Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anna last won the day on September 9

Anna had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,829 profile views
  1. Good question. As you know, page 20 of the Kingdom Rules book shows an illustration of the Bible Students preaching, with the caption "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ’s invisible presence" And then page 50, par 5 it says "As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878..." It's like two different people wrote chapter 2 and chapter 5 of the book. It's confusing....
  2. I think the society is trying to word it as "contemporaries".....two groups of people, one group old, the other group younger and both groups having experienced the signs of the times.....or on this case experienced Br. Franz being alive (as an example). At least I think that's how it is 🤔 In any case, if explaining this requires mental gymnastics, then it's a bit fishy in my opinion....
  3. Yes, it is two separate things. As the article says, Armageddon will destroy those who support the current system of things. Judgement day (the 1000 years) is for those who have died before Armageddon and are resurrected. They will be judged either worthy or not worty of everlasting life at the end of the 1000 years. The image is obviously depicting Armageddon, and yes, they have been judged.
  4. I think similar to you, that Rutherford may have meant people who were not yet Bible Students could be saved. At that time, as you know, there were no "Jehovah’s Witnesses", only Bible students associated with Russel and Co, Rutherford and Co, IBSA and WT. I think it must have been kind of ambiguous and not clear cut as it is today. Keep in mind Jesus' words about the criterion for salvation. In any case, I am sure Rutherfords intention for using those words was to bring a positive message of hope to everyone (to those not associated) because that was the purpose of the preaching campaign, to bring good news to people, as Jesus said would happen. Of course he was off with the timing, and shouldn't have put an actual time frame on it like he did. But he was so sure...
  5. So what is the answer? I just browsed very quickly through the thread, I may have missed it... I was always under the impression that he was predicting exactly what he said, that millions living at the time he wrote those words, would never die. You already mentioned that he believed 1925 would be the year when mankind would be blessed and vengeance brought upon the wicked (and the ancient worthies would be resurrected and live in San Diego). I guess I will go and look at the 100 years ago article and see what I come up with.... Ok, I read the article
      Hello guest!
    but I can't figure out what you are hinting at...🤔
  6. Further about the situation with Zalkin. From one website: "He Zalkin) also has four years of redacted documents locked in a filing cabinet in his office. The judge’s protective order prevents him from saying how many documents he received or describing what they reveal about child abuse in Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations. “It’s very frustrating to have seen what I’ve seen and to know what is going on in this institution and this organization,” he said. “It’s very frustrating when I’ve got a gag in my mouth. It’s pretty hard. We’re trying our best to expose this truth, and they’re doing everything they can to interfere with that effort, to block that effort.” Who put the gag in his mouth? The judge. And if you don't mind me saying, what has he seen, as he claims? And what does he know about the "institution"? In reality he knows nothing, only what he has heard or seen written down. He is just saying words that will impress lay people, people who don't know much about JWs or the law. He himself knows, as a lawyer, he could never divulge information in these documents. He would lose his license immediately.
  7. Yes, we have discussed this on the forum before. I think this issue is taken to be viewed from the secular perspective only. They, the secular authorities, designate JW elders as having a clerical role as ministers (of religion). Therefore, under official circumstances, such as in a court of law, elders are viewed as "clergy". Whether they themselves, or the congregation view them as clergy in the traditional sense or not is irrelevant in these secular circumstances. (JWs view everyone who is baptized as minister, but obviously there is a distinction between roles and obligations, since elders also have the role of oversight and shepherding). I think in secular terms the word elder falls under the umbrella of clergy, despite the fact that our "clergy" do not hold matters confidential (as you and pudgy pointed out) to the same extent as a Catholic priest for example. Legislators obviously have not made an exception to who exactly should be viewed as clergy. They have not, as far as I know, added a clause which says JW elders should not be viewed as clergy because they are not the same as Catholic priests and do not view confidential disclosure in the traditional sense. By law, they fall under the same umbrella regardless of differences of application by the particular religion. If I remember right, the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit tried to use the difference of elders and clergy to his advantage by arguing that elders cannot be viewed as clergy because their brand of “confidentiality” includes a whole body of elders and the HQ. However, the judge deemed this irrelevant because he said it is a religions right of how they (JWs) apply their beliefs, and that it wasn't the courts business to tell a religion how to run their religious affairs, and then on that account make exceptions to secular rules. In the courts eyes an elder was clergy, period. In saying this, I personally believe the org. should refuse the designation of clergy by secular authorities as applying to them. But I am not sure if this is possible legally? It might not be. In any case, if it is possible, then I think they should do it. But law is so complex, rigid, and impersonal and doing something that is not according to the law can have bad repercussions down the road, even for an innocent party. The JWs have been trying to, actually imploring, legislators to change the law and make ALL clergy mandatory reporters (all over the world). This is what all victims want too. Perhaps this is the real answer to solving the problem…. The law forbids him to use it. I don't think the WT org. has the right to publish it or give anyone else the right. These papers involve specific cases, most of which have not even been proven, but are allegations (and these allegations would have to be proved as fact in court). To publish anything like this....well I am sure you can see this would be very wrong. Zalkin is not interested in publishing, (against the law anyway) as much as he is interested in wining specific cases. But unless a victim asks him to do so, he cannot open a case. So he has no choice but to keep the files locked up.
  8. If I'm not mistaken, sharing some information, especially when it pertains to privileged and private information is not legal. I'm not even talking about sharing information about a perpetrator, I'm talking about the victim/survivor. Zalkin is sitting on a pile (he says about 100) of cases given to him by the org. which he is not allowed to use or make public by law. They are locked up in his safe. Also, I do not think the existence of such documentation/records has ever been denied.
  9. Withholding information from people who are not entiteled to it is not lying. For example, would you tell someone who wants to harm your family, where your family is hiding? I am sure you would not. You may even purposefully send them in the opposite direction.
  10. Thank you for calling me good Tom. I have not listened to Br. Splanes talk yet, we were away and did not get to that part yet. Just getting around to watching the first part of the Daniel drama. But I have heard what it's about since when we got back home we joined our Saturday FS group as usual, this time for a review of the Saturday afternoon session. My hubby and I sat there like two numpties, since we had nothing to say. I did try and bluff though by looking down as if at my notes, lol. But I don't think anyone was fooled because usually we answer several times. Anyway, I look forward to listening to the talk, no doubt accompanied by accusatory sideways glances from my husband. I was thinking about you during the FS discussion, wondering what Tom thought of the talk....
  11. I don't think @Pudgy point was whether Paul had a dog or not. His point was that with all that Paul went through, and in such a short period of time, could be agenda driven, just like if you liked the idea of him being accompanied by a dog, (since Pudgy is a dog) you may be able to insert that in there somewhere....and even go around the fact that to the Jews dogs were unclean.... It's like trying to envisage 8 million people or so trying to clean up the earth after Armageddon.... It is obvious that supernatural help will be necessary. Perhaps Paul had supernatural help?
  12. He asked all his followers to pray for it. Yes, of course, my bad. I should have been more specific; he had been faithful until death, and that is what qualified him to receive all authority as king. Just like when the anointed die faithful, when they are resurrected they receive the crown of life.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.