Witnesses instructed not to harbor private ideas

by cyberguy 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dungbeetle

  <"And the King of the North is Canada.">

  THIS WEEK Fred!!!

  dungbeetle...cleaning up the crap.
• 

  LittleToe

  I was gonna post that too, but was out for the day.
  At the meeting I was going to try and tone it down and try and make folks think (if possible) by making a joke of the fact that I believed we would have cars and planes in the new order - but the Wt.conductor must have seen the gleam in my eye, because he wouldn't take my hand <g>.

  I wonder if there will be a flood of questions from readers asked for advise on what to think about the king of the North debate, since we're now officially not allowed to do that for ourselves.
  (At least I cant remember it being put quite so specifically before - tell me if I'm wrong).

  LT
• 

  dungbeetle

  <"since we're now officially not allowed to do that for ourselves.>"

  Have you been in the ocean, on an island, in a cave behind a waterfall Little Toe? We haven't been able to 'think for ourselves' since Russell's day.

  If you need citations, be happy to provide them.

  dungbeetle...cleaning up the crap.
• 

  cynicus

  August 1, 2001, p. 14, par. 8:

  First, since "oneness" is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. ... -- Matthew 24:45.

  This hummed in my head for quite some time. This weekend I got myself a (translated) copy of this WT when I visited JW relatives. This translation doesn't in any way reflect the 'harbouring' part, but only talks about advocating and propagating own views. I'd like to do a more thorough comparison.

  Would someone put this page of the English version under a scanner and email me the image?

  TIA
• 

  Teirce

  Deep stuff. From this, it looks like they're trying to cut thought off at the source, that being ideas. An idea springs upon anyone, yet these are often raw and unpolished, in need of refinement which can only come from concentration and varied perspective. So "to not harbor" clearly means that a Witness should not allow a passing thought, the kind that are likened to birds, to land on your head and build a nest. Harboring/nesting would mean allowing that passing idea to be dwelt upon several times, turning it over and fashioning it into something conveyable, communicable. If the raw idea has been harbored long enough and smelted into a useful implement/instrument of thought, and has been reviewed and agreed upon by the mind's members, then it may well become a personal opinion. Some opinions are so very well researched, constructed and communicated that they are dangerous to other opinions. The personal opinion that emerges from an idea can be neutrally advocated, showing respect for the listener, or adamantly insisted upon, showing less respect. Generally, people advocate upwards along the heirarchy/chain of command, and insist downwards. Imagine then a line of millions of points, a continuum, stretching from the basement of obedient custodial artists to the heights of white, crinkly anointed decree, and that each of these points on the line has the capacity to form an idea, and to harbor it, and to then form an opinion. If an opinion is formed, it can be advocated upward or insisted downward. This is an insidious and elegantly simple network of thought terrorism, so the WTS is engaging in their own war against it. Opinions that are already formed are the terrorist disasters/fires that need stamped out pronto, as these are already usually fashioned into a streamlined medium of exchange, and can move about freely if one is greater than another. (It being rare that any two opinions are equally stupid so as to settle against each other, but it being common that most opinions are of a substance not greater than their neighbor, and so also settled against each other. It is the insightful and sagacious opinions that are most dangerous.) The second edict to not harbor private ideas is the attempt to strike closer to the root of the problem, the root being that ideas occur 'at all' in a Witness. As yet, the WTS still cannot get at the Idea itself. They cannot prevent the Idea from being born. But they are still working round the clock towards a theocratic NewSpeak, where Ideas become impossible. (1984)
• 

  LittleToe

  Hi DungBeetle,

  I'm afraid I've never quite heard it put that way before, so directly.
  Of course I've heard that KIND of thing from the public platform, but not seen this particular flavour of ice-cream in print.

  If you want to send references, I've activated my email address, please feel free.
  Thanks in advance.

  Hi Tierce,

  Deep stuff, indeed.
  Very eloquent.
  Have you found Room 101 yet?
  If it's any consolation, at least there will soon be no word for apostate.
  It will likely be replaced with "Truth" - "NotTruth".
  ;-p

  LT
• 

  ozziepost

  He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rater, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave."

  Isn't this PRECISELY what the Watchtower condemned the Catholic Church for doing in the Middle Ages?

  Did I hear someone say "Hypocrisy" ?

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
  Anonymous
• 

  cyberguy

  Hi Ozziepost!

  You're absolutely correct! Can we get someone to insert some recent citations from the Watchtower that illustrate this hypocrisy? This Watchtower position makes me want to vomit!
• 

  ozziepost

  Cyberguy,

  Your wish is my command!

