Just a warning, not all who leave JWs remain Christians, so you will encounter others' viewpoints, but it's generally a polite board. They'll probably be serving cups of tea and cucumber sandwiches when you arrive!
Raf, you are getting the JW boards mixed up. The one Prisca linked to is a very MODERATE board, called affectionately "JWD". The fiery board that you are thinkiing of is "JWO".
Not the same board.
Im afraid there is a long history of faction fighting on the ex JW Boards. Perhaps not surprising with 10,000 registered posters.
I wrote a brief analysis of Boston "Authority" a couple of years back, here it is for anyone curious....
...This movement is a splinter group from a larger recognized church, the Church of Christ, and the "boston" movement is now known as the "International church of Christ". It has been labelled a cult.
People within the cult are worked to a frazzle, often preaching 15 hours a day, for the work of preaching or "desciplemaking" is the identifying mark of the true church in the last days. Or so they believe.
It is about the churches view of Authority that I wish to speak here though. For it is the church view of authority that enslaves the followers into following unreasonable requirements.
Firstly the church believes that it has recovered "lost practices", practices ordained by God, and it has recovered lost structure. The structure of the original gospel church under Christ. Lost since the time of the disciples.
These lost treasures are the restoration of correct church authority ( which bears a remarkable resemblance to an Authoritarian Pyramid), and the rerstoration of the practise of "discipling".
"Discipling" is simply that each member of the church has a "discipler", an individual who is in superior authority over him .
God himself has appointed the discipler in the sense that God has appointed the church, reestablished the structure of command, and the discipler is above the disciple in the structure, and hence, must be obeyed.
This obedience is unconditional, even if the discipler behaves poorly, he is still to be obeyed. Even if the discipler is corrupt, he is to be obeyed.
The logic is that, if he works not in a Godly way, God himself will remove him from his position. The disciple is required to obey, that is all. Failure to do this is labelled "rebellion against God". Ex Witnesses will be familiar with such reasonings.
Anyway, to an examination of Boston "authority". Quotes are from the "Boston Bulletin" . The Boston movements equivalent to the Watchtower.
The Boston Bulletin (BB) article, "The attitude of Jesus" (1988) brought forth the revelation that Christ was submitted in a position of "discipleship" to God . John 5 verse 19 quoted:
quote: " I tell you the truth, the son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the son does also".
The focus here is upon imitation" . The article also points out that Jesus was subject to sinfull man. Matthew 23 verse 2 is quoted "The teachers of the law and the pharisees sit in Moses seat, so you must obey them and do everything they tell you". Jesus may have rebuked the pharisees, but he never disobeyed them. They sat in their seats of power because God appointed and allowed them."
Where can such reasoning as this lead ?
From the BB article "Discipleship partners" (1988):
quote: ... "The person that you are discipling , must believe, must trust that you are out for God and their best interests. Because there is going to be some advice that they will not understand, But if they trust that you are out for God, then they will obey"....
So understanding why you are doing a thing, following an instruction, is secondary to obeying the command.The example of Peter is quoted:
quote: ..." Peters trust in Jesus led him to say, 'because you say so'...In order to be discipled by others, the disciple must have a trusting heart, one that listens and follows even when it doesnt comprehend or see the end result....Peter let down the nets not understanding what would happen because he trusted his teacher. Do you trust those discipling over you? Do you trust beyond the point of your own understanding?"...
TheBB article "Authority and Submission" (October 1987) points out some things that submission is NOT. It says:
quote: ...." Submission is not Agreeing, When one agrees with the decision he must submit to, then he does not have to really submit to it in any way. By definition, submission is doing something one has been asked to do that he would not do if he had his own way. But submission is not just outward obedience, It includes that, but it is obedience from the heart. It is a wholehearted giving up of ones own desires. Submission is not conditional. It does not depend upon whether the one commanding it is being fair.We submit to authority, not because the one in authority deserves it, but because his authority comes from God. Therefore, we are, in reality, submitting ourselves to God"....
As the BB article "The attitude of Christ Jesus" (1988) said:
quote: "If your house church leader came in and said ' I want everybody in here to wear a red shirt' then every body has to wear a red shirt. You dont care. You dont say, 'yeah, but can he tell me to do that'? What do you care if youve given up yourself? We arent going to sit here and rationalize and reason. What we are saying is that every person has given up themself, and thats the only way to be in the kingdom"....
This group is another sickening example of twisted scripture. Amazing how many of their beliefs like found "lost knowledge" and obediance to the leader above you are the same cons that TWI used on us.
Most cults, and I mean cults as in organizations that commit criminal acts under the guise of religion, seem to operate from the same basic menu of practices. TWI was never unique in the areas twisting scripture and abuse of their members.
Raf, you are getting the JW boards mixed up. The one Prisca linked to is a very MODERATE board, called affectionately "JWD". The fiery board that you are thinkiing of is "JWO".
My sincerest apologies.
when I assume, you have nothing to do with it, I just make anass of me. :)-->
Well admittedly Raf it seems very unlikely that there be two D A Reeds who may have cause to venture to this site.
Going back to the matter of The Boston movement... from what I have read and heard, their focus is upon "discipling" and "evangelism". They think these two matters identifying truths of the true church. Of course every group develops their identifying truths, say Adventists with their identifying mark of the sabbath practise, JWS with their identifier of the preaching work, or Exclusive Brethren with their identifier of "seperation" or exclusivity.
They believe it a practise exclusive to their own church which is a return to lost practise.
Usually these "lost practises" are revelated as needing restoring after a crisis in the movement.
Are you sure? This forum's DA Reed has an email address that might indicate otherwise. It suggests a connection with Fordham University in New York. Fordham is a Jesuit university.
Of course, working at Fordham does not make one a Jesuit, but excy doesn't sound like she's certain he is a Jesuit. She says "Jesuit OR Professor at Fordham..."
Do we know if the author DA Reed is a Jesuit or Professor at Fordham? I haven't been able to tell.
I saw my name listed on this thread (though I am not sure why) and thought I would clear up the questions.
Yes, I teach philosophy at Fordham and City College, but I am not a Jesuit - I am not even Roman Catholic.
I got the impression that someone thought that I was also posting on this site under another name. This is not true. I would be interested in knowing who came up with this idea and why?
The question we have is whether you are the same David Reed who has authored a number of books addressing Jehovah's Witness doctrine. We don't know for sure if you are that author.
Oh, I'll give a quick summary as to why your name came up:
This is an ex-Way site. A new poster who has never been associated with The Way started a thread called "Why I Reject Christ." This bothered some people, not just because of the name of the thread, but also because the person who started the thread is not an ex-TWI.
So does a poster who has never been involved in TWI have the same "standing" (as it were) to discuss their beliefs? In passing, I compared this new poster to you and your often eloquent defenses of the Trinity. I wasn't sure if you had ever been involved in TWI.
The new poster is a former Jehovah's Witness familiar with the writings of David Reed. He thought it was you. So do I. Someone else said it's not. So I wrote to you.
Anyway, that's how the discussion got started. I don't expect you to resolve any of the central issues. But if you want to have a crack at it, go ahead.
FYI: It's my belief that both you and the new poster (Refiner) should be perfectly welcome to stop in and say what you want.
To my knowledge, no one has indicated they think you are posting here under two names. The confusion that has arisen concerns whether or not you are the same D. A. Reed (whose first name is also David) who is a former Jehovah's Witness figure who has written about and against the Watchtower Society.
The discussion began with Rafael's (Raf) post on the 16th post on this page.
Maybe it is just me but I have to ask this question.....WHY ON EARTH WOULD SOMEONE BE INTERESTED IN SOMEONE ELSE'S CULT?
Hmmm, let's see, to learn something new, to open one's mind to other experiences, to meet new people, to recognise that your own trauma isnt as unique as you'd like to think it is....
Maybe it is just me but I have to ask this question.....WHY ON EARTH WOULD SOMEONE BE INTERESTED IN SOMEONE ELSE'S CULT?
I never was, nor will be, unless I knew them personally, and could have face to face talks.
One ex-cult board is enough for me! There is enough going on here to keep me busy, ignoring household "chores", watching seasons change (while still here), seeing my car depreciate in value, etc., without getting into another board! ;)-->
While giving "live links" a passing glance, I am only interested in another's "cult" if they are seated across from me at a table, and we are "breaking coffee", as Oak says!
Recommended Posts
The Girl From Oz
If anyone wants to go to an ex-JW board to discuss the similarities between TWI and JWs, then I'd suggest
www.jehovahs-witness.com
Just a warning, not all who leave JWs remain Christians, so you will encounter others' viewpoints, but it's generally a polite board. They'll probably be serving cups of tea and cucumber sandwiches when you arrive!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's a real anything-goes type forum. Not for the faint of heart. Edit note: I was thinking of a different forum...Refiner corrects me later...
