Is questioning at the bookstudy still allowed? (page 2)

JWdaughter

I asked a question once.

That is not kosher in the WT world. The conductor asks the questions and the rest of the room is allowed to answer so long s they don't stray from the script.

BluesBrother

Questioning on an official WT level at any meetings has not been allowed for more than 50 years or longer

Hey Come on , I am not that old!!

When I was a lad I used to ask questions sometimes, usually the meaning of a word in a paragraph, and others would ask about things they did not understand. Certainly when I was a young man it was still the practise. That could be a little bit daunting when you are a "fill in" conductor who has only done the job once or twice before .

Certainly though nowadays it is 'just not done' - perhaps they have made more of this scripture than it really meant in context

" (1 Corinthians 14:35) 35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.

blondie

You know what I meant, Bluesbrother. Asking an innocent explanatory question is one thing, not agreeing with the material in the paragraph is another...'questioning' or bringing up a point not in the material that night. That type of question was always sidelined for discussion after the book study or even sidelined to after a meeting at the KH assuming the conductor would even do any research on the question. We know that book study conductors will do what they will and take the consequences if someone rats them out. I remember a brother who was known for going off topic...very popular book study...they all left the WT and he formed his own study group...was quite a scandal. (in the 80's) The WTS clamped down even more then.

Of course, it wasn't till the 1970's that the same paragraphs were assigned to be covered at each book study each week. Before that you could be all over the book depending on the group. Some conductors spent much time on a few paragraphs in the beginning and then had to cover 40 paragraphs a week to catch up to the end when a new book started.

I can remember my grandfather telling me that sometimes they would only make it through 3 paragraphs in the WT study because they would "discuss" many sidepoints. But that was back in the 30's. Lots of egos back then and no supervision. Because of that, the WTS holds a tight right on private/personal discussion at the meetings and sidelines it.

Blondie

moggy lover

WT patois, inculcated to the neophyte at the earliest possible moment in his/her indoctrination, indents a seperation of ideas in the thinking of the learner. For instance, "asking a question" is seen as different from "questioning". The first, if banal or trite enough can in fact often be encouraged. It is however, the latter which is somehow invested with a certain sinister motivation.

One whose questioning can infer a mutability to "God's Organisation" will be reminded that such a procedure seriously prejudices the monolithic integrity of such a system. The hackneyed, though inelegant phrase "Wait on jehover" is used with monotonous regularity, primarily to indicate to the questioner that his/her answers lie in some remote infinity, but more actively that such actions can determine his/her place in the WT system.

The WT society encourages neither scrutiny nor debate. And the sooner an accolyte understands this the better it is for all concerned, not the least of whom are the collective leadership

Cheers

jgnat

I've only been to one bookstudy, and I asked a couple questions made a few side comments during the study. When I attend a bible study at my church, that is what I am used to. A free exchange of questions and comments from the group. Not, apparently, at a WT bok study. After the session, the conductor suggested I was quite the "student of history". Believe me, I didn't ask anything hard. I was in full fluttery-eyes blonde mode that night.

At the Watchtower study, I wasn't TOLD I couldn't ask questions, but I did get odd looks. From this outsider's eyes, the conductor's primary goal was to stay on schedule.

blondie

From this outsider's eyes, the conductor's primary goal was to stay on schedule.

Exactly!

DocBob

VM44: From http://www.freeminds.org/psych/boast.htm. --VM44

"Legalistic authoritarianism shows itself in the confusion of the Christian principle of unity with the human insistence on unanimity. Unity is a profound, even mystical quality. It takes great effort to achieve, yet mere effort will never produce it; it is a source of great security, yet demands great risk.
"Unanimity, on the other hand is very tidy. It can be measured, monitored, and enforced. It is largely external, whereas unity is essentially internal. Its primarily goal is correct behavior, while unity's is a right spirit. Unanimity insists on many orthodoxies in addition to those of belief and behavior, including orthodoxy of experience and vocabulary. That is, believers are expected to come to God in similar ways, to have similar experiences with God and to use accepted phrases in describing those experiences....
"Ultimately, unanimity is impossible. It is brittle where unity is flexible and therefore strong. A single dissenter destroys it (so the dissenter may have to be dealt with harshly for the good of the group). For this reason, real questions are generally discouraged. Phony questions, however, where the answer is known by all, are part of pleasurable ritual. They are asked and answered in a wonderful nonthreatening confirmation of 'group think.'"
-Daniel Taylor's The Myth of Certainty

Ah, this brings back memories. I remember reading paragraphs from The Myth of Certainty to my wife as we were flying to our first exJW conference, a BRCI conference in Spokane WA back in 1997 or 98. I had started reading it before the trip. The more I read, the more it struck a chord with me. As I read the passage you quoted, it seemed to me to be the perfect description of a Watchtower Study. Now you mention it, it's time for me to read The Myth of Certainty again.

Geronimo

Hehehe. I went from "asking questions" to "questioning" real fast. No, they don't like it even if you're only "asking questions." Even the few times I asked fairly innocent stuff (in comarison to my later questioning) it really ticked the BS conductor off. I'll bet everyone here who was not raised as a Dub wonders how they ever wound up involved in such a mess. Here a little, there a little. I still haven't completely pieced together how I wound up a JW, but I do know it was gradual. The longer I'm out the more sinister the bOrg looks. G

Honesty

Was it ever allowed?

The Watchtower prints the publication.

The Watchtower prints 'approved' questions at the bottom of the page.

The attendees answer the 'approved' questions by referring to the paragraph they relate to.

So much for Christian freedom in the Wacthtower religion.

Is questioning at the bookstudy still allowed?

Share this