Jump to content
World Forum


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The most creative and intelligent people on planet Earth hang out on this forum. Be ready to have your points of view challenged and refined.

    We also want others to share your posts to ALL the social media outlets not just our own.

    You need to be registered and logged in to get full access and to add content yourself. 


    Welcome To Our Community

  • Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Your comment only proves there can be a difference of opinion. Just like there were some critics of the newspaper before it went online. Sensationalism and propaganda sell. It should be obvious as to the usage here. How did Trump win the presidency if not through lies as he has done with all his business endeavors? By the way, thanks for that tip about TOR browser. I started using it. I didn’t know there were unethical spies in our organization.
    • YIKES!I I knew the story about Franz,  but not the back-story! I guess there is more to abject ruthlessness, than knowing where Ruth is. ... wow.    
    • As far as I know, GB is not against voting, as the principle by which decisions are made, have to make.
      But GB uses this "democratic principle" of making a decision, about something that is tailored to the/by "majority", in a way that have "higher meaning", "sacred goal". There are several levels where decisions are made by this "democratic means", by voting. It is at GB level. At the director level of certain departments. At the elders level. At assembly level.
      Less important items are often put to the vote in front of the assembly (rank and file members). Of course, the elders presents something in such a way that membership is moved to vote in according to a decision already in line by the elders (or some higher then elders), and only formal confirmation is required/made through voting and resolution.
      Making decisions within an organization is actually a matter of how "politics" is carried out by those who are high in the hierarchy.
      Thus, within the religion is not carried out "political politics", but "religious politics". :)))
      Perhaps it would be better to "throw a cube" (throwing dice, stone, beans or what ever else), as this kind can reduces the impact of human, of various clans and streams within a group. In fact there is a biblical precedent that would allow such way,  how to run a "corporate governance" policy (in religious, financial and other matters). It is primitive, demode ( démodé ), old fashion way but gives a lot of fun. 
    • These are exactly the kinds of situations where the protocol can go out the window. I don't know the status of this person, but you could probably call the WTS/CCJW and find out. Anecdotally, going back about 40 years and another situation going back 5 years, I know about a couple cases where the congregation was asked to DF someone "in abstentia" to mitigate a possible crime scandal. Also, in effect, all Witnesses who had previously disassociated were disfellowshipped "in abstentia" in the early 1980's. This was a necessary change in order to be able to create protocol for disfellowshipping R.Franz. He was caught eating a meal with his employer who had previously disassociated himself. Making the two different statuses equal would mean that he was now eating a meal with someone who had been disfellowshipped which therefore made R.Franz subject to disfellowshipping.
    • No, not really. Under the former owner, through 2016, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philly.com still had journalistic integrity. (200-plus journalists are expensive, though.) They were known to emphasize "bad news," but they were never known for sensationalism without verification. You describe it the way people describe the National Enquirer (which is often confused with the Philadelphia Inquirer). You seem to have implied that those provided links to Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and Wikipedia would have supported your claim but they didn't. CJR did discuss the faults and business mistakes of the previous ownership and the typical lurid links of their online outlet, Philly.com. Still nothing about sensationalism without verification, however. Of course, the writer of the CJR article admits that he is a friend of the current managing editor for digital content at Philadelphia Media Network (PMN), so this whole article reads like a cautious advertisement for his friend, but nevertheless quotes someone there about their current situation, since 2017: “Our job is to make sure that the best journalism gets as many eyes as possible … It’s really easy to throw up links all day long, but we’re starting to think about making sure that we’re sharing our best journalism at the best times with the best people in a more focused way.” Whether PMN got the article right about the Witnesses or not is another question, but trying to tarnish the credibility of a paper because it had a prior history of mistakes is like those people who point out historical mistakes of the WTS in order to tarnish its current credibility.
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation