7 pages, and I just skimmed, but one thought is that the implications of this directive from WT will be to quash attempts to verify secular quotes in the literature by researching the source. I wonder how much this decision was influence by articles like AlanF's and Leoleia's, etc, where they show blatant and seemingly deliberate misreprestations of quotes in order to bolster their opinion in books like "Creation" "Our Creator" "Trinity" and so on.
OKM 09/07 (english)- Just another brick in the wall...
by metaspy 181 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Mary
As per usual, they talk out both sides of their mouths. On the one, hand, they condemn anything written that they didn't invent in the September KM:
the faithful and discreet slave does not endorse any literature meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight........................No personal pursuit should detract from what Jesus Christ is accomplishing through his congregation on earth today.
Yet at the same time, they've got this on their official website:
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!
"A fool will believe anything." —P ROVERBS 14:15, T ODAY'S E NGLISH V ERSION.
THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: "Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps." ( Proverbs 14:15 ) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.
However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking. How can we find the right balance? By adopting a standard with which to measure new information. Here a Christian has a source of great wisdom. He has the Bible as a sure guide for his thinking. On the one hand, his mind is open, that is, receptive to new information. He properly weighs such new information against the Bible standard and fits what is true into his pattern of thinking. On the other hand, his mind sees the danger of information that is entirely inconsistent with his Bible-based values.
Put information to the test: "Beloved ones," said John, a first-century Christian teacher, "do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions." ( 1 John 4:1 ) Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.
But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.
Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.
Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to 'delude us with persuasive arguments.' ( Colossians 2:4 ) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.
First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If "authorities" are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, 'When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?'
Popular opinion is
not always reliableDo not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. The command given at Exodus 23:2 serves as a good principle: "You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends."
-
fjtoth
Lady Liberty, AlphaOmega, Mary and many others:
You are coming up with amazing finds and making great points. In my opinion, this is one of the best threads yet!
Frank
-
TJ - iAmCleared2Land
the faithful and discreet slave does not endorse any literature meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight.
Just in case anybody thinks "endorse" means "sanction/organize" instead of "approve of":
From m-w.com (Merriam Webster):
2. to approve openly ; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely b: to recommend
They therefore don't approve of, or recommend, that you do any study or reading from any but their own publications... and certainly not in the company of like-minded scholars. Don't be a Beroean!!
-
BizzyBee
This KM article is so ham-fisted - no finesse, no 'loving arrangement,' no foreplay - just bend over - that it is like the prelude to a loyalty oath - YES/NO, In/Out?
As others have mentioned here and on related threads - this could be the beginning of a true separation work. They've tried damage control but apostate information is having too much influence and cannot be contained. They now must preserve the core membership, and fast!
It's also called "triage," from the French word for 'sorting': "A system for allocating scarce resources; it provides the maximum resources to individuals of highest priority, and few or no resources to individuals of lowest priority. Derived from practices used to prevent medical systems from being overwhelmed when there are many sick or injured." Those most likely to survive and thrive are given top priority.
Those who balk at this KM are expendable. Those who gulp it down like mother's milk are thus innoculated, for the time being, from independent thinking, research, internet, etc.
-
choosing life
Good article, Mary. They have always wanted to ask the questions and provide the answers actually. All of their meetings are in such a format. I really think that their hand will not be revealed until they start putting out the koolaid version of the watchtower. This seems to be just a preparation for the crackdown.
I do think that inactive or faders will be adressed in a much stricter way. If you have ever been baptized by this crazy group, don't think you will get away unscathed.
-
aniron
Well in line with my avatar on the left.
Speaking in Dalek voice.
You will obey, obey, obey !!!
-
sweetface2233
Am I the only one here who reads the WT literature more now than while attending meetings?
-
journey-on
I wish they would add a "Funnies" section to the back of the New Kool-Aid edition.
-
Odrade
:::"As per usual, they talk out both sides of their mouths. "
Of course, one is the "truth" for public consumption, and the other (opposite) is the "truth" for the rank and file. So which one is the "truth?" That's what I wanna know.
