Anna

Just now, Gone Away said:

Not really. They are beating themselves.

Who do you mean by "they"

Often expressions such as “enduring these difficult times”  “enduring disappointment”  “ a sad year”  “hopes were dashed”  “time of test” and others  are used in conjunction with the disappointments of certain anticipated dates in WT history. As Proverbs 13:12 says: “Expectation postponed makes the heart sick”. These tests or disappointments were never caused by Jehovah of course, but man, specifically those who were in charge of giving food at the proper time. This brings me to a sobering thought; could this be tantamount to “beating their fellow slave” ?? (Matt. 24:29) Certainly not all of the time, but specifically at those times under discussion, and especially when this caused some to be stumbled.

17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At least internally, we should all be bitterly weeping at such things. 

Amen to that.

... but NO ONE at Warwick is !

NO ONE!

Honestly how can you know?

12 hours ago, Gone Away said:

we need to find the "sweet spot"

Yes! In other word balance.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Nothing about slow decrease in one characteristic and then slow increase in other characteristic.

If that was the case, how come Adam and Eve and some a few generations after them lived for hundreds of years? And now, despite incredible advances in medicine, people still find it difficult to cross the 100 year threshold. Although the imperfection the quote was talking about was mainly of a characteristic nature, surely everything works together, our physical deterioration includes our mental deterioration.

I was looking for the scripture

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Although the fact might be interesting, what is it that makes this particular number of years something that we "must consider"?

As I understand it, the emphasis might be on the imperfection rather than a number. That we are so far removed from perfection.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!

Of course there was an attempt to say when, quite clearly .  It must be rather a predicament for those who make claims, or "attempts", that are forever immortalized in print! I believe Russell was being honest at the time of his attempts, and truly believed what he was saying, otherwise he would have not published it. The fact that he tried to get around it the way he did after his words failed highlights typical human weakness. True, one should expect better from someone who claims to be a messenger, and faithful and wise servant of God, but it wouldn't be the first time human failings manifested themselves in those of whom we would least expect it. That is exactly why, and I know you are on the same page with me on this, we should be cautious about claims and "attempts" made by anyone, even, (or should  I say especially?) those at the top.  I know, many would disagree and pretty much believe what the Slave says, to the letter. There is another website, run by Witnesses, that is strongly monitored for any negativity against the slave.  The other day in FS a sister who I admire and who has her head screwed on right, made a surprising comment. She said that if the Slave told her to do anything she would do it. I am assuming she didn't mean jump off a bridge, because she is not that kind of a person, and has her own views on a few things. So I am assuming she meant "within reason" . But anyone hearing her, who doesn't really know her, could have got the wrong impression.

It is a big dilemma to say the least when we know the Slave has erred in the past and can err in the future (by their own admission) and yet we are still supposed to be obedient to it (now, and in the future when we receive "lifesaving instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point"). I was discussing this with my step dad (elder) and he admitted it was a difficult situation. He said we just have to trust Jehovah. Also, and I've mentioned this on another occasion, we will obey God as ruler rather than man, which means when obedience to man would result in disobedience to God, then we don't go there. This applies to any man. Br. Jackson insinuated this also in his ARC hearing.

 

5 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Probably the word "shun" is the problem. It seems to mean "abhor" in it's etymology. That's a word with quite specific and unpleasant connotations and used quite infrequently in Scripture. Is it to be appllied indiscriminately to disfellowshipped persons?

I agree "shunned" is a term we Witnesses don't generally use, but a non Witness will know what it means in practice; that the person in question will be ignored, and avoided. This was clearly encouraged by the video, where the mother ignored her daughter's telephone call. What if it had been an emergency? 

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Whatever happened to old Charlie, anyway? Did he ever get off KP duty?

Actually I think he's doing really well, if he's still alive. Look him up in JW library, or probably the cd.

I would say it was an unfortunate collection of events, that altogether gave the impression that the society was promoting 1975 as the date for Armageddon. There is no doubt that it was insinuated by some prominent speakers at conventions (in America mainly?) and also those who were "living out their last days of this system selling their houses so they could pioneer" were publicly praised, ( also in the KM). It is no different now, those who give their all in full time service are also praised today, however, those who did this a few years before 1975 was no coincidence, and I believe the praise was worded in such a way that it was no coincidence either. There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe. It didn't help that one of the prominent brothers said in reply to "is Armageddon coming in 1975?": "we're not saying, we're not saying" which sounds like: "well yes of course it is, but I don't want to sound presumptuous". And who could help but not get excited by that famous Charles Sinutko talk where the phrase "stay alive till 75" was coined.

