Wow .... just wow!
New CO talk: Be loyal to Org. even if you get weird instructions or can prove them wrong doctrinally!
by sir82 89 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
whereami
Mind control at it's best!!!
-
andrekish
Solomon to David: 'Above all things guard your heart.'
If your heart does not comprehend instructions given by men then those instructions must at least be checked and verified, as must the reasoning behind those instructions. Surely the bosses know that it is unreasonable to expect conscience to be calmed when clearly suspect instructions are given and not accounted for.
Do not Jehovah's Witnesses themselves say that man can only dominate man to his injury? It therefore follows that surely it is vital to explain clearly all cases and intructions given whenever they cause confusion or bad conscience. I cannot recall any accounts of Christ saying 'Do this without question.'
Merely as a casual observer I ask: Does the WTS have a complaints department?
-
lilbluekitty
Hope it's okay to bump this even though it's old, I was "out" for a little while so I don't think I ever heard this talk. Freaky!!
-
Aussie Oz
The kicker is of course, that this level of control is really only expressed verbally by the mouthpieces of the corporation, never in print...
plausable denyability
oz
-
Band on the Run
The remaining IRA factions should have the WT's axx. Irish people do not think independently. The monasteries off the coast of Ireland kept Western civilization alive. I watch C-Span British Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament. The English Parliament was not in session so they showed the Irish Parliament. The president of the country was scathing in commenting about the Roman Catholic Church for pedophilia. And the man is a practicing Catholic. The rage in his voice and other members of Parliament was unbelieaveable. Any remaining links with the govt were being severed.
James Joyce strikes me as an indepedent thinker. Wasn't Samuel Beckett Irish, altho he wrote in French? Their ignorance is never ending.
-
Indian Larry
The reason groups like the "standfasters" and other who stood up to Ruthefords lies are said to have "faded and came to nothing", is because they were following RUSSELLS teachings. Russell was rabidly ANTI-ORGANIZATION. If a group was to follow the same course as the bible students then they would not be expected to grow to a 6-7 million member organization. Those who dropped away from the organization back then (and those who do today as well) have no choice if they want to be true to their heart. The organization will at times make quotes like this that seem to say that the size of the organization shows that it has God's holy spirit is directing them. That is a false assumption though. If size alone was the determining factor then I would have to say that God is giving much more holy spirit to the Catholic and Muslim faiths.
As far as how these small groups that broke away felt about organizing. Here are a couple of quotes from Russell that would shed light on their reasons for not becoming the BORG.
"Many men of many minds have favored more or less strict organizations, and so we find Christians throughout the world today organized on various lines and with more or less rigidity, and each claiming advantages for his particular denomination or system of government. This is wrong!… The tendency of the human mind is either toward anarchy on the one hand, or toward tight organization and bondage on the other. The divine arrangement, avoiding both of these extremes, marks out for the New Creation an organization simple in the extreme, and devoid of everything akin to bondage. Indeed, the injunction of the Scriptures to each individual Christian is, “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal. 5:1 " Studies in the Scriptures Vol 6
"...we have pointed out continually the tendency of Christian people toward union, showing, too, that such a union is predicted in scripture; but that its results, while designed to be good, will really be bad; and this because it will be a mechanical union instead of a heart unity."--WT, Mar 1893, p. 1504
"The endeavor to compel all men to think alike on all subjects, culminated in the great apostasy and the development of the great papal system, and thereby the gospel, the one faith that Paul and the other apostles set forth, was lost - buried under the mass of uninspired decrees of popes and councils. The unity of the early church, based upon the simple gospel and bound only by love, gave place to the bondage of the church of Rome...Each new reform movement (like Protestantism) has made the failure of attempting to make a creed just large enough for its prime movers." --WT, Sep. 1893, p. 1572
Those groups stood by their conscience and did what they felt was right.
-
Vidqun
Most recent CO visit: He uses the example of Moses to explain that a JW should not pursue higher learning. This application is all wrong. As the son of Pharoah's daughter, Moses "was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (cf. Acts 7:22). He went through all that Egyptian learning institutions could offer. In fact he did go to "University" and remained true to his Jewish faith. So, the example of Moses encourages one to send one's children to university. Especially beneficial would be if they could study from home. Then it would be no different to sending them to school.
More on topic: In the Watchtower article "Are You known by Jehovah?" the example of Korah and his followers is used to provide "a serious warning for elders and others in the congregation today," thus encouraging all to show "humility and submission". But the way I read it, this was a coup d' etat in the making, and Korah and followers were killed for attempting to wrest power from Moses and Aaron. I don’t think many JWs or ex-JWs few would attempt a coup d' etat in the congregation or organization, so the comparison is somewhat off the mark.
The TMS book, p. 240, warns: "Proper use of these teaching aids can enrich your talk, touch the lives of people, and make instruction memorable. Improperly used, they may divert attention from valuable instruction." I think both examples "divert attention from valuable instruction." I call that sloppy research. Anymore out there that I might have missed?
-
AvocadoJake
Harold Camping finally opened his mouth to his devout and loyal sheep with some lame excuse. He still won't admit he is wrong (Notice that God mislead him, notice his words carefully in the interview, it's not his fault!) , does this sound familiar to you, or should his followers obey even though they feel lost? Has the Watchtower ever apologized for their erroneous dating of Jesus Christ's return or did they dart from the issue? Did they apologize for their new light which allowed "organ transplants, blood fractions." and who knows what else will be allowed.
-
dropoffyourkeylee
There was a recording posted of this talk by a circuit overseer, or another talk much like it, a few months ago on this site:
Another comment:
From the first post of this subject by sir82:
"Example 2: During World War I, the WT did not promote a strong neutrality position, told Bible Students to "follow conscience" with regard to supporting war efforts. Some Bible Students knew this was wrong, and broke away. But soon after breaking away, they "faded and came to nothing." Eventually, by 1939, the organization got it right and published a series of WT articles on the importance of strict neutrality."
For the speaker to use this in his talk is simply falsehood. The neutrality issue was not the reason most of the Bible Student groups left, I am not aware of any of the early groups leaving for that reason. This is another case of the society trying to rewrite their history. There were two main reasons the leaders of the Bible Student groups left:
Rutherford took over the society and started to p-o everyone. The method he did so was, if not exactly illegal, was unethical. The four elected directors of the society were kicked out the door. They left and started their own magazines and following. PSL Johnson, an early pilgrim, but not a director, related in one of his books how he left the Bethel building one night and Rutherford locked the door and wouldn't let him back in. Hilarious.
The second thing is that Rutherford started to deviate from Russell's teaching. The biggest bone of contention was the seventh volume which was supposedly prepared from Russells notes, so 'written' by Russell. In reality it was written by Fisher and Woodworth. There was a long period from 1917 through till about the mid 30's during which Russell's teachings were changed one by one. What emerged at the end was very different and the majority of the pre-1917 group simply would not accept it.