for anyone who may have looked at, or attended the wt study for this week.
the first two articles of the magazine in subject use, in my opinion, the word "legal contract" too often.
anyone noticed this?
Thanks everyone for their input. I was just especulating as to what this may lead to. In many years of attending and studying, I had never heard the term so repeated in magazinez. The bible, yes, but I always thought it was a metaphor.
Anyone knows where to find the mention of legal contract in regards to baptism?
for anyone who may have looked at, or attended the wt study for this week.
the first two articles of the magazine in subject use, in my opinion, the word "legal contract" too often.
anyone noticed this?
Now I am interested on knowing the literature where it says your baptism is a legal contract. It always sounded to me like one. Anyone knows?
for anyone who may have looked at, or attended the wt study for this week.
the first two articles of the magazine in subject use, in my opinion, the word "legal contract" too often.
anyone noticed this?
For anyone who may have looked at, or attended the WT study for this week. The first two articles of the magazine in subject use, in my opinion, the word "legal contract" too often. Anyone noticed this? Was it me or is there a push to make the "pacts" look like a series of parallel pacts, rather than seeing them as ammendement or complements of each other?
In either case, It doesn't seat well with me when they begin to hammer on a term. This is how all the other terms were crafted. Great crowd, truth, faithful and discrete slave, etc, etc.
what is next? Are we going to have to sign a baptismal contract or be destroyed by God in the big A?
please share your experiences..
Funny.. with all due respect to your family, if my sister said something like that and asked me to refrain from talking down her illusion, I would ask her why she does not extend the same benefit to people on the field.
I very clearly remember the days when we were always told that the we needed to keep in mind that if any authority ever came to us questioning who the minister was (as in we are need to talk to him) that then we needed to say that we are all ministers and never give up information about our elders to the police. This days they don't repeat that anymore but there is certainly a push to separate themselves from any liability but keep themselves tied to all income.. I meant to say, donations.
it seems the gb is trying to give the jws a more modern, friendly image.
new website, new logo, cartoons for instructing children, literature carts, slimmed-down books and magazines, etc.
yet on the other hand they delete some of the things many jws enjoy most: the book study in private homes, congregation picnics and large get-togethers, private group watchtower study sessions, colorful socks for men, denim dresses for women etc.
Is the outside image that they are concern about. That is why we know have two version of the WT magazine. The watered down version to appeal to potential new converts, with messages of happiness and religious freedon like you never experienced before. And then there is the hardcode study version, the one meant to control. You would not make any new converts with the latter. The cartoons are also aim to make new converts, not only on the outside but also in the inside, to help indoctrinate children and create brand loyalty.
a brother was appointed recently in the cong, he's got a dodgy history, doesn't really have the respect of many in the cong.
it's surprising to me, but i don't really care, good for him.
my wife, on the other hand, is angry!
It isn't enough to make it evident that the appointment was flawed and no HS involved... anyone would tell you that this is normal and that if he does not deserve to be there Jehovah would remove him in due time. Which is crap too, but you know this above statement is true in JW land. However, the bad appoinment will be compounded with the time factor. How long will this guy remain as an elder and what would his behavior be during the assignment. If he makes a sudden change an begins to appear respectable, then everyone will definitely seal him as picked by HS.. But if he screws up as an elder and remains appointed, then you have a much stronger case.
with all the money grabs and shady things going on, you wonder how can they actually believe they are representing god and even believe in god and still be doing these things.. then i thought, what if a trend started awhile back, people who gave up everything and got high in the org, but also since they got high up, they were privy and learned things that convinced them it was a lie.
now if they remained believers, they may end up like ray franz, a true believer wouldn't want to deceive people seeking god, they would be afraid of god's wrath.. since as is shown on this board many also become athiests, some could have become so while still in and in high ranks.
at this point they think of their options, a. leave, screwed, welfare, older they are the harder to adjust and everybody turns on them or b. kind of shady but the org and everyone put them in this position and they will turn on them in a heartbeat with no remorse so he is going to beat them to it and insure the rest of his/their lives are well taken care of and going to get rich off it.. so those higher ups who turn athiest opt for option b since they don't believe in any god and since the whole org will turn on them for disagreeing and not believing and leave them with nothing, they will instead keep working their way up, start companies for the things wt already buys, turn it into a big cash cow for themselves.