All in all I think it has been a good lesson for most: know your Bible, and make sure of all things. And if your (Bible trained) instincts tell you something isn't quite right, then it probably isn't. 

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

it did not seem probable to me that EVERYBODY (In the Truth) was wrong so I quit the best job I ever had, in Zaire, the Congo, to be back home with my Mom and Dad in Virginia, when "the END came".

To this day, Brothers and Sisters "swear" that never happened ..

I believe you. I personally know a few who did similar things. There is no doubt about it that 1975 got blown up out of all proportions. That is why those who knew their Bible, and put that as precedent over what anybody else said (including the president of the society at the time) call it trusting your own instincts if you like, didn't get burned. But I understand that it must have been very difficult if the majority saw it differently than you. Moral of the story? Trust the Bible and no man. Lesson learned. We've got to move on.

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

....... they pay no price whatsoever.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

ANNA!

I think I just GOT IT! ... and it only took a full hour!

Did you mean that my absurd parody would have NOT been believed , say during the 1960's ... but that as nutty as things are now ... the parody might be entirely believable as contemporary reality NOW?

If that is the case, you are right ... both me and my correspondent grew up in the Truth in the 60's, and early 70's.

Hahaha, actually on the contrary. I thought your correspondent was in the truth during such crazy times as "organ transplant makes you take up the personality of the donor" and "there are demons lurking in your mattress  or any item you buy at the yard sale" and other absurdities.  And I was right, those were the 60's. I know you believe things have got crazier, but I don't think they have. No one who is currently in the truth would think that the parody was real. But someone who had left the truth 50 years ago might!

On 9/3/2018 at 11:57 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but someone from another State called me to ask "Is this FOR REAL?"

I don't believe you! Or was it someone who had been a Witness a very loooong time ago?

On 9/3/2018 at 1:42 AM, Gone Away said:

On 9/2/2018 at 7:22 PM, Anna said:

shunning family members

I thought disfellowshipping was a congregational and spiritual measure taken in the case of an individual who is unrepentant regarding serious sin.

It seems that many problems result from those who make up their own rules and definitions on this matter 

I'm sorry, it's my fault, I worded it wrong. I should have said close relatives, or members of a family not living together. The only time when "shunning" is is not applied, under our current interpretation,  is with a husband and wife, or children still living at home.

I know you and I have talked about this before on here. I know the org. cannot make rules on every situation and instance, but the general principle applies, that disfellowshipped relatives are to be shunned. The convention video last year made that quite clear. I think it's the video I have a problem with more than anything. Elders are usually quite understanding when it comes to relatives. My son visits his disfellowshipped father when he is in Europe, the elders know about it, but haven't said anything. A sister on here commented a few months back that elders in her congregation were counseling her on her association with her disfellowshipped daughter, and she told them that her daughter is going to be taking care of her when she is old. They left it alone after that. From a purely practical perspective I cannot see how shunning children or parents is possible. The Bible tells the children to honor their mother and father, and it has no time limit, as in whether they are still living at home or not.

I really believe 1 Cor. 5:11 does not apply to relatives, especially parents/adult children. But of course that's just my personal opinion!

 

Some here probably already know my feelings about shunning family members living outside the home. I completely get shunning those who are not family. And I completely get, and agree with keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. But for the life of me I just cannot feel comfortable with the video that shows the mother completely ignoring her daughter's telephone call. Is that the kind of shunning Jesus, or the apostle Paul had in mind?

Yes, I understand Jesus said that there will be times when we will have to choose between him and family. And that if we lose family members for his sake, then we will get many more back. But I have often wondered if that  means that relatives will be against us, and will threaten US with shunning unless we forsake Jesus. And then it is up to us who we will put first, Jesus or a family member. The official WT understanding seems to be the other way around, that WE are the ones who have to shun family members if they turn away from Jesus. In context, when Jesus says he came to bring not peace but a sword, seems to support more that family members will be in opposition to Jesus and will make us want to follow them.

My husband's son and his wife have made a number of bad life choices and have been in and out of the truth twice, and once disfellowshipped. The second time they made sure they avoided disfellowshipping by staying clear of the elders, not opening their door to them or answering their calls. They became totally inactive 5 years ago. In the meantime, although not fraternizing with them socially, we have helped them with the kids when they needed a sitter, and took them (the grandkids) on trips and to meetings. In other words we kept ourselves in their lives, and kept the lines of communication open with the parents. My husband would even slip them a WT article every now and then he thought they might find helpful. We also made sure we spoke about Jehovah with the grandkids. I don't know whether it is too soon to speak, but the other day my husband's son texted him to say he prayed with his wife, and that they both want to put things right, and come to the meeting on Sunday. They came, and everyone welcomed them with open arms. I don't know if this will lead anywhere, as far as I know they were still smoking last week. Both have done stupid things for which they may have been disfellowshipped for.  But because they avoided the elders, they avoided disfellowshipping. Like I said, we were not associating with them to any great extent, but we also didn't shun them. Now had they been disfellowshipped, would we be under obligation to shun them? (yes). And just because they avoided disfellowshipping, members of the congregation were able to welcomed them. It makes no logical sense to me, because their situation was exactly the same as if they had been disfellowshipped.

My question is, if a family member leaves Jehovah, does Jehovah expect us to show loyalty to him by shunning that member? Or does he expect loyalty that we stick with him (Jehovah) despite the situation of our family member and despite family members trying to take us with them, or giving us such ultimatums as it's Jehovah or me. Isn't that more what Jesus had in mind when he spoke about bringing not peace but a sword?

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As much as you want to avoid causing upset to people, surely God fits in there somewhere. It is not a 'What is good for General Motors is good for God.' It ought always to be a "Let us make sure it is good for God, and then we'll see what we can do about not ruffling the feathers of General Motors.'

Of course I agree with you there. But really, if we are going to be honest, there are various interpretations on what is "good for God", and I think that's where the problem lies. Terrorists believe what they are doing is "good for God".

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I was rather surprised to see that picture of you with the King of Siam when I looked you up on the Internet. 

I won't say what I found when I looked you up

The truth is some on here know me better than others and vice versa, right @TrueTomHarley ? Hehee heee :))))

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course, they are not. But if you open with that assumption, and never entirely discard it for anyone you do not know personally, you are golden.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much one of three opening assumptions that I keep in mind too,

Hmmmm....I personally think TTH, JTR, Strecko, Space Merchant, and even Witness are genuine in what they say. Includes you of course.

Does that make me naive?

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

18 hours ago, Anna said:

So what was your opinion on Br. Losh's opening talk on trust in the March 2018 broadcast?

My opinion? I believe that Proverbs 14:15 is an excellent scripture. ?

Good answer! Typically JW Insider

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Just my freedom on how i am experienced the scenes of the film. 

Yes, of course, but you seemed certain. In any case, I think your question was related to wondering why some didn't survive Armageddon and others did. Actually to be precise, the scenes are showing the great tribulation which precedes Armageddon. If anyone dies at Armageddon it's because they have been executed by Jesus. But there is possibility that some faithful Christians may die during the great tribulation at the hands of God's enemies.

The end of the basement video was inconclusive on purpose I guess. Some friends suggested that the soldiers didn't "see" the brothers. Others thought that an angel of Jehovah stepped in. In any case, the depiction of paradise showed other characters from preceding videos (which also appeared in the 2018 video), so I don't think seeing those who were in the basement necessarily meant they had died and were resurrected, it could have meant they survived....

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

23 hours ago, Anna said:

For our present day Luke 21:27 is quite applicable: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near.” 

Please remind me WHO will see Jesus in the cloud? And HOW they will see Him in the cloud?

I quoted this scripture because that was clearly the application of it in the video. I quoted it because another poster asked what scripture the scene was based on. You saw Jesus coming in the clouds, and aiming his arrow at the enemies. Of course this was a "depiction" as in seeing with the eyes of faith, as the song says "give me eyes of faith and help me always see, there are more with us than against us". They, the faithful, "saw" Jesus and his vast army, more of them than those who were on the ground.  So although the people in the video were literally seeing Jesus, it won't be literal in reality, because although Jesus is mighty, he cannot be in several places at the same time. So it was their eyes of faith that saw their deliverance coming.  I hope it answers your question.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Psalm 146:3)  3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs [who cannot bring salvation, NWT Revised].

So what was your opinion on Br. Losh's opening talk on trust in the March 2018 broadcast?

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But if any persons here know which forum I am talking about, I'd be interested if anyone is crediting anyone over there with some of this.

I think I know which forum you may be talking about (although it could be any number of them) but I have not seen anyone specifically being credited. But I only looked superficially. On there Barbara Anderson only seems to post links to news articles.

On 7/10/2018 at 4:14 PM, Jack Ryan said:

 Ray Franz

Demons

Satan

LOL