I'd much rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned!
just saying!
eyeuse2badub
A Tug on the Leash (The Authority Which the GB Wields Over the R&F)
by Oubliette 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Vidiot
I remember this thread.
Good OP.
-
Oubliette
Orphan Crow, thanks for linking the article on Stockholm Syndrome and excerpting some relevant quotes.
Of course we can't know for certain, but the skill with which the WT leadership employ sophisticated methods of mental manipulation suggest that they do so in a planned and calculated way.
I suppose they could possibly be savants at abuse, control and manipulation, but I have come to believe the evidence points in the other direction.
-
DATA-DOG
I'm glad this was bumped. Yesterday's WT summary shed what seemed to be nu-lite about the parable of the FDS.
When you read the parable in context, it's about slaves of Jesus doing their best, just trying really, no matter what their abilities are.
There is a verse where Jesus speaks of many who profess to follow him, but treat his little ones or "brothers" poorly. Instead of the GB teaching that slaves of Jesus must take care of the least ones, they twist it into a lesson about respecting their position as GB.
Maybe it's not new, but it struck a chord with me. They entire lesson of the parable is lost on JWs because of the corrupt leadership. Is it any wonder that JWs have a superficial love for "least ones"?? They don't even realize that they are in that group! Heck, I don't think the majority realize that EVERYONE, including little children, had the heavenly hope in Jesus' day.
They know that 1st century Xians were "anointed", but they are so myopic that they only think of the 1st century "GB"!! LOL!!
DD
-
Oubliette
DD: Instead of the GB teaching that slaves of Jesus must take care of the least ones, they twist it into a lesson about respecting their position as GB.
Yeah, how did "slaves" become everyone's "Master"?
It happened through an Orwellian twist of newspeak. Which for those of you that know, is doubleplusungood. It's a blackwhite bellyfeel.
Let's review: It's a cult!
-
OrphanCrow
Oubilette: Of course we can't know for certain, but the skill with which the WT leadership employ sophisticated methods of mental manipulation suggest that they do so in a planned and calculated way.
Of course we can know for certain. The organizational structure of the WTS and its subservient religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses, are structured in an orderly and calculated way.
The organization is not chaotic - it is held together with ordered structure and carefully planned moves. It would be a mistake to think that the words published by the WTS do not follow the same, ordered structure. What sometimes seems like meaningless babble, is meant to be exactly that - meaningless babble.
The WTS holds its members, and followers, together primarily through the use of the printed word (and scary Armageddon pictures). And the making of rules. Of course it is calculated behaviour.
...In my opinion, Your Honour. ;)
-
Oubliette
Bumpin' it for Slimboyfat. -
slimboyfat
Very good point Oubliette. Even when the GB in effect say "you are free to choose for yourselves" it's clear that they are "giving" you that freedom and they can take it away if they wish.
A lot of their language about choice is extremely disingenuous. They want to micromanage everything but at the same time pretend the result is harmony rather than enforced uniformity.
For example in the QFR about headscarfs the GB recently declared that sisters had to wear a covering in the presence of a baptised publisher but not an unbaptised publisher. What an obsessive level of detail to exert control! Yet at the end of the article they still have the cheek to pretend that ordinary Witnnesses have autonomy in this process:
On the other hand, if a sister is accompanied on an established Bible study by an unbaptized male publisher who is not her husband, she would not Scripturally be required to wear a head covering. Nevertheless, the conscience of some sisters may move them to wear a head covering even in such circumstances.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150215/questions-from-readers/
The reality is that before this WT came out a sister had to wear a head covering to conduct a Bible study if an unbaptised male of whatever age was present, and after this WT she doesn't. Pretending that individual conscience has anything to do with it is disingenuous. Sure sisters can "conscientiously" now decide to impose a stricter rule on themselves than they need to if they wish. Such freedom.
-
prologos
SBF: "Sure sisters can "conscientiously" now decide to impose a stricter rule on themselves than they need to if they wish. Such freedom. and if she does, it is a pull on the leash for the hapless unbaptized publisher too, message: to get baptized a.s.a.p., to get the full respect (headscarf) of the majority of the congregation. killing two birds with one stone. -
slimboyfat
I mean disingenuous in the sense that whoever wrote this pronouncement has zero interest in the thoughts, ideas or conciences of the readers, only in determining what they themselves think the rule should be and laying it down for the readers to follow.
A more honest conclusion to the article might have read:
Yeah, yeah we hear you already: making sisters wear towels in front of nine year old unbaptised boys was a bit over the top. So we've revised this rule for you, a little bit. Only if they're baptised now. See how reasonable we are? And if you want to you can carry on wearing head coverings even in these ridiculous situations. It might even make you feel super righteous. But not as righteous as us, okay. And if we change our minds we reserve the right to switch this rule back at any time, so behave yourselves suckers.