will be fascinating to see what policy they pursue now.
I’ll see if I can find a link.
LoneWolf
i don't post here very often, as there has been no time.
however, i do drop in occasionally to see what is going on.. .
another of the posters and i have frequent correspondance and this subject came up.
Hi, Little Toe and Balsam ---
My apologies to you both. For some reason I was having considerable trouble posting the entire thing. It's up now, so perhaps a review would answer any questions you may have.
As to where I'm coming from, it's a specific: i. e.: What business does anyone have in inserting themselves into a dedication of a human to his creator as a third party in any capacity? Notice my comment about John the Baptist towards the end there.
Also, Little Toe, the vows that I took predate the ones you mention considerably. It would be interesting to know the exact wording and find out how accurate that 50 year-old memory is. (Grin)
Balsam --- I've been DF'ed for more than 15 years. Actually, I've lost count. If there is a point here, it is that I feel that faith should not be based on the words of any organization. Some individuals are faithful, and many if not most aren't, particularly when they get in positions of responsibility and their egos kick in. Faith should be based on logic and reason, not somebody's say-so. In addition, each individual has the God-given responsibility to weigh the value of any and all information submitted regardless of it's source, and accept or reject it accordingly. As to loyalty, that should be in direct proportion to the loyalty that the "authorities" themselves show towards their own creator.
i don't post here very often, as there has been no time.
however, i do drop in occasionally to see what is going on.. .
another of the posters and i have frequent correspondance and this subject came up.
What on earth!!! Is there a new limit as to the number of words that can be posted?
You already know who I am and where I am, however, in case you've lost it, here it is again:
Tom Howell
(Now it won't let me post my own address!) Let's see if I can pull an end run:
My rural route box is 36929
My route is Row River Road
Cottage Grove is the postoffice I use.
Oregon is my state.
My telephone number is (541) 946-1231
Tom
"LoneWolf" (now masquerading as "hornetsnest") (Grin)
i don't post here very often, as there has been no time.
however, i do drop in occasionally to see what is going on.. .
another of the posters and i have frequent correspondance and this subject came up.
???????? I don't know why, but the site is allowing me to post only one paragraph at a time. Here's the rest:
Another example would be the "oversight" work. I will serve Jehovah because I want to, not because some group of men force it on me by watching for any small mistake and forcing me to do the right thing. To have it any other way is to nullify the very purpose of Christianity in the first place.
One thing that helped tremendously in this matter was that in a way, the "stones" did "cry out" to me, so that the meetings were by no means my sole source of information about Jehovah and his ways.
This came about because I lived on the edge of a wilderness, and I was surrounded by Jehovah's creations every day. As you know, a great deal can be told about an artist by studying his art, so it was in this case. I saw an incredible beauty and intelligence in the natural world, and it didn't take any particular talent to distinguish those teachings that violated the spirit of the Creator as manifested in those creations.
I guess the upshot of all of this is that I don't think "nullification" of our vows has any bearing on anything. I made a vow to Jehovah, not men. I've done all I know how to live up to that vow and wouldn't want to "nullify" it if I could. I love that God.
These men don't have the authority to enforce that vow or even call me on it. They are, quite simply, extraneous. Their relevance is in direct proportion to their faithfulness to the spirit of the word, and that has been non-existant for decades now.
(Here's an additional thought: John the Baptist was used as a tool in Jesus' baptism and dedication. If he had violated those, would he have answered to Jehovah or to John the Baptist?)
I think I'll post this on the board and see where it bounces. (Grin)
Tom
Comments, anyone?
Now as an aside to the Society's spies ---
You have a pompous ass there by the name of Ted Jaracz who has elected himself as a committee of one to cram a pile of heresy down everyone else's throats. Tell him I think he's a wimp and WAY out of his league and I want to know what he's going to do about it. Sadly, the rest of the Governing Body are apparently too old, too senile, or too cowardly to rein in this fool and his excesses.
