Jump to content
The World News Media

Anna

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,679

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anna

  1. Anna
    Thanks JWInsider. I am familiar with the publications you quoted and the article in the KM. I asked that question purposefully because I was not aware that there had been any publications that actually "recommended that we sell our belongings". I thought maybe I had missed one. However, as you pointed out, the insinuations were definitely there, if only because of the praise for those who had done so. This is why I find the video from the convention so curious. I listened to it again and here is the transcript from it (video part of the talk "How you can by no means ever fail") : The setting, the father is relating his story of how when his wife died and thereafter “With Jehovah’s help, and with the support of the brothers and sisters we got through it (the death of his wife). We learned to rely on Jehovah in ways we never had before. And that helped when years later another test came our way. You see, back then, some were looking to a certain date (1975) as signifying the end of this old system. A few went even so far as selling their homes and quitting their jobs. I admit, I was ready to see this old system go away too, but something just didn’t seem right. Both at meetings, and in my personal study, I was reminded of what Jesus said: Nobody knows the day or the hour. I was dedicated to Jehovah, not a date. After that year came and went, most of those who had wrong expectations made the needed adjustments and they stayed. We didn’t run away and we didn’t give up. We trusted in Jehovah”. So, what is the moral of the story? Since at that time those who had sold their homes and gave up their job were held up as a good example, as per the aforementioned KM, my thoughts are that the GB is reminding us that they make mistakes, and that ultimately, when it comes to the crunch, if something doesn’t seem right, then the scriptures take precedent, (as attested to also by Geoffrey Jackson in his response to a question at the ARC hearing: "So our primary allegiance is to Jehovah God. Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction") and a reminder that our dedication is to Jehovah and not to them, and that ultimately we can trust no man, only Jehovah. Including remembering the key scriptures associated with the talk, 2 Peter 1:5-10, Isaiah 40:31, 2 Corinthians 4:7, 9,16 THAT in a nutshell is how we can “By No Means Ever Fail” @bruceq Otherwise you and @TrueTomHarley I think have pretty much covered most of the points to do with indirect suggestions and "guilting" at that time. "You have health problems? Family responsibilities? No excuse! Let's listen to this experience from [someplace] where a hearing and sight-impaired mother of 10 with no arms and legs got her kids ready for school every day and then put in 8 hours of service" Just about cracked me up!
  2. Anna
    That hasn't always been the case though has it? You know the expression "we used to think" as applied to past interpretations shows that those "understanding" did not understand correctly.
  3. Anna
    1. Not in any of the continents that I know of, i.e North America and Europe. I am not sure about the rest of the world but I doubt it. The copies in North America and Europe are not sold, but contributions towards the world wide work are accepted. I assume this goes for the rest of the world, in which case answers to questions 2-4 are non applicable. Fun fact: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-widely-read-magazine-in-the-world-is-the-monthly-pub-of-jehovahs-witnesses-2010-9
  4. Anna
    Which publications were those? Would you provide a reference? I hasten to add that they didn't bring reproach on the organization in the eyes of faithful ones, who are still faithful now. In fact one of the talks at the convention (a talk most probably assigned to be given by a GB helper, ours was) the brother mentions these very things. He goes on to say how most of us thought we wouldn't grow old. He doesn't explain why or offer any "excuses" for the reasons why we thought that, he says it as matter of fact and most take it as matter of fact. However, some have definitely allowed this to become a stumbling block and that is why they are now ex- Witnesses. I am not sure if the rest of the world is even aware of these "false predictions" bar perhaps those who study religions.
  5. Anna
    For me it was the brown one
  6. Anna
    Although not addressed to me, I have to take issue with this statement. For a start, this forum is not a source of "official" teachings but is merely the expression of the opinion of others and open to discussion. Saying someone is "trying to destroy the faith of others" is being rather presumptuous, implying a motive which may not be true at all. In any case, what is this faith IN that you are talking about that can be destroyed? You say it's more than just about 1914. Is it faith in the current chronology? Faith in the current interpretation of the generation? But are these things the core of our belief and and does our salvation hinge on believing them? Why get upset by someone questioning 1914 etc. Isn't this the criterion for getting saved: "Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,.............Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace" (2.Peter 3:11,12, 14- in fact all of ch. 3 is good) Isn't our preaching ministry and our life as Christians the important thing, rather than dates and chronology? As for a supposed "improper" attitude toward the interpretative authority of the GB, again, this forum is open to discussions about interpretation. Many thinking JW's do have their own opinion on certain things. Those who do not like this, really do not have to read it and/or take part in it. I feel you are concerned about the faith of others because of the valid arguments that have been put forward that undermine our "present" understanding of certain dates. But again, our faith surely does not hinge on dates and chronology does it? We know the GB has not always got everything right and will continue not to get everything right. (Those thinking JWs will not get everything right either). But this is no reason to get our knickers in a twist if we keep Peter's admonition above in mind. Just a question for you, if in the future the GB scrapped 1914, would you lose faith? I hope the answer in NO.
  7. Anna
    I guess because his beginning to rule as king has been tied to the last days, (as understood to be not the "last days" of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 C.E. but the last days of the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things i.e. great tribulation followed by Armageddon). Could it be said that the last days started in 33 C.E?
  8. Anna
    @JW Insider thanks for your reply. So I wonder, could we say Jesus became an uncrowned king in 33 CE and a crowned king in 1914? The definition of “uncrowned” being :“having royal rank or power without occupying the royal office”. Wouldn't this be scripturally compatible?
  9. Anna
    Pardon if I am misunderstanding, but when Jesus rode into Jerusalem etc. was he not an uncrowned king? A sovereign prince who had not yet received the crown? And if he had received the crown, which scriptures tell us this?
  10. Anna
    Yes
  11. Anna
    Let us know when you start the new thread please! I don't have much time lately to contribute, but I am enjoying reading yours and others comments
  12. Anna
    A recent example of a sad state of affairs regarding child sexual abuse and the paranoia it has raised: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-man-helped-a-lost-toddler-find-her-parents-police-say-he-was-smeared-online-as-a-predator-and-fled-town/ar-BBDmn1R?li=BBnb7Kz
  13. Anna
    "So.....what we gonna do"?? (Vultures from jungle book- in case someone is not familiar with the scene)
  14. Anna
    I brought up the convention video. I also brought up the "marriage" issue from last weeks WT study. Two different things. Now unless @TrueTomHarleyhas been to the convention, he might not know what the video was even about.
  15. Anna
    I think @TrueTomHarleywas talking about the brother who wanted to get married, in last weeks WT study, not about the 1975 brother in the video at the convention. If I'm not mistaken...
  16. Anna
    My thoughts too. But then how do the "signs of the times" fit in? If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?
  17. Anna
    Of course, that would be ideal, but as you see, it is kind of difficult to stay on topic, especially if it's not you who changes the topic in the first place....but yes, I understand.
  18. Anna
    That is far too simplistic. A disfellowshipping happens for several reasons and merely not believing something is not one of them. So....I did ask the elder. Of course he did not give me a yes or a no answer immediately. He said it depends. But disfellowshipped directly and specifically for not believing the overlapping generation NO. Of course I already knew his answer because he has known about my feelings regarding this topic (overlapping generation) for a long time and I have as yet not been disfellowshipped and don't ever expect to be over this issue. It stands to reason. There is no scriptural basis to disfellowship someone for not believing something which is ambiguous, or not clearly set out in the scriptures, or is not a core teaching. A case in point: The experience of Willi Diehl in last weeks WT study. He knew getting married was not un-scriptural, therefor he went ahead despite sanctions and despite some treating him as if he was disfellowshipped. But he was not disfellowshipped. Another situation; in the video at the convention last week, (Friday 4:15 - How you can by no means ever fail) the brother did not go along with the 1975 idea, because, in his own words "something just didn't seem right" he reminded himself that we cannot know since Jesus said no one knows, and that he was dedicated to Jehovah, and not to a date. Similarly, if someone does not go along with the overlapping generation idea, because they personally do not see sufficient scriptural evidence, then that is no grounds for disfellowshipping. Back to the "it depends". If someone created enough fuss and caused divisions and unrest in the congregation because he insisted everyone came around to his view, then if that person continued despite nicely being asked to stop, then he could end up being disfellowshipped. Not for his belief, but for causing divisions. And disfellowshipping for that does have scriptural basis.
  19. Anna
    This happened to me a few times as well. The Librarian (or someone) seems to take the liberty to do this when they see fit. I wish they would ask first...
  20. Anna
    This is evidently only so because evidently the previous thought was wrong because most of the 1914 generation, as previously interpreted, are dead.
  21. Anna
    Yes, I posted first and then saw your post after, and yes, you are right. My thoughts too: Of course it could be interpreted the other way too, could it not? That we are keeping up with advanced light by believing the two life span generation....perhaps this is how opposers interpret it and hence the "confusion"....?
  22. Anna
    I think we should explore this one a little further And leave this one for later
  23. Anna
    No offense JTR but maybe you should take your bickering with TTH to another thread. We are trying to have a serious and (if possible) fruitful discussion here. I still owe you an answer on the other thread, but unfortunately it doesn't fit the topic either, since you have fractured it into several other topics and keep doing so by bringing up unrelated issues (via cartoons etc.) Still, I will try and return to it later.
  24. Anna
    Interesting article. Thanks.
  25. Anna
    Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those who insist carnivores will only vegetation, as that is clearly physically impossible for some of them. However, my problem is, how would there be peace among animals if some were going to be eaten? And why would a big cat, for example, need claws, if all it was to do is eat carrion? Everything about a big cat spells predatory hunter. Chase and kill, not eat something that has already died... Perhaps the best solution is as True Tom says "Be there, and you'll find out".
×
×
  • 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.