Anna

It's a beautiful opera. Sometimes when I'm cooking I start singing the aria of the Queen of the Night and my husband begs me to shut up. I don't blame him at all! 😀 😀

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar. I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀 Lol!

I don't think anyone will bother replying to your assumption as it is rather silly. Of course we know what the definition of an apostate is.

Hey Tom, @TrueTomHarley do you think you could possibly post your above comment in the "Closed Club" topic I created? I think, just my opinion of course, that it is up to your conscience. If your conscience still allows you to interact, for the simple reason that YOU know what it's about and THEY (elders) don't, (they don't know what they are talking about) then I would suppose it should be OK. (Maybe they are just worried you are giving a bad example, and others might not be as able as you, to refute the "lies" and may go on believing them). And I have to agree, knowing the things we do, because of Apostates, is actually faith strengthening. It is true in this case also, that information is empowering.....or put another way, knowledge is power (and of course I don't mean power in the bad sense of the word). I just had a crazy hypothetical thought. What if the WT gave the opposite advice. What if we were told to go and interact with apostates, after all "iron sharpens iron", "make sure of all things" "make the truth your own" etc...... What would happen then?

I'm glad you bring this up. I sat there, of course thinking about this forum, and other forums, or things I have read from so called apostates, and I could not in all honesty agree with labeling everything lies. More than anything, it is criticism of the org. especially its leadership, and dredging up past mistakes. Not all of this is lies. I would say only about 10% might be lies. Some very blatant obvious lies like that we don't care about our children. I would say that those type of lies are extremely obvious and easily understood to be lies. Anyway, I don't want to get into this here as it is off topic, but I would like to address this somewhere else....maybe the closed club...?

There is one strictly ex-jw forum I visit periodically (it's been around for more than 12 years) to see what is new, since they always seem to have the latest news 😀. I pick and choose what I want to read, and I don't comment any more, I used to years ago....but now you could say I am a "seasoned non arguer", since I've read it all, and argued it all by now. They seem to be happy the way they are. I do understand a few of their gripes, but mainly their gripes all boil down to really wanting to do their own thing. When you remove all the "fluff" then that's what's left, just selfishness. It's all about them, and what they want to do, and they don't want anyone telling them, especially not God. Same old, same old. Most are atheist..... I don't regret interacting with them in the past. You learn a lot, research stuff, and nothing shocks you anymore, which is good. If someone leaves the "Truth" because of an ex-jw argument, then he wasn't convinced of the "Truth" in the first place, and deep down sought an excuse to leave. That's my opinion anyway....

Actually, from my experience the ex-jw groups just like to talk among themselves, and pat each other on the back that they've "escaped" the org., rehash old memories, and tell themselves how much better off they are now. They don't really like "JW intruders" stirring things up. They usually tell them to go away.

Stop paying the rent then 😀

Come on now John, I am beginning to think you are losing your understanding of the definition of worship....

I think you should sell give your home away, and go and live in a cardboard box under a bridge.

I'm so glad you mention this. I'm feeling guilty for having abandoned the 1914 topic for the child molestation topic, and now here, the Babylon topic. I'm being tossed about like waves, and totally distracted. By the time I get around to coming to the forum, 20 new comments have piled up on top of the one comment I really wanted to respond to, and mentally saved till later, and now, lo and behold, more stuff! Not only more comments in one topic but more new posts. Don't get me wrong, I would hate for things to get stagnant, but there is only so much time one has to peel back the layers of comments to get to the one you really wanted to reply to. I am still trying to get back to JWI on the 1914 topic! Pity we don't get paid for this.... @The Librarian I wonder, is there away where each individual member could flag comments of choice? And that way it would be easier to find and reply to at a later time?

Totally off topic here, but I guess everyone has got bored with the Montana case..... Reading the comments to the Stanley theater article, there was a reply to one poster who had similar sentiments to "Witness" and "4jah2me". I couldn't have said it better myself so I am taking the liberty to just copy and paste it here: "When something is sacred that means that it is viewed as being holy, clean or pure, and should be. So what things are considered holy, or sacred, clean and pure? Well, anything that Jehovah views as such. This includes his name – Jehovah, Jesus and the ransom, God’s laws, our kingdom hope, the Bible, the marriage union and the family, Christian meetings/gatherings, the anointed still on earth are likened to a “holy temple”, physical and moral cleanliness, baptism, worship, responsibilities within the Congregation, God’s people including the anointed, prayer, our relationship with Jehovah, his holy spirit, our ministry, and yes, even our places of worship (not an exhaustive list, mind you). Indeed, in Biblical times a place (and even days, objects, animals, produce, festivals, etc…) were made holy by the presence of Jehovah; for instance the account of the burning bush or the tabernacle courtyard, or even the camp of Israel was to be kept clean because “Jehovah your God is walking about within your camp” and “your camp must prove to be holy”. Now, was Jehovah actually there? No, of course not, but his holy spirit was. In the same way, places of worship, such as the Assembly hall can be considered sacred because of God’s spirit being upon the people and what it’s being used for. As for idol worship, Witnesses do not worship any building. Witnesses do not pray to or through a building. Witnesses do not love buildings of worship above Jehovah. Do Witnesses love to have a place of worship? Of course but not in the sense of veneration! Loving a location in itself is not wrong (remember to be balanced) and we love having any place where pure worship is. Do Witnesses want to make sure that they give the best to Jehovah? Of course! We want to magnify and glorify our God with the very best we can, not for show, but for his name. So having a building that gives glory to God at all times is a precious thing. In fact, the temple Solomon built was dedicated to Jehovah, as are all Witness buildings used for worship or in connection with the outworking of God’s purpose. Israelite’s/Hebrews also built temples which brought glory to God and were places of pure worship. Though, places of worship don’t have to be as beautifully restored and detailed as Stanley is. They should, however, maintain a dignified and clean appearance no matter where they are. The following are sober reminders for all in this time of the end, – 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 2:16-19,23-25; 4:1-5,7; 6:20; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Matthew 24:5,11,24; 1 John 2:18,19" Proof?

I've read the whole thing too, and put the date 16th March on my calendar. I will try to listen to it like I did with the ARC. What's been whitewashed? Can you be more specific?

No No No! I've got it! Now that you've posted this image, it's become crystal clear. It is the bite that Adam took out of the fruit, which caused everything to go bottoms up, and is symbolized quite clearly by NYC, aka the big apple!

Yes, I did actually understand what you were saying before, and why you were saying it, but I still don't think we can make comparisons in view of the general meaning of "salary". As you said: (bold mine)

Hey, if you are a Circuit Overseer and were classed as clergy "You could get $12,359 more than the median pay of this job in Santa Barbara, CA . Because you have 10-14 years of experience in this job, you manage a team of 11 - 25, you report to CEO/Board of Directors, (the Governing Body) and your performance is Superior". This translates to $88.668 If you do the same in Anchorage, Alaska, you get $91,462. I guess because it's cold there and nobody want's to do it....

Yes, and if they do have a masters degree, it's most likely not a degree in theology

Yes, here I target you JWI 😀. I don't think this can be compared to the same level that "clergy" in general are paid. Usually CO's and others in full time service have no means of income (regular job) therefor our contributions help them to carry out their tasks without having to do secular work (also they get free lodging and free food). They have to exist somehow. And elders don't get paid anything. "The average Clergy salary in the United States is $96,800 as of December 26, 2019, but the range typically falls between $79,600 and $109,800". https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/clergy-salary Because of the reasons we have already discussed 😀

Well yes, we don't say elder "so and so" or pioneer "so and so". We say brother or sister "so and so" We don't use those words as titles. Only as descriptions of the tasks the brother or sister does. Here is that article in Croatian https://wol.jw.org/hr/wol/d/r19/lp-c/102009288

This has already been done: Awake, August 2009 Should There Be a Clergy-Laity Distinction? Most Reverend, Right Reverend, Father, Most Holy Father, Rabbi, His Eminence, His Excellency, His Holiness, His All-Holiness—these are some of the titles that distinguish the clergy of various religions from the laity. The separation of the clergy from the laity is common to many religions, but is the arrangement from God, or is it a human tradition? More important, does it have God’s approval? “IN THE New Testament and during the early apostolic times there is no mention of clergy or laity,” wrote professor of theology Cletus Wessels. The Encyclopedia of Christianity states: “There gradually arose a differentiation into clergy as the officeholders and the laity as the rest . . . ‘Ordinary’ church members now came to be seen as an unqualified mass.” That differentiation became prominent during the third century C.E.—more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ! If, then, the clergy-laity distinction is not based on the model set by Jesus’ apostles and other early Christians, does that make it wrong? According to the Bible, yes. Consider why. “All You Are Brothers” God’s Word tells us that all Christians serve as God’s ministers and that none is above or beneath the other. (2 Corinthians 3:5, 6) “There was a very positive insistence on the absence of class” among early Christians, says religion writer Alexandre Faivre. That “absence of class” harmonizes with Jesus’ words to his followers: “All you are brothers.”—Matthew 23:8. Spiritually older men did, of course, serve as overseers, which included being shepherds and teachers. (Acts 20:28) However, these men were not paid clerics. For the most part, they were ordinary working men—husbands and fathers. Moreover, they qualified to serve as overseers, not by attending religious seminaries, but by being diligent students of God’s Word and by cultivating the spiritual qualities required by God. These qualities include being “moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, . . . reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner.”—1 Timothy 3:1-7. https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g200908/Should-There-Be-a-Clergy-Laity-Distinction/

I can think of another word we don't use, but it is used regularly by those who are not JW, and that is the word church. In English speaking countries (especially the USA and Britain) our meeting places are called churches, and our organization is church. We don't argue with non JWs, we accept their terminology, and we understand it. (Sometimes we will explain to them our meeting places are called Kingdom Halls). So it is the same with "clergy" and "rapture". As JWI implies, really, it is a non argument. It's just a case of semantics.

It may seem like a double standard but it is not. In our congregations we do not call our elders "father" leader or such other titles /designations the clergy have traditionally called themselves.... we do not..... BUT we do confide in the elders and in this they have a similar FUNCTion regarding confessions - which the law is about. So by their function, not title, they qualify as clergy under secular law. Anna - this is not a comment on your comment. Just a general thought. Yes, I agree. I think we may have got our lines crossed earlier. What I was trying to say before is that when it comes to secularism, we accept the designation "clergy" for our elders, because that is how the world sees the elders. But inside the congregation we do not view elders in that same way, in the same way as the world. (I don't know if I have explained what I meant it any better, but you explained it already). Sorry for the confusion.

That is your personal opinion. Well no, that is not my personal opinion. That is the opinion of the Christian Congregation. How else could they claim clergy privilege unless they applied the worldly definition (legal definition) to the elders?

Indeed. I agree with his opinion in that the law needs to be changed. Page 15 of the Supreme Court's decision says this: "This Court’s task is to interpret what is contained in the reporting statute as written by the Legislature. We do not opine whether that body could have made a different policy choice that would afford greater protection to child victims. The Legislature is the appropriate body to entertain such policy arguments. Its simple. From a worldly point of view the elders are clergy. From the Christian congregation's point of view, the worldly definition of clergy does apply to the elders. However, outside of a worldly situation (meaning a worldly situation like a court setting) a member of the Christian congregation will not view the elders as clergy, because they are not applying the worldly point of view. No deceit or lying there.