Can we excuse the R&F for ever ?

by Phizzy 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  adamah

  Shirley said- Firstly, the WT's blood fractions policy has nothing to do with being less authoritarian.

  The hell it doesn't: JWs are now allowed to accept blood fractions as a conscience matter. That's a HUGE loosening of authority by a policy change that had to be approved by the GB, and whether it was done as a pragmatic concession to avoid future wrongful death law suits is irrelevant to the effect: the policy now allows rank-and-file JWs to exercise their decision-making capabilities to decide to accept blood fractions, when they risked automatically DFing in the past. That's ALL about delegation of authority, the right to make a choice which was forbidden in the past.

  So, you wanna try again?

  BTW, I didn't ask you to disprove my example, I asked YOU to provide ONE example of how the WT GB is more-authoritarian than in the recent past last century (obviously you could cite examples from the early formative days in the 19th century, well before the WTBTS was formed)....

  As you note, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that's an eye-brow raising claim you are trying to support: certainly such standards apply to claims YOU adopt, right?

  EDIT: I see you added the power-play for consolidation of power by officially pushing the anointed class out of their definition of the FDS. However, since there's NEVER been an official channel for the anointed to exert ANY power over the GB, it seems more of a slight to the anointed classes collective ego, and without any practical control or authority implications.

  Perhaps you can present some evidence of such a channel having existed, since I'm not aware of any examples (and know there's been attempts in the past for the anointed to gain representation on the GB, even forming organizations to do so; such efforts have largely been ignored in the past, and got some of the individuals DFed for apostacy).
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  adam: I asked YOU to provide ONE example of how the WT GB is more-authoritarian than in the past....

  --

  I did...and you completely ignored it. If you're going to disregard the example you asked for, then I doubt your sincerity in asking...

  -

  additionally, how do you explain the fact that blood transfusions used to be totally acceptable for a JW, but organ transplants were banned? Then the WT banned blood transfusions but allowed organ transplants. Originally, all blood fractions were also banned.

  -

  adam: and whether it [bood fractions] was done as a pragmatic concession to avoid future wrongful death law suits is irrelevant"

  -

  I wholeheartedly disagree. It is completely relevant.

  When a corporation or group in power formulates policy based on potential litigation, and not the welfare of it's ruled-over class, that again is completely authoritarian. You also ignored the fact that WT has hijacked a JWs conscientious decision-making rights in regard to their own healthcare. Again, how does this fit into your fantasy of a "less authoritarian" WT? Especially compared to Russell's view of organization and conscience (which you completely ignored)?
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  adam: JWs are now allowed to accept blood fractions as a conscience matter.

  -

  tell me, Adam- how is a JWs "conscience" involved when they are only allowed to accept what WT dictates are "acceptable" fractions? That's not conscience !!

  And, when JWs could not accept ANY blood fractions, was that also a "conscience" matter? Or, was it WT telling them what to do regardless of what their conscience said?

  A truly conscientious choice would be if WT's policy to every JW was, "read your Bible, do some research, pray about it, then YOU decide what to do. WT will not question your decision nor lay down any rules in this matter".
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Perhaps you can present some evidence of such a channel having existed, since I'm not aware of any examples (and know there's been attempts in the past for the anointed to gain representation on the GB, even forming organizations to do so; such efforts have largely been ignored in the past, and got some of the individuals DFed for apostacy).

  --

  why would i present evidence for a strawman argument? We are discussing things in the context of a JW's mindset....not provable evidence.

  -

  the question at hand is not whether WT doctrines are logical or provable in regard to the identitiy of the "faithful slave". You asserted that WT is less authoritarian. The redifining of who constitute the F&DS is a power grab...and matters not if it's a proven scriptural teaching, as JWs have no choice but to conform.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  I feel it is important to bear in mind that the WTB&TS membership is not fixed, it is fluid. The Borg as a whole may grow, but each year thousands of people leave for many reasons. Some kill themselves, some go insane and require institutionalization, and some walk away to follow their bliss.

  I'm not saying there are not a LOT of "old-timers." but that is more because of psychological inertia than deep conviction. People are loathe to admit when they've made a bad decision. If they realize they are going to die without having a chance to waltz thru the Great Tribulation and Armageddon into "THE NEW WORLD" they might feel they have nothing to lose by sticking around and going through the motions, the way I believe the majority of people of all religions do.

  (I feel that most people are CLOSET ATHEISTS, which is exactly what "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power" means. I mean, how many people say, "Yes I believe that there is a God, and that he wants me to behave as though he did not exist"?)
• 

  Xanthippe

  I tend to agree with you Phizzy with regard to my personal experience with the R&F. Two of my three siblings would possibly not put the phone down on me if I kept phoning them, although I have no certainty of that. The third would and she has done several times.

  It has seemed wrong to me for quite a few years now to go along with this attitude as if I am a disgusting person to be merely tolerated when it is their behaviour that is disgusting. So I don't contact them any more and they ignore me. They know I am not coming back and I don't try and talk them out of their beliefs.

  I wont be part of this cult's rules but it is more than that. So many times they could have continued associating with us after family deaths using the excuse of family business but they have deliberately chosen not to. They have chosen their life, I am convinced of that. What they are doing is wrong on every level, moral, ethical, humanitarian. I object strongly to the infringement of human rights anywhere in the world and I have written to national leaders to tell them so. Why should I accept atrocious behaviour from my own family?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Allowing blood fractions was a necessary compromise to avoid liability and to allow the WTBTS corporation to continue, thereby retaining the authority made possible by it's continued existence. Making an "allowance" for blood fractions when the GB never had the authority to ban them in the first place, is not an example of giving up authority. It reminds me of a story...

  A salesman met a farmer on his route. While talking to the farmer, a three legged pig comes walking up, as friendly as can be. "Why does he have three legs?", the salesman asked. The farmer starts singing the pig's praises, " That there is the best pig you will ever come across. He saved my boy from drowning in the pond. He saved my wife from a copper-head, heck, he saved us all by waking us when the house was on fire! Yep, that there is the world's greatest pig!" The salesman said, " That's amazing, but you never told me why he has only three legs.."

  " Oh that! Well, you see...when you have pig that great, you can't eat him all at once.."

  I am sure that pig appreciates the Farmers generosity and lack of authoritarianism. Unfortunately for the pig, that "compromise" did not change his future.

  DD
• 

  cofty

  How can somebody like KingSolomon/Adam who has never been a JW find the hubris to tell ex-JWs with decades of personal experience that the GB are becoming less authoritarian?

  I can't believe what I am reading.

  They deserve to be told when they are behaving badly- Phizzy

  I could not agree more...
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Here is Adam's idea of a non-authoritarian, "loosening" GB/Watchtower "allowing" a JW to exercise their conscience:

  -

  Adam: "JWs are now allowed to accept blood fractions as a conscience matter. That's a HUGE loosening of authority by a policy change that had to be approved by the GB, and whether it was done as a pragmatic concession to avoid future wrongful death law suits is irrelevant to the effect: the policy now allows rank-and-file JWs to exercise their decision-making capabilities to decide to accept blood fractions, when they risked automatically DFingin the past. That's ALL about delegation of authority, the right to make a choice which was forbidden in the past."

  "...with elders trying to convince R&F JWs they really should accept blood fractions to avoid dying from refusing life-saving blood (the old instincts die hard amongst the rank and file, and they'd rather die than learn about what is acceptable by the Borg"

  --

  Tell me Adam, how do the words "allowed", "approved", "authority", "policy", "forbidden", "convince", "should", "automatic disfellowshipping", and "acceptable" fit into anyone's definition of a JW freely exercising their conscience without the say-so of the GB/WT and their dictatorial mandates?

  -

  you can argue it till the cows come home, Adam, but the simple fact of the matter is a JWs "conscience" is whatever the WT tells them it is. Additionally, even regarding fractions, A JW must adhere to WT's strict guidelines.

  -

  Finally, WT's "loosening" of their fractions rules simply to cover their asses from lawsuits hardly constitutes altruism or a GB interested only in a less heavy-handed, "less authoritarian" changing of the guard.

  @ cofty- "hubris" seems completely inadequate to describe it....but it's the best we have
• 

  TTATTelder

  Who cares which GB was worse. They both abuse authority, take advantage of people mentally, physically, emotionally, and financially.

  It's like trying to decide which rapist is the least moral.

  As far as the r&f blame goes, I think it is definitely a case by case situation. Some know more than others. Some are more capable of thinking for themselves than others are.

  Actually when I think about some of the people in my hall, it is disgusting how the GB (of whatever flavor/time period) have convinced many simple-minded people to dedicate their entire life energy to the organization. They really believe they are pioneering for God.

  Also, the fear of being ostracized is a huge deal. The leaders create an exclusive community, engender dependence by talking people into cutting off any other sources of support, and then threaten to rip it out from under them if they dare step out of line. It is truly sick and psychopathic.

  It's a hard hard hard reality to face. Even harder for born-ins who have barely any connections/relationships/support/family etc. outside the org.

  Imagine waking up in the Truman Show as a middle-aged person. No wonder so many get on mind-numbing drugs and bury their heads in the sand.