What is the WT afraid of???????????????????

by Zep 59 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Maxee

  Another reason they are afraid is these types questions I found this extract on another site regarding the new policy on blood.
  

  It is also possible that the WTS is attempting to deflect some of the criticism it has been receiving in medical journals in recent months over the contradictions and inconsistencies in the policy and improve its position with some European governments who feel that the WTS is a dangerous sect

  Asking myself why would the organisation go this far to be allowed into these countries.

  please not tax-free $$$$$$$!!!!!!

  Edited by - Maxee on 16 June 2000 22:37:25
• 

  marion_nett

  Roamingfeline:

  My profile says 29 POSTS, not 29 years! I wouldn't be so quick to throw around that "L" word (liar), at least until you get your facts straight. (Although even then it's tacky.) FYI: I am 50 years old, have been a witness for 32 years, baptized in 1968 (you do the math - or on second thought - maybe someone else should do it for you.)

  Here is the post of yours I was responding to:
  

  It's not that she's a religious infant and not ready for "meat and potatoes" it's that she prefers ONE type of food with no spices in it.

  The "one type with no spices" struck me as more of a dig than a "defense" as you say. Perhaps you didn't mean it they way it sounded ...? Simon is right, however, about not being too sensitive. I'll try to take that to heart.

  Oh, and lest you next take issue with this ... I'm not from Andorra either. That was just my little joke - I don't even know where Andorra is. Is that a lie in your book also?

  (Excuse the "sarcasm", but I'm not particularly fond of being called a liar.)
• 

  Roamingfeline

  Marion_nett,

  As you can see, before you ever posted your rebuttal, I had edited my words. My mistake, I had already re-read the profile and fixed it myself. I'm sorry if my words hurt your feelings.

  I guess you could say my words of liking one food without the spices was a dig, but basically I was saying that you weren't an infant on milk, but just wanted ONE FOOD without the spice. In other words, one religion with no other views ACCEPTED.
  Take it how you like, I have already posted in several places that all views should be welcome if that's the way Simon wanted it when he set this forum up. And he has already assured me THAT is the case. So I defend your right to post your views, just as I would defend my right to post Mine without pot-shots from you about it.

  RCAT
• 

  waiting

  Time for Humor!!!

  May God defend me from my friends. I can defend myself from my enemies. Voltaire

  Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain. Lily Tomlin

  I don't know whether the world is full of smart men bluffing or imbeciles who mean it. Morrie Brickman

  Shall we take a civil breather? I'm ready.....
• 

  Roamingfeline

  Waiting,

  Good quotes.. lol Thanks, I'll drink to that!

  Shall we take a civil breather? I'm ready.....
• 

  Frenchy

  I'm interested in Marion's thoughts on this but not her's exclusively. Please, anyone and everyone feel free to join in. On this matter of the Society not wanting debate, I can understand how they would not want to form a panel that would periodically allow itself to be debated on doctrine publicly. But a lot of people, including myself, would like some serious questions answered. In other words, we would like the communication to be two way instead of one way. Some may reply that we could request a 'Bible Study' which, as most of us will readily admit, is not really a Bible study but more a publication study. Or some may say that we could invite the C.O. over and he would explain these things to us. What would be the problem with that? Sounds reasonable!
  Not really. A 'Bible study' is not and never was meant as a format or forum for doctrinal matters to be discussed, it is a means of teaching doctrine, not discussing it. A visit from the C.O. is virtually the same thing. It is never a discussion it's always a 'lesson'. The C.O.'s don't have the authority to go beyond what they have been told anymore than you and I do. They are not allowed critical analysis of doctrine, they are only permitted to restate it seven different kinds of ways.
  It's important for us to understand that a C.O. will never admit to you that they share any of your doubts about a certain doctrine. They may express it very diplomatically to the D.O. but never to you. Their job is to convince you that what you are being taught is true regarless of how illogical it really is in your own eyes. There can be no discussion with a C.O. or a D.O. or even with your elders who answer to these guys.
  So my question is: What is one to do? Where do you go to discuss your questions? The Society's stance is this: Weare going to tell youhow it is. You can never, ever tell us anything. Even if you should be so bold as to do so and even if we consider what you said and decide that it's true. If a decision is made to go that way, we will inform the masses that this change is a result of new light coming from God and thus let you know in no uncertain terms that you had nothing to do with it. We will even go so far to tell you that 'independent' thinking is to be avoided. In other words, you let us think. That's not your job!
  So how should sincere questions be handled for one who does not want to 'wait on Jehovah' (translation: the Society)?

  Edited by - Frenchy on 17 June 2000 12:48:36
• 

  waiting

  Dear Group,

  Please, I need help in remembering where I read this quote. It was a '50s court case (I think) and Fred Franz was responding to questions.

  The gist of the conversation went somewhat like this.

  Questioner: So, if one has a quesion, or even insight which is beyond the WTBTS, and he submits it to the GB, what should he do?

  FF: He should then wait on the GB to judge on his insight and see if it has merit. If it does, they will publish to that effect.

  Questioner: What if the GB doesn't publish?

  FF: Then he should be patient and wait.

  Questioner: What if he isn't patient and talks to others about his viewpoint?

  FF: Then he is in the postion of being disfellowshipped for moving ahead of the spiritual light of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Unity is the main thing in our organization.

  Questioner: What if he is disfellowshipped, and then the GB publishes the same new light?

  FF: Unity is the main thing. He should have waited on the FDS.

  This is not verbatim - I can't remember where I read it, but the case took place in the late '50s.

  My point is that deep discussion of scripture - which would involve opinions, and perhaps the changing of viewpoints, can only be brought so far with the Society. They hold the last card - always, and if the JW doesn't like it - he should be quiet or be disfellowshipped.

  Even if they eventually come to another decision - as perhaps in the blood issue - if others move ahead of them, they will be disfellowshipped or "will be considered to have disassociated themselves."

  The rank and file are in a lose/lose situation when discussing varying viewpoints with the Society and/or it's representatives, in my opinion.

  On another site, Shaun's place (Maxee???), there is a series of scanned letters from a questioning elder to the Society in the '70s, and the Society's scanned responses. The elder was removed for having doubts. Notes from his "removal" meeting are scanned also.

  Extremely moving - and if you've ever met a quiet, nice, humble elder (I have), his letters to the Society have the ring of truth to them. The Society's letters to him and also to the other elders about him do not have the ring of truth.

  It is well worth looking for this site - she just moved to a new address and gave link on H20 within the last day or two.

  Edited by - waiting on 17 June 2000 12:20:50
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  This is so true. You learn very quickly never to "go ahead of the FDS" and never bring out ANY point at the meeting that isn't just paraphrasing the literature.

  Any research is supposed to be done with the Society's publications.....never outside sources.

  It's easier to control people this way.
• 

  Maxee

  It's important for us to understand that a C.O. will never admit to you that they share any of your doubts about a certain doctrine. They may express it very diplomatically to the D.O. but never to you. Their job is to convince you that what you are being taught is true regarless of how illogical it really is in your own eyes. There can be no discussion with a C.O. or a D.O. or even with your elders who answer to these guys.

  So my question is: What is one to do?

  Leave

  Sometimes we need to be awakened

  waiting heres the new link to shauns site[url] http://www.jwfiles.com/[/url] and the case you are talking about was in Scotland 1954 and Haydon c Covington? The full transcrippt is on the JW research link.

  "Unity keeping control of the masses is the most important thing". WHAT FOR???? I know its unbelievable....!!!!
  Where is the Christ likeness in those pursuits!
  I have also go one for one I think you Frenchy will find will help soothe the pain without bitterness but love. It moved me because at times I find it so difficult not to be angry. We all need to keep faith no matter what .Faith in God and Jesus who empathises with us.

  There is no such thing as new light. Who set that protocol. Light is light.
  [url] http://www.jwfiles.com/[/url]

  Edited by - Maxee on 18 June 2000 2:4:16
• 

  Pathofthorns

  Waiting: Perhaps you are referring to the "Walsh Case". There was a brief discussion on Witnet regarding it, and part of the transcript is included by going to the following thread:

  http://discussion.witnesses.net/Forum67/HTML/000015.html

  Frenchy: I thought similarly to your comments. When discussing some "concerns" with an elder, he suggested that I need a Bible Study. Of course a Bible Study would only like you said be a publication Study and would only be telling me things I already know, but am having difficulty accepting.

  The elder made it clear that outside material supporting other arguments would not be permitted. Such a study really benefits no one, and offers no real help to those with disquieting thoughts. Discussion is not permitted, and if such discussion occurs, one becomes liable for apostacy. It is very difficult. It also exposes a gaping hole in our claims that we are a free people.

  Pathofthorns