Anna

16 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make.

I love your take on this. Can I quote you? Just kidding. Honestly, this is how I view things already, which is great because it eliminates all that stress of feeling guilted etc. If you are going to do something, or not do something, then don't blame others for your choice.

But not everyone has this kind of inner conviction in them. They're the ones that get hurt and begin to feel like victims, and then they turn against the org. If you are going to do something, then do it because you are convinced it's the right thing to do, but as you say, don't become antagonistic about it and go ahead of yourself blowing a trumpet.

My mother (strong in the truth) is expert at doing exactly what she wants and never being questioned about it. ..she would have been one to call the police on a pedophile no questions asked. Maybe I just inherited it...

P.S. She would never go on vacation with a dfd relative though even if they were a saint and even if the Slave said it was OK.  But that's because it's her conviction from the Bible, not because anyone says so....

I tried to figure out what the emotional guy was saying about a $66 million lawsuit and besides apostate websites that make it sound as if it's a done deal I found some serious news reporting. I can't find anything more up to date besides that though

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-court-asked-to-approve-sexual-abuse-class-action-lawsuit-against-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.4293138

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31

How can that be reconciled with what really happens?

To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.

So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.

Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there

http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Kurt said:

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

1 hour ago, Kurt said:

How does it cause emotional torture?

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

On 10/6/2017 at 9:59 AM, Kurt said:

To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 

Of course it doesn't apply to the one whose association has ended. They can do what they like obviously since they are no longer bound by the rules of the congregation.

But rephrase it to say "....ask yourself these questions if you are an active member of Jehovah's Witnesses" and see whether the prospect of shunning has an impact on your answers.

On 4/14/2016 at 6:06 PM, JW Insider said:

Biblically supported, if we assume that 539 BCE is correct. (Based on what the Bible says about the "70 years" in at least 4 different places. There is the additional Biblical issue of a 70-year period that starts at the commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and coming to a close at a period nearly 20 years past the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. 

Wait a minute, isn't 539 BCE plus 70 years 609 BCE,? And then when we consider the actual return of the Jews to start re- building the temple as being 537 BCE and add 70 years it gives us 607 BCE....so .how does that go 20 years past the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus?

I don't like tacos

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Mike Duds

Especially,... and also Tom, Dick and Harry Duds

20 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

[leo's sneering WITH me , not AT me, right?]

That's up to you, but I WAS being funny when I said we won't talk off topic, as evidently we all already did, and that was the Librarian reminding us of it. You know she hates it!

4 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

You and Noble Berean(? i think) and JWI(?) mentioned blood transfusions for several posts.

Yes,  I realize that probably  should have  settled the matter, with several persons of real consequence having weighed in .

5 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

I like tacos

Nope, you are not going to derail US into an off topic discussion!! Not falling for that!

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Persons who are still alive and who are not having their names appear in public elsewhere are probably not looking to have their names appear here either. But I will be happy to show you his picture. We were at Bethel together for several years. He's the one in the middle. One year younger than me.

Lol! Good answer and great pic. What a cute baby. So who is the father?

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A son of a Governing Body member was handling the Watch Tower's Public Relations department just before J.R.Brown took over that position.

Who was that?

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

He said that these particular two items were the two items that, if changed, would resolve 90% of our public relations problems.

Of course as you said regarding blood transfusions:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Is it men we are trying to please, or God?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

None of this is evidence one way or another that Jehovah's Witnesses should reverse their conscience on blood. Blood saves lives in the same way that heart surgery saves lives. Just because something might save our life doesn't mean it's right. But we shouldn't have to find ourselves always trying to defend our position based on specific secular studies of risk vs benefit. Are human scholars that important to us? If we are right, why would it matter even if blood only saved lives 80% of the time or 50% or 20%? Is it men we are trying to please, or God?

Exactly!

3 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I don't want to leave the organization

I hope you weren't thinking I was suggesting you leave. I would never suggest that to anyone! It was meant in a general way, and as you probably know, I am in agreement with you on many things.

3 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I don't think the organization would descend into chaos if more matters were treated as conscience decisions. There are already areas of conscience like entertainment and the religion hasn't fallen apart over that.

That is true, to an extent, and I agree with you that the issue is "that the GB has total, unchallenged control over scriptural interpretation". But there is nothing you and I can do about that right? I mean to make them change that. So the options are either to leave or do our own thing regardless (conscience). The second option sounds good to me . But one has to be mindful of the fact that if the GB were too lax about certain things we could end up just like every other denomination of Christendom, whose clergy tickle their ears,  and be of the mind that it doesn't matter where we belong since the "church of Christ resides in each individual anyway" ....It seems like it is the Church's cop out for not keeping the congregations spiritually and morally clean like the 1st Century Church was,  and as you know, JWs are trying hard to be like the 1st Century church...

https://www.allaboutreligion.org/first-century-church-faq.htm

 

 

Just now, TrueTomHarley said:

 

Yeah....I know..

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Baran is not a Witness, nor ever was to my knowledge. is that not a pre-requisite for the list?

No it's not. I see you didn't read anything yet.  So I am copying and pasting the foreword here for you:

" These are my recommendations for books that we can add to our personal theocratic libraries. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has provided much Bible study material for us that will help save our lives, make us grow spiritually strong, and assist us in becoming mature Christians. The books listed here are extra reading material that we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, might enjoy. They are positive and upbuilding and pertain to our history, beliefs, and way of life, both from the point of view of our brothers and secular writers. The list also contains books that have been referenced by the Society in some meaningful way. I have all of these books in my own library and have enjoyed them immensely and I can conscientiously recommend each and every one of them.

I have indicated whether each book was written by a brother or not at the time that the book was released and other pertinent information about the book. Some of the authors may no longer be Witnesses but at the time their books were written they were in good standing so their books are still included on the list. The books are presented in no particular order. Many have inquired whether these books can be purchased from me. I am not offering any of the books on the list for sale, however most of the titles have links to where you can purchase the books if so desired. As I acquire other books and items they will be listed near the top of the page or under the appropriate heading. If you have any titles that you have read and think could be added to this list please let me know, I'm always on the look out for new books. Happy reading! "

And here is the link so you can send him an email if you want http://manitobaphotos.com/theolib/index.htm

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it is the only book I'm aware of that covers the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively from Stalin's time to its publication date

Let Stan know, so he can add it to his library!

Just now, JW Insider said:

I saw that too. In the explanation at the top he says that the Yes/No in the box refers only to the time when they wrote the book:

• I have indicated whether each book was written by a brother or not at the time that the book was released

 

Yes, I've just noticed that, lol. I actually went and read his preface after I posted the link. I'm so disorganized!

You all may have seen this, but it is a useful list of books, either written by JWs or supportive of JW views (but not necessarily in everything). They range from scholarly to children's stories.  @TrueTomHarley you should get your book on the list there!

http://manitobaphotos.com/theolib/index.htm

I don't know how up to date this list is, because as far as I know, at least one of the authors is no longer a Witness (Greg Stafford), but he was at the time of writing his book.

3 hours ago, Witness said:

It takes a little bit of bravery to stand up to an organization that fails sorely in guiding people on a straight path spiritually

That's just it you see., I don't think the org. has failed in guiding people on a straight path spiritually...

By the way I couldn't find that quote in the WT you cited. I'm sure its there somewhere. I personally don't like the term "obedience" with respect to humans, but rather cooperation.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One sister said she liked it. It humanized him. But then she remembered how he's treated our brothers.

See the swagger he was attempting? A man, who is a real man, doesn't have to try.......

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

So how do you class the gripers on the forum?

I'm not sure about this forum, because there is a variety on here, but generally, from my experience, those who gripe the most are ones who have been thrown out, and as a consequence have lost their relationships with relatives. If they could get their relatives back, I don't think they would gripe so much, or maybe not at all....imo