It seems to me that Franz was much more worried about the spiritual concerns rather than the financial. Every JW would argue (and I know they do so to protect their cognitive issues) that is almost required for a religion to be registered as a business and that therefore they have to do what the system allows them to in order to exist. Whatever shady business that Franz may have known about, he may have considered to be part of the org strategy to accomplish what they needed. As far as I can read, Franz did not speak of the GB as evil men. He actually felt they were sincere in their desire but had parted from searching truth in the name of institualization.
To me, there is no reason to believe that Franz exposed everything he knew. I think he just exposed the parts that he thought were concerning for those seeking biblical truth. Some of us would argue that the financials or any shady transactions are important regarding our spirituality. I am one of them, but that is not the same for everyone. Including Franz
i wasn't at the study at the weekend, the reason was family health problems, but even if that had not been the case i wouldn't have been there.
has anybody else who was there or read the article noticed the unbelievable begging bowl being produced for the pioneers and cos and bethelites, etc?
maybe this has been commented on already but in effect witnesses are being asked to financially support, not only pioneers, but circuit overseers if they need medical help, and to fill in with dealing with aged parents if missionaries are abroad.
WTWizard... do you really think they are not doing that? Maybe not metals but funds, stock, etc. You bet they are. Even if it is just to hedge the cost of international transactions, they need to do something about it. You can't fund activity on foreign countries and then sit down and pray that the currency does not crash, leaving them with a huge hole in their pocket. True, they will ask for more if that happens, but the reality is the money lost is money lost. I am well convinced that they trade the markets to try to maximize profits.. may be this is one good way to siphon money out and pay someone big time. Besides that, I remember they have more than once advices the R&F against entering into especulative markets. You can bet your head that if they are saying you should not do it, then they are doing it for sure.
the title says it all, do you think that the gb will ever bring up these cases in their literature or in a talk?
i'm not talking about them just mentioning "persecution" i'm talking about actually bringing up child abuse cases and trying to justify it.. or will it just remain the elephant in the room until years have passed?.
.
Johnamos...
First of all let me make it clear to you and everyone else that I do not, I repeat, I do not agree with your stand. However, it does prove me right in the sense that I have made the comment in other threads about people like you. Regardless of wether the source of your thinking is indoctrination or total carelessnes, the fact is that this happens folks. I leave in a very conservative community and most people, JW or not, have this very similar reaction to cases like this. Wether they happen inside or outside any religion. Where were the parents?? Backgrounds and etnical upbringing bring different situations to the table. You can not combat this plague with a one-size-fits-all approach.
I don't deny your sincere question Johnamos, but one thing we all need to come to realize is that there is no excuse for such criminal act. The blame on the WTS is not as if parents think that they are responsible for their children, but rather that their policies allow for this to continue to happen and to go unreported. The policies are not correct. I read them and at first view they seem to make sense. However, the WTS has grown extremely legalistic and walks on eggshels when it comes to putting together policies. True, they do not interefere with whomever wants to report the case to the police, but they never assure that if you do, you won't have consequences within the cong. They do say they report it where required. But they don't tell you that they will only report on confirmed cases (under the two witness rule) that they have themselves investigated. If they can't confirm that the party is truly guilty, the won't report. If you do then, you will be judged for accusing your innocent brother in false testimony.
You forget that while child abuse is horrendous regardless and no parent can ever imagine being blamed for this, there is also the trust factor that goes into place first. Usually the perpetrators of child abuse are not doing so by force. They earn the trust of the vitctim. In this case, the entire doctrinal make up of the religion makes and earn the trust of the parents as well. Worst in the case of single parents. So while I do understand the general perception of many, that the parents are the most responsible, many are ignoring the above facts. There has been cases of child abuse in my own family, perpetrated by the very same relatives you entrust them to when you have an emergency, or carried out by slightly older cousins, parents of friends they go to play with, or the like. Children get abused by people they trust!!! get it? Parents should be able to count with peolpe they trust as well. IF they are not worthy of trust, then no one should stand on the way of our common abillity to show them for who they are....
Go to your favorite coffee shop and sip some while you think about this.