You already know who I am and where I am, however, in case you've lost it, here it is again:
Tom Howell
i don't post here very often, as there has been no time.
however, i do drop in occasionally to see what is going on.. .
another of the posters and i have frequent correspondance and this subject came up.
Hi, all,
I don't post here very often, as there has been no time. However, I do drop in occasionally to see what is going on.
Another of the posters and I have frequent correspondance and this subject came up. I know that there have been numerous threads on those vows and the various wordings the WTBTS has given them, but have never really added my "2 cents". However, his questions spurred me on and I figured that I'd post my answer here to see where it bounced. (Grin)
This is the part of his email that intrigued me:
" I mentioned e that I was of a special classification: I bailed in ?74, before the change of the Vows in ?82-?85."
Later, he expresses it this way:
" . . . that is why I cannot go back to meetings, FS, commenting etc. By doing so, I would ratify the Baptism" (new vows) "and come under Brooklyn."
He then ends it this way:
" Think about it? Comments???"
In my mind, this whole question is immaterial and is of no concern --- and a bit surprising. It has never bothered me, but perhaps I should put forth the effort to figure out why. My answer to him covers that and I thought it would be interesting to post it here for your comments too. Here it is:
Hmmmm. Dunno.
I remember back in '55 when I was baptized that they had a phrase in there that revolted me at the time and --- legitimate or not --- I made a reservation in my heart concerning that point. I felt that the phrase was illegimate from Jehovah's standpoint and had no validity nor business being in there in the first place. I just simply rejected that phrase and adopted the rest, which I felt was okay, as this vow was between Jehovah and myself and for anyone else to shoulder their way in was trespassing. I simply didn't care whether that attitude would outrage the stuffed shirts. (Not bad for a kid of 15, eh, what? LOL!!)
This was long before I started questioning the Society's teachings, so I think it's a telling point if we are to consider the question about why the GB's apostacy hasn't affected my faith. These men were merely tools that reflected what Jehovah wanted them to reflect --- poorly and sometimes --- and any time they departed from that they could be disregarded or even discarded like a used Kleenex. I understood that from the beginning and had no difficulty with it at all.
Oh, yes, that phrase: It was something to this affect: "That you dedicate yourself to the service of Jehovah God and his teachings AS PUT FORTH BY THE WATCHTOWER, BIBLE, AND TRACT SOCIETY."
When I heard that, the passage came to mind where it says of the disciples, "I tell you, If these remained silent, the stones would cry out." So, it wasn't particularly difficult to see through the Society's BS on this matter. If they didn't toe the mark, they were disposable and Jehovah would use something else. All the endless malarky about how important and holy they were simply went in one ear and out the other. That was man's ego talking, not the Holy Spirit. I welcomed such talks, as I could get some sleep then.
Even at that young age, I was jealous of the relationship I had with my creator and would vigorously guard it against human interlopers. For instance, for decades I have stated openly that Pioneering is not the sort of "privilage" that one man can bestow upon another. It is a privilage, yes, but it is also a state of mind and heart that you either have or don't have. Any elder or group of elders who would attempt to force their way into that arrangement can kiss my ass. It is between Jehovah and myself
my sister has a co-worker who's studying with jws.
he told her today that he was being told the the wt society was going to stop printing the awake this month.
and stop other publications soon.
LOL, under 74!
Yes, there has been quite a battle back there. In fact it was this very thing that caused the rebellion in Bethel and the ensuing purge that hasn't quit yet. Even the brother that wrote the "Truth" book was DFed and that's why it was replaced. There have been many threads on these things over the years and many on this board that are better qualified than I to speak of it. Alan F. and Amazing are a couple of them, although there are many others who lived it first hand. I wish I had more time so as to look up some of those threads for you.
I'll bet sKally would have them at her fingertips! (Grin)
Gotta go. I didn't get any sleep last night.
Tom (LoneWolf)
