GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Copernicus

  Maximus:

  I’ve been following this thread with some interest. It now seems to me that your point here was to get us to think in terms of what political maneuverings may be going on behind the scenes at Bethel, such as might be evident in the article you’ve brought to our attention.

  Because of their exclusive nature, most of us aren’t privy to these sorts of insider subtleties, and they tend to border on the esoteric.

  If there is some sort of point here that’s being missed, would you please be more direct about it.

  Jerome particularly, and Farkel had some very interesting things to say that bear comment on, however the need for sleep prevents me from exploring them at this time.

  Tomorrow is another day.
• 

  cornish

  Maximus
  
  The watchtower has written several good articles along these lines, the problem the watchtower society has is on the one hand they need to control the membership on the inside but on the other hand appeal to potential new recruits and try to appear to the world as a free expression religion, another thing is mentaly to by having the actual nerve to write these articles no one would even suspect to question or apply these things to the region responsible for writing these articles because one would automatically assume that anyone writing an article against such practices would never do these things themselves.
  
  A bunch of complete hypocrites.
• 

  TR

  Maximus,

  Sadly, this is a stance that in various ways survives even to our day."

  This to me sounds obviously like the writers are "trying to tell us something". However, depending on who or what the average dub knows about the internal workings of the Society, or if they're hardcore loyal dubs, they'll just remain ignorant of the clues and assume they're talking about some other religion. BUT, the JW rumour mill should get the ball rolling, along with those on this forum of course.

  Of course I'm speculating here.

  TR

  The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
  —Edmund Burke
• 

  comment

  When your typical Witness (including how many of us used to be) reads an article like this, he or she does not even think of applying the criticisms to the Society. After years of indoctrination that "Jehovah's Witnesses have the true religion" and "the faithful and discreet slave provides food at the proper time," why would they?

  Instead, the target is (usually) assumed to be the Catholic Church (or some other particularly hierarchical church of Christendom).

  comment
• 

  blondie

  Farkel, I appreciated that comment "smart dubs afraid to bring it up." I used to do that but the looks I get are not encouraging. There are more than a few JWs that read these articles with understanding but don't dare discuss them with others for fear of being kicked out.

  "We must have order!"

  Nice comments everyone, from a JW who is not braindead yet.
• 

  lauralisa

  blondie, that was my experience as well. The fear of being sucked into a spontaneous earthquake and stricken with leprosy also helped me keep those "errant" thoughts in check!

  Is there any evidence that Moses used fear tactics or threats of retaliation to keep those bad independent thinkers in line? Can the borg even legitimately use this story to keep people compliant and unquestioning? Was Korah et al rebelling against policy or procedures or did he just think Moses was a dork? Or was his issue more about wanting to usurp power for his own glorification?

  I would be interested in anyone's reasoning on this and what the real context of the "Korah" account is in the bible..

  Thank you ....

  LL (numb and dazed Klass)
• 

  Maximus

  :: Because of their exclusive nature, most of us aren’t privy to these sorts of insider subtleties, and they tend to border on the esoteric. If there is some sort of point here that’s being missed, would you please be more direct about it.

  Painfully aware of what you say. No, you've got the point, but I'll go further with an example. There are good men who chafe at a flawed blood policy that is fraught with legalisms and is patently inconsistent to all who give it more than a casual glance. It is accreted policy rather than Bible teaching, Talmudic in its very nature.

  Without putting too fine a point on it, that there is no unanimity over the blood policy among the governing body and top decision-makers; rather, very hard feelings have developed. Obviously this is one of many areas regarding the heart and soul of the organization and where it will go post the "generation" doctrine jettison.

  The blood policy is yet more glaringly inconsistent to anyone who knows "the four major components" are not made up by physiologists or physicians, they are strictly artificial invention of the Society rabbis. The two-witness rule on pedophiles is horribly unenlightened, but the legalists are clinging to it. The brutal results of non-Biblical enforced shunning are very worrisome to many inside. You understand ...

  I hope I have helped persons see "the Society" as not monolithic. In no way am I apologetic, I'm just offering insight.

  Only this morning was I apprised of the death of a young child due to an "inadvertent air embolism" while the cardiovascular surgeon was playing the forced game of keeping blood in circuit. You'd be amazed at what surgeons have to do in in the OR regarding "semantics and nitpicking," as one surgeon noted.