Here's another one, more Christian than not, and FAR more tame. But FAR fewer members.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Raf, you are getting the JW boards mixed up. The one Prisca linked to is a very MODERATE board, called affectionately "JWD". The fiery board that you are thinkiing of is "JWO".
Not the same board.
Im afraid there is a long history of faction fighting on the ex JW Boards. Perhaps not surprising with 10,000 registered posters.
Splinter boards have resulted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
I wrote a brief analysis of Boston "Authority" a couple of years back, here it is for anyone curious....
...This movement is a splinter group from a larger recognized church, the Church of Christ, and the "boston" movement is now known as the "International church of Christ". It has been labelled a cult.
People within the cult are worked to a frazzle, often preaching 15 hours a day, for the work of preaching or "desciplemaking" is the identifying mark of the true church in the last days. Or so they believe.
It is about the churches view of Authority that I wish to speak here though. For it is the church view of authority that enslaves the followers into following unreasonable requirements.
Firstly the church believes that it has recovered "lost practices", practices ordained by God, and it has recovered lost structure. The structure of the original gospel church under Christ. Lost since the time of the disciples.
These lost treasures are the restoration of correct church authority ( which bears a remarkable resemblance to an Authoritarian Pyramid), and the rerstoration of the practise of "discipling".
"Discipling" is simply that each member of the church has a "discipler", an individual who is in superior authority over him .
God himself has appointed the discipler in the sense that God has appointed the church, reestablished the structure of command, and the discipler is above the disciple in the structure, and hence, must be obeyed.
This obedience is unconditional, even if the discipler behaves poorly, he is still to be obeyed. Even if the discipler is corrupt, he is to be obeyed.
The logic is that, if he works not in a Godly way, God himself will remove him from his position. The disciple is required to obey, that is all. Failure to do this is labelled "rebellion against God". Ex Witnesses will be familiar with such reasonings.
Anyway, to an examination of Boston "authority". Quotes are from the "Boston Bulletin" . The Boston movements equivalent to the Watchtower.
The Boston Bulletin (BB) article, "The attitude of Jesus" (1988) brought forth the revelation that Christ was submitted in a position of "discipleship" to God . John 5 verse 19 quoted:
The focus here is upon imitation" . The article also points out that Jesus was subject to sinfull man. Matthew 23 verse 2 is quoted "The teachers of the law and the pharisees sit in Moses seat, so you must obey them and do everything they tell you". Jesus may have rebuked the pharisees, but he never disobeyed them. They sat in their seats of power because God appointed and allowed them."
Where can such reasoning as this lead ?
From the BB article "Discipleship partners" (1988):
So understanding why you are doing a thing, following an instruction, is secondary to obeying the command.The example of Peter is quoted:
TheBB article "Authority and Submission" (October 1987) points out some things that submission is NOT. It says:
As the BB article "The attitude of Christ Jesus" (1988) said:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
This group is another sickening example of twisted scripture. Amazing how many of their beliefs like found "lost knowledge" and obediance to the leader above you are the same cons that TWI used on us.
Most cults, and I mean cults as in organizations that commit criminal acts under the guise of religion, seem to operate from the same basic menu of practices. TWI was never unique in the areas twisting scripture and abuse of their members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My sincerest apologies.
when I assume, you have nothing to do with it, I just make anass of me.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
I think I have changed my position on the D A Reed matter too Raf, They dont feel like the same person to me. So I believe I was in error on that.
Any person who ventured to the board that Prisca linked to would find themselves welcomed on a scale comparable to my own welcome here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
On DA Reed: really?
I'd still be surprised, but he hasn't chimed in yet, so I'll wait to hear from him. I promise not to lose any sleep over it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Well admittedly Raf it seems very unlikely that there be two D A Reeds who may have cause to venture to this site.
Going back to the matter of The Boston movement... from what I have read and heard, their focus is upon "discipling" and "evangelism". They think these two matters identifying truths of the true church. Of course every group develops their identifying truths, say Adventists with their identifying mark of the sabbath practise, JWS with their identifier of the preaching work, or Exclusive Brethren with their identifier of "seperation" or exclusivity.