  Try these, I've tried for some variety and I think you'll enjoy:

  *** w85 6/15 4 Popular Misconceptions About the Bible ***
  A “Protestant Book”?
  A misconception common among the world’s hundreds of millions of Catholics is that the Bible is a “Protestant book.” Sincere Catholics are not to be blamed for this view. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church forbade the reading of the Bible in any language other than Latin. This put the Scriptures beyond the reach of most lay Catholics. True, since 1897 and more particularly since the second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Catholics have had the right to read common-language Bibles approved by Rome. But traditions die hard. So in predominantly Catholic countries, Bible reading is still associated with Protestantism.
  Many of the practicing Catholics who in recent years have obtained a Bible cannot yet pick it up without some apprehension. Why is that? Because their church still teaches that reading the Bible can be dangerous. Why? Because the Roman Catholic Church says that the Bible does not contain the complete revelation of Christian truth; it needs to be completed by “tradition.” In his book La Parole de Dieu (The Word of God), Georges Auzou, Catholic professor of Sacred Scripture, wrote: “Tradition precedes, envelops, accompanies and goes beyond the Scriptures. . . . [This] helps us to understand why the Church has never made Bible reading or Bible study a strict obligation or an absolute necessity.”

  *** w79 8/1 18 Saying "Peace" When There Is None ***
  The clergy of Christendom claim to be wise, not basically due to having the Bible but because of having theological seminary training. They insist that they are informed on the law of the Bible’s God and know how to interpret it and apply it. But the God of the Bible knows differently

  *** w82 1/1 11-12 "Lord, Open the King of England's Eyes" ***
  But why were the eyes of the clergy and even the king of England, Henry VIII, closed to a translation in the vernacular, such as Tyndale’s? Well, noted Catholic scholar Erasmus offered the following as one of the reasons: “In many places in the sacred volumes the vices of pastors and princes are reproved, and if the people were to read them, they would murmur against those set over them.” However, it was not just the idea of a translation in the vernacular that aroused their objections. The king was opposed to the “pestilent glosses,” the marginal notes, in Tyndale’s translation. The clergy, too, objected to the marginal notes, which they viewed as subversive of the Catholic faith. Nevertheless, their opposition was keeping the eyes of the common people from being opened to the truth of God’s Word.

  *** gh 44-5 5 How the Good News Was Preserved ***
  The record of Christendom’s religions includes bitter opposition to the distribution of the Bible and its “good news.” And no wonder!—for it exposes her bloodguilt. During the infamous Dark Ages, when for more than a thousand years Christendom was dominated by the popes of Rome, no effort was made to circulate the Bible among the common people. The few copies available were in Latin, a language that in time came to be known only to the priests. When at last courageous men attempted to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, so that these could read and understand it, they were persecuted, often to the death. In the fourteenth century C.E., John Wycliffe first translated the Bible from Latin into English. But the Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, England, described him as “that pestilent wretch . . . the son of the old Serpent,” and some years after his death, opponents of the Bible dug up his remains, burned them and threw his ashes into the river Swift.

  *** g82 3/8 5-6 The Catholic Church's Past Attitude Toward the Bible ***
  Crumbs for the Common People
  True, under the influence of Charlemagne, the Council of Tours, France, held in 813, decreed that homilies, or sermons, for the common people should be translated into the local language. But no such decree was issued for translating the Bible itself for the people. By way of excuse, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
  “Books only existed in manuscript form and, being costly, were beyond the means of most people. Besides, had it been possible for the multitude to come into the possession of books, they could not have read them, since in those rude times, education was the privilege of few. In fact, hardly anyone could read, outside the ranks of the clergy and the monks.” But whose fault was it that the masses remained illiterate? And why did the Roman Catholic Church wait for King Charlemagne to promote education, even among the lower clergy?
  Instead of favoring education among the masses and translations of the Bible in the local languages, the Catholic Church encouraged the production of ‘books of the ignorant’: picture Bibles (such as the Biblia pauperum, or Bible of the poor), Bible histories, miracle plays, statues and carvings, church wall paintings and stained-glass windows on Bible themes. Such were the crumbs that the Catholic clergy let drop from the rich spiritual table of Bible knowledge, which they kept for themselves and for a few privileged kings and nobles.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
  Anonymous
• 

  eby

  First, since "oneness" is to be observed, a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding.

  How can this be harmonized with Romans 14? Why didn't Paul counsel these early Christians to not harbor private ideas, to be in full harmony in faith and knowledge? In regard to eating he said, "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls." In regard to observing days he said, "Let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind."

  eby