  Wonder how Dunsscot would feel about THAT risk/benefit, the very REAL, non-theoretical death of a child, not from some tainted blood, but from a higher risk procedure to satisfy Society rabbis rather than their own internal witness-bearer. I find him woefully uninformed about the medical aspects of blood. That's not his fault, because the Society's emphasis from the beginning has been on the medical rather than scriptural.

  I confess I got emotional at reading this article, thinking of men I know who have vision and insight and have struggled for years, particularly those still inside. I'll cease rambling.

  Max
• 

  ozziepost

  G'day Maximus,

  Thanks for bringing up a worthwhile topic.

  Thanks all who responded. Mrs Ozzie and I have read them with interest and to many we have said: "Yes, Yes ! That's right!"

  It's a moot point as to how many of the R&F recognise the hypocrisy found in some of the arguments developed in supplementary articles. I suspect not very many allow themselves to see it, for the reasons stated by Blondie, namely "There are more than a few JWs that read these articles with understanding but don't dare discuss them with others for fear of being kicked out."

  Maximus: For several years I have been intrigued as to how some articles with divergent views to the orthodoxy are "allowed" to get published. There aren't too many, I admit, but an occasional one. For example, there was a study article in the July 15, 1999 issue entitled "Helping People To Draw Close to Jehovah". This article addressed the decline in publisher numbers and sought to explain why this was happening. As might be expected, it blamed the R&F ! Apparently, the R&F had got the emphasis in their witnessing all wrong. It stated (in para 16, p13):

  "Having aroused a person's interest by telling him or her about the hope of everlasting life in Paradise, do we focus our teaching on just the basics of Scriptural knowledge and then lay emphasis principally on what the person must do to get eternal life? Could our teaching consist solely of this: 'If you want to live forever in Paradise, you must study, go to meetings, and share in the preaching work'?"

  Since this was written I have not noticed a discernable shift in emphasis. We still have the Knowledge book with its feature of illustrations of Paradise, front and back. We still have that style of illustrations in the magazines. What changed? I found it interesting at the time that this thought reflected what Ray Franz had written about the "spiritual materialism" of the Witnesses.

  The article then goes on to 'recommend' teaching newly interested ones in such a way as they develop a "Deep love for Jesus through full knowledge of His role as Redeemer, Head of the congregation, loving High Priest, and reigning King."(Para 18) This is Christian teaching. They even have a capital 'H' in He! (Look at how many times in the publications he is spelt with a small 'h' when referring to Jehovah.)

  But there's more Christian teaching in this paragraph! It goes on to read: "It means making Jesus so real to them that he virtually dwells in their hearts" Then follows a quote from Ephesians 3:14-17 highlighting that "Christ dwell through your faith in your hearts".

  Someone in Writing Dept is learning how to write Christian belief! Interestingly this has not been repeated in the two years since then. What happened to this apparent 'sea change'? If anyone's hopes were aroused, then they have been disappointed. But who is it that could write that? How did it pass the 'Theocratic' censors? Fascinating.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "You can know the law by heart, without knowing the heart of it"
  Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace?
• 

  slipnslidemaster

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

  Eusebius Hieronymus:

  Both you and Maximus have made statements to this effect. Why are you worried about that? Get rid of the "good" guys and let the power hungry assholes run the organization into the ground. Don't the "good" guys need a wakeup call in your opinion anyway? What good does staying in the borg do them?

  I don't understand.

  Slipnslidemaster: "The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
  - Salvador Dali
• 

  LDH

  Maximus, gread topic.

  Skimmer, I used to have a Catholic Bible, I can't remember the title of it now. (If you're interested I'll ask my Dad, he has it.) Anyhow, the forward of that bible was written by a monsignor (?) or other very high church official.

  The wording (sorry I can't be precise) was to the effect that the Bible was never written for common man and it fact they can't understand it without the interpretation of the church. One sentence I remember in particular said "Where teachings of the Bible and teachings of the church seem to be in conflict, you should follow the teachings of the church."

  Now, I'm not knocking Catholics at all, but I have seen these versions for myself.

  Interestingly, the above seems to be exactly what the JW do, that is, when something appears to be in conflict with our personal understanding of the bible, we should wait on Jehovah and in the meantime, lean on his organization.

  Fascinating, indeed.

  Lisa