They believe it a practise exclusive to their own church which is a return to lost practise.
Usually these "lost practises" are revelated as needing restoring after a crisis in the movement.
Of course, all this is purely my own opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm not sure how david reed came up in this conversation
but the david who helped me very much is some kind of jesuit or professor at fordham university
i like him a lot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Unless he's gone through some changes, this forum's D. A. Reed is NOT a Jesuit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Are you sure? This forum's DA Reed has an email address that might indicate otherwise. It suggests a connection with Fordham University in New York. Fordham is a Jesuit university.
Of course, working at Fordham does not make one a Jesuit, but excy doesn't sound like she's certain he is a Jesuit. She says "Jesuit OR Professor at Fordham..."
Do we know if the author DA Reed is a Jesuit or Professor at Fordham? I haven't been able to tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
D.A.Reed
Greetings!
I saw my name listed on this thread (though I am not sure why) and thought I would clear up the questions.
Yes, I teach philosophy at Fordham and City College, but I am not a Jesuit - I am not even Roman Catholic.
I got the impression that someone thought that I was also posting on this site under another name. This is not true. I would be interested in knowing who came up with this idea and why?
Grace & peace,
- David
Colossians 1:13-14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dr. Reed,
Your impression is mistaken.
The question we have is whether you are the same David Reed who has authored a number of books addressing Jehovah's Witness doctrine. We don't know for sure if you are that author.
Thanks for checking in. Did you get my e-mail?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, I'll give a quick summary as to why your name came up:
This is an ex-Way site. A new poster who has never been associated with The Way started a thread called "Why I Reject Christ." This bothered some people, not just because of the name of the thread, but also because the person who started the thread is not an ex-TWI.
So does a poster who has never been involved in TWI have the same "standing" (as it were) to discuss their beliefs? In passing, I compared this new poster to you and your often eloquent defenses of the Trinity. I wasn't sure if you had ever been involved in TWI.
The new poster is a former Jehovah's Witness familiar with the writings of David Reed. He thought it was you. So do I. Someone else said it's not. So I wrote to you.
Anyway, that's how the discussion got started. I don't expect you to resolve any of the central issues. But if you want to have a crack at it, go ahead.
FYI: It's my belief that both you and the new poster (Refiner) should be perfectly welcome to stop in and say what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
David,
To my knowledge, no one has indicated they think you are posting here under two names. The confusion that has arisen concerns whether or not you are the same D. A. Reed (whose first name is also David) who is a former Jehovah's Witness figure who has written about and against the Watchtower Society.
The discussion began with Rafael's (Raf) post on the 16th post on this page.
I responded in the 3rd post on this page.
In the 5th post on the latter page, Refiner (an ex-JW) seems to identify you with the ex-JW named David Reed.
In the 6th post, I stated that I think that you and he are different fellows.
In the 7th post, Rafael says he's always thought you were he.
In the 9th post, I again state I do not think so.
Things continue in the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th posts of that page, and come up again in this thread.
*****
A couple of books by the ex-JW fellow named David Reed are:
Blood on the Altar: Confessions of a Jehovah Witness Minister
Index of Watchtower Errors: 1879 To 1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hi david ! it's nice to see you.
love,
ex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Hi David Reed....haven't seen you in a while...hope you have been well.
Maybe it is just me but I have to ask this question.....WHY ON EARTH WOULD SOMEONE BE INTERESTED IN SOMEONE ELSE'S CULT?
God knows that my own cult has cost me a lifetime of trauma, guilt and anguish. Why would I want to go visit someone else's cult board?
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Well as George S Patton said as he ran Rommels forces off the field of battle...
"Ive read your book you magnificent sumb****...Ive read your book!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Girl From Oz
Hmmm, let's see, to learn something new, to open one's mind to other experiences, to meet new people, to recognise that your own trauma isnt as unique as you'd like to think it is....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... all of this ought to clear it up for him.... I'M SO CONFUSED...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I never was, nor will be, unless I knew them personally, and could have face to face talks.
One ex-cult board is enough for me! There is enough going on here to keep me busy, ignoring household "chores", watching seasons change (while still here), seeing my car depreciate in value, etc., without getting into another board!
;)-->
While giving "live links" a passing glance, I am only interested in another's "cult" if they are seated across from me at a table, and we are "breaking coffee", as Oak says!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
it's one helluva buffet fer shure
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.