My wife's take on the Sept OKM Question Box part

by erandir 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  erandir

  Well, I asked my wife about the meeting she went to on Thursday and how the Question Box part went. The good news, for me, is that she agrees with me that the FDS is obviously trying to clamp down on independent thinking and is being very contradictory. She said she had in mind during the meeting the scripture about "where 2 or more are gathered in my name, there I am also" and also the scripture about the Boreans.

  A "super elder," i.e. company man, made the comment during the part that the Society is "forbidding independent study using anything other than the Society's publications." However, a very well balanced and intelligent brother well-known for his habit of independent research promptly made a follow up comment saying that "No, the Society is merely saying that it cannot endorse independent study not using it's publications. The society isn't forbidding this when in fact they themselves have to do it in order to create the publications." No one disagreed with this, at least openly.

  When I heard this from my wife, I was thinking that there is hope for the congregation yet. There are a few who speak their minds and don't swallow everything from the publications and the platform without critically analyzing it.
• 

  oompa

  I wussed out at my meeting, mainly because of my wife and that I have worn everyone out with questions/comments deemed negative. I have a thought similar to your second elders comment, that I wish I had made. I pointed out to my Dad/elder that the WT has set the precedent for using secular sources for supporting a point. It is one thing for Witnesses not to use any outside sources in their study, but what about our "progressive bible studies?"

  If we have a study/call that doubts we have the truth on a certain subject, we are going to try and "prove" the truth to them by using "only WT" sources?

  "Yes Mr. Ignorant Study, this really is the truth, and if you aren't sure, just read some more of our stuff, but ONLY our stuff. Please don't compare it to any other religious, historical, or educational resources as this could confuse you, and hinder your progress toward Baptism. Just don't worry your little head with researching any details about these WT publications, because we have been guided by Holy Spirit to include only True informaton in them from "worldly sources," so that you don't have to waste your time and needlessly delay your baptism."

  so wish I had said SOMETHING....oompa
• 

  lfcviking

  there is hope for the congregation yet. There are a few who speak their minds and don't swallow everything from the publications and the platform without critically analyzing it.

  Yes but for how long? The WT will probably one day see to this.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  there is hope for the congregation yet. There are a few who speak their minds and don't swallow everything from the publications and the platform without critically analyzing it.

  Yes but for how long? The WT will probably one day see to this.

  Don't be surprised if the company-loyal elder calls the C.O. and tattles on the other.
  Then the C.O. will talk about unity in front of the congregation. The super-elder will
  receive that as a message that he was right and the others have to agree with him.

  Actually, I don't care to see the kind of "balance" you saw in the thinking elder. They
  aren't going to free people from the bondage of the doctrine, so I prefer the ridiculous
  ones with blinders on.
• 

  changeling

  The problem is, the first elder was right. This amounts to a prohibition, and that's how it will go down.

  changeling
• 

  erandir

  Don't be surprised if the company-loyal elder calls the C.O. and tattles on the other.

  Naw...they are in the same family. I know these two and the "super-elder" won't do a thing about it. They have too much dirt on each other, for one thing. The thinking brother's parents are well-respected bethelites who have a habit of tempering stupid comments like that of the super-elder. He does the same and no one ever says a thing. In fact, he's well-respected for it by the other elders and PO.

  Actually, I don't care to see the kind of "balance" you saw in the thinking elder. They
  aren't going to free people from the bondage of the doctrine, so I prefer the ridiculous
  ones with blinders on.

  That's certainly your opinion, your choice. I prefer the ones with balance because if any reform is going to take place in the organization, it's going to start with ones like these. And yes, they are working in their own way to free people from following blindly without thinking. Without his irreverant example and that of others like him, I probably wouldn't have broken away so easily. As for balance (not too conservative, not too liberal) being a good thing for change, I already know of 2 congregations where the majority of brothers in charge have a good balance and aren't all ultra-conservative. I have yet to hear from my friends in one of those congregations as to what they think of this article and how the part was done in their hall.
• 

  White Dove

  Any little tiny hint that something is not approved by the WTS and it is FORBIDDEN! It is not supposed to be taken logically or critically because the WTS already did this bit of thinking for them. It is done.
• 

  erandir

  The problem is, the first elder was right. This amounts to a prohibition, and that's how it will go down.

  The vast majority will see it as such and just blindly follow along, true. But this won't affect the ones who already have a good habit of examining every uttered expression (paraphrasing a scripture) instilled in them. They will argue that the society didn't say they prohibited anything, and they'll be right. No elder can do anything against such a one. All the elder would have is the weak argument that the society discourages independent study from extra-societal publications.

  The wife of an elder in my congregation has a good attitude towards all this. She says that she is not going to trust her relationship with Jehovah to anyone else but herself. She doesn't accept things she hears from the platform or from the publications without first looking things up for herself and reasoning on them. For example, she questions how the FDS can write of the new information in a recent watchtower study that Judas Iscariot definitely won't be resurrected. She calls that speculation on their part and that there is no way they can know that for sure. No one can do a thing against her for that view, either. (Although I bet my "super-elder" is keeping a fixed eye on her.)
• 

  erandir

  Here's another scripture my wife was keeping in mind during that part on the meeting.

  Gal. 1:8 "However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed."