GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus 55 Replies latest jw friends

  • Eusebius Hieronymus
    Eusebius Hieronymus

    Among responsible ones, a large concern some decades back was the clear need for the individual to be so educated that his/her own Christian conscience would guide, especially in those issues which the Bible writers saw no necessity to spell out. Turned out to be a challenge, to the GB. We know what happened to thoughtful Christian men like Ed Dunlap who valued the Bible over dogma.

    In effect they too were put on a boat and shipped out as if for banishment, as was Lucaris. Yes, they were strangled. As The Watchtower says, "a sobering reminder of what happens when clergy-instigated intrigues stand in the way of freedom of thought and expression." Is there any wonder why the drop in publishers? Lack of zeal? Please!

    A hierarchy has enmeshed itself inextricably in Talmudic dogma. Policy after policy, legalism after legalism. Can you imagine Paul or Peter ever condoning this kind of activity?

    <One is the militant hardliner service department boys that are responsible for the hard-line articles in the Watchtower and one of moderates that write in the Awake.>

    This statement is too simplistic and it is inaccurate. The author may not have been talking to insiders who know, or perhaps they have misinterpreted, or are speaking in generalities. Service has been highly influential organizationally but is not responsible for writing the Watchtower, although clearly Writing took a huge swipe at that department with this article. BTW With the changes in Service and the institution of the Branch committee, isn't Writing now handling Our Kingdom Ministry, previously the organ of Service?

    Watch, elders, for letters that come your way from the new "Society," the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, with the signature Legal and Service Departments. That has implications which are very clear to those reading the tea leaves.

    Look again at the 10/15/00 QFR with its picture of the couple reviewing the Bible over coffee, with "Questions To Ask Yourself." "Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if ...?" What scriptures are they reviewing? It's an inconsistent policy that NO ONE can really explain in Brooklyn.

    Who wants to be viewed as "weak" in conscience? The average publisher thinks that there is only one answer to the questions posed in the box. At some future time, having given itself wiggle room, the Society will say, "We told you that you had a choice." They're hoping that a miraculous appearance of blood substitutes will bale them out in a few years.

    The flock, however, are truly uneducated. Can they really go beyond three words? Most blur health issues with Scriptural issues over blood, and close their eyes to what no other readers of the Bible have concluded, saying: "What part of 'abstain from blood' don't you understand."

    A dumbed-down TM School is the answer?

    Better to read the Watchtower's comment in that QFR: "The Life-Giver urges all to trust in Jesus' shed blood."

    How inconsistent can you get?

    A friend of a Friend shared this with me: "By its deplorable action the Society has demonstrated that it is less concerned with the real and day-to-day interests of helpless and innocent children than it is with its own instrumentational viability. The internal strife and anger on this issue runs deep and it is heating up! The Society should have listened to its battery of lawyers years ago when they advised a uniform policy of reporting child abuse when protection and justice is reasonable expected.

    "Why did the Society want its correspondence held in such strict confidence? Because they betray the Society’s self-interest gained at the expense of children and their families! In the end their interests will suffer over this and other issues.

    "Just how deep the Society will yet mire itself in this sordid affair is yet to be seen, but what lies ahead will become even more untenable and nasty unless some major change is enacted by decision-makers at Brooklyn Bethel on a number of key issues into compliance with that which is sound and moral based upon the Bible, most importantly in those issues involving blood and child abuse."

    Amen.

  • Victor_E
    Victor_E

    <This statement is too simplistic and it is inaccurate. The author may not have been talking to insiders who know, or perhaps they have misinterpreted, or are speaking in generalities. Service has been highly influential organizationally but is not responsible for writing the Watchtower, although clearly Writing took a huge swipe at that department with this article. BTW With the changes in Service and the institution of the Branch committee, isn't Writing now handling Our Kingdom Ministry, previously the organ of Service>

    You are correct that was an over generalization. While there are many factors that ultimately influence what information gets printed, I have been told by my sources that the service department has a strong influence and that their paradigm is one of intolerance. One other factor is that statement is very dated as in early 1990. I am sure since then many changes have taken place.
    Victor Escalante

  • Eusebius Hieronymus
    Eusebius Hieronymus

    Wasn't correcting you as much as taking the opportunity to clarify, Victor. I'm happy someone understands "the Society" is not a monolith, as some of us have been banging away at.

    The GB Service Committee featured one really tough, hardliner in the person of Ted Jaracz. Remains to be seen how boxed in he is. Really missed is the intelligence of Lloyd Barry, who could effective keep TJ in check.

    To finger good guys would be the kiss of death, of course.

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    Hi Copper,
    Just keep in mind that the 'ruling ecclesiastical authorities' are responsible for their own actions in judgement. Who amongst them may have been saved or unsaved actually determines who was Christian, not their 'religion', nor their titles.
    "You shall know them by their love for one another".
    Rex

  • Copernicus
    Copernicus

    Thanks so much for that juvenile insight Rex.

    What I'll keep in mind is that you're a troll.

    Evangel-a-troll.

  • Skimmer
    Skimmer

    I must post a brief interjection about the comment that the Catholic Church has at any time banned the reading of the bible. There is no such ban and there never has been.

    The Church has in the past and continues today to have a policy of permitting only certain translations of the bible for liturgical use. It has done this to prevent misleading or deceptive translations and editing such as the omission of the deuterocanonical books. There are hundreds of approved versions, and the oldest, the Latin Vulgate from St. Jerome of the fourth century, is still in use in some areas.

    Of course, there is no prohibition for owning and studying any version of the bible, approved or not.

    Some Catholic comments on bible versions: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Dearest Maximillian...

    That is indeed why my Lord said, 'Beware the leaven... of the Pharisees... which is hypocrisy.'

    Talk about pointing a 'crooked' finger. How about the words in the last and first paragraphs of pages 69-70 of the Proclaimer's Book. How does 'dem apples' grab ya?

    Woe to the scribes... and Pharisees...

    A slave of Christ,

    SJ

  • Maximus
    Maximus

    Skimmer, if you have access to the New Jerome Handbook, there is a section on the Church and some very pointed quotations from recent encyclicals regarding freedom of scholarship. I've cited them in the past. There are misunderstandings on the part of many sincere persons who have believed everything the Society has said about the Church, and maybe a quotation would be helpful here. Otherwise I'll cite them in a future post.

    The New Jerusalem Bible is a very fine translation, with excellent references. Here's an outstanding and comprehensive resource for English Bible Translations:
    http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/english.htm

    Max

  • wasasister
    wasasister
    To expose this clergy-inspired pressure, on March 15, 1918, the Watch Tower Society released the tract Kingdom News No. 1. Its message? The six-column-wide headline read: "Religious Intolerance-Pastor Russell's Followers Persecuted Because They Tell the People the Truth." Below the heading "Treatment of Bible Students Smacks of the 'Dark Ages'" were set forth the facts of the persecution and the ban that had begun in Canada. The instigators? The tract pulled no punches in pointing to the clergy, who were described as "a bigoted class of men who have systematically endeavored to prevent the people from understanding the Bible and to throttle all Bible teaching unless it comes through them." What a hard-hitting message!

    From page 69/70 of the Proclaimers Book. Thanks for pointing this out Shelby.

    wasasister, wondering where she put her hip-waders

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Greetings Nicodemus!

    : You are absolutely correct that the article is fascinating on many levels. My take at the time was that it was written by someone very intelligent and perceptive, and also with a keen sense of certain ironies.

    Yes! The irony! I've talked with several of my friends about how this kind of stuff could "slip" out into the rags. I can only see a narrow range of possibilities as to why this can happen. AGuest (Shelby J.) was quite correct when she stated that the GB has not had anything to do with what goes in the rags since the early 1970's. She told me that in her meeting with Lloyd Barry, he said exactly that. I didn't believe her at first, but I had it confirmed from those who know. Shelby, I confronted you on this, but you were right and I was wrong. My apologies to you. If it doesn't involve a change in doctrine or policy, the GB get their magazines delivered to their rooms at the same time as every other Bethelite, and they get to read them at that time. Just like everyone else in Bethel.

    So, how many possible reasons could there be for this kind of stuff to "slip" into the rags?

    1) The liberal faction in Writing wants to subtley convey WT hypocrisy to those R&F who can think.

    2) Too many Bethelites are interested in getting this "issue" out and probably like most dubs, they never read the crap that is in it, anyway. It just "slips" by, in that case. Aware dubs will get the message. Braindead dubs will remain braindead and call it "spiritually deep" or "refreshing" without having a clue about what it really says.

    3) The WT writers are fully aware of their own hypocricy, but are so used to getting away with it for a dozen decades that they shamelessly try it again.

    Are there other possibilities I haven't considered? I'm sure their are. Let's hear them!

    : The sad thing to me is that I didn't hear much talk about this article from local brothers and sisters I know.

    You must know a lot of braindead dubs. Even worse, you must know a lot of smart dubs who can see the irony, but are too afraid to bring it up.

    I wished I could help more of them to think, but I'm doing my best: I'm "shakin' the bush, boss. Shakin' the bush."

    Farkel

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit