GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  waiting

  Hey Skimmer & Lisa

  I was raised a Catholic. Ever see one of those huge family Bibles on the coffee tables of Catholics? We got ours in 1957-58 - Christmas. Beautiful old world paintings, gold gilt edge, leatherette.

  You see, around those years, the "higher ups" had said it was ok for Catholics to actually have a Bible in their homes. Catholics have catechisms and missles - every child in Catholic schools had them, and knew them. I had a Marian Missle and looked at the pictures in that huge Bible at home, but never read a word of it.

  After growing up, met a salesman who used to sell door-to-door Bibles. He said it was a "heavenly field" when the Catholics were allowed to have a Bible. Chuckling, "made me a whole lot of money."

  Again, as what the WTBTS states, the Bible wasn't written for the "common man" and needs the proper direction. WTBTS says it's them. Catholic priests say it's them.

  Guess everybody's gotta have an angle to sell them Bibles door-to-door.

  waiting
• 

  Norm

  Hi Waiting,

  I think that the Catholic Church's position, first of having the Bible only in latin and not allowing "common" people to have it was a very logic and smart thing. The clergy was probably smart enough to forsee what enormeous damage it would do to both the Bible and the Church if it became generally accessible.

  Many thinking people was of course appalled when they finally was able to read it for themselves. The problem is that most confessing Christians don't read it.

  Norm.
• 

  LDH

  Waiting,

  You're right--that was my point exactly.

  The JW do exactly what they've been knocking the Catholics for doing.
  The only difference, is they don't have to balls to put it in print that way so they hem and haw.

  They have never said, "Where your interpretation of the bible conflicts with what JW teach, follow the organization." Not in that many words. They have dressed it up.

  I am sure the political environment at WBTS is as pure a struggle of good vs. evil as the world has ever seen.

  Lisa
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Maximus

  A very interesting topic, but as always
  when you talk to others…never heard of it!
  And for everyone, it finished with : ‘ It is a sobering
  reminder of what happens when clergy-instigated intrigues
  stand in the way of thought and expression’.

  The pinnacle of hypocrisy !!!

  To Amazing :

  "It does make us wonder if the Society is having some kind of internal political and policy war, …"

  You are not alone…!

  To Copernicus:

  " What really upsets me is the way the Society will arrogate, indirectly, the membership of others held in high moral esteem, such as Lucaris - men such as Hus, Wycliff, Luther, etc. "

  I do think the same.

  To Pathofthorns:

  Your quote ,( April 8, 2000 Awake, page 14)
  demonstrate, if needed, the WTS " blatant hypocrisy "

  To Eusebius:

  "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."

  A very interesting comment, but sadly … TRUE!

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
• 

  Copernicus

  the political environment at WBTS is as pure a struggle of good vs. evil as the world has ever seen.

  From what I’ve been hearing of late, you may be more right then you know, Lisa.

  A point I wanted to make about the magazines: In my last few years as an active dub, I started to notice the wild, pendulum like swings in the editorial content of the mags. There were so many contradictions from one article to the next, and I often saw opposing statements within a few paragraphs of each other in the same article. My wife and I had began to wonder if the authors of the various multipart study articles even bothered to consult with each other on their material. No continuity whatsoever. Bizarre.

  Now it seems as if the struggle going on behind the scenes is what accounts for it. They aren’t talking to the proles through these articles, as much as the different factions are talking to each other! It certainly would explain the nature of the argumentation used over the past few years.

  What do you think?

  Jerome said:

  They're hoping that a miraculous appearance of blood substitutes will bale them out in a few years.

  I think you’re absolutely right. Everything we see now is just stalling and posturing, while they hope they can avoid having to publicly abandon the long standing blood policy (and all that entails) before the blood substitutes appear. The availability of these will make the whole issue a moot point, and will be a big win-win for the Tower; as the problem will just go away. It’s a lawyer’s dream. The fast track approval of Hemo-pure proves they’re just chomping at the bit to get these items on the approved list.

  You’re (the WTS) telling me I can’t store my own blood for personal use, but the collection, processing, and storing of cow’s blood is OK? I think that the collective tin foil hat must have slipped a bit in Brooklyn when they floated this one.

  Great post Jerome. I always enjoy your thoughts.
• 

  AGuest

  Hey, Daddy-O! Peace to you!

  Honey, it was Carey Barber (poor, poor soul - too bad, too bad)... and you owe me absolutely no apology. Hey, I wouldn't have believed you either, if you had told me, dear one. I'm glad you checked it out and got substantiation.

  You know, Fark, one of my FONDEST memories of my time with the 'borg was sitting at assemblies and conventions, following along with the speaker as he read a scripture or verse, seeing him blatantly misread AND misapply it, and looking up incredulously at all the heads around me bobbing in agreement: "Uh-huh, yeah, yep, that's right!" I would just sit there with my jaw agape, elbowing my husband saying, "That's WRONG! That's not what it said.." He would just shrug, 'cause he hadn't even bothered to open his Bible anyway (he hated reading small print...)

  Anyway, it would just amaze me how thousands of people didn't even WANT to pay attention to the 'details'. Me? Hey, if you were gonna tell me it was truth and was in the Bible... it had BETTER be in the Bible. Took me a few years to get up and confront a convention speaker, though... but after hearing the voice that TOLD me to do it, I did just that. (Sorry, folks, but its true... the voice told me that the WTBTS explanation of the 'separation of the sheep and goats'... and when... was totally bogus. I eventually wrote them; they eventually plagerized my letter... yada, yada, yada...)

  Yeah, I had bought into that 'wait on Jehovah' melarkey for years, too.

  Anyway...

  I bid you all peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Francois

  Organizations have personalities the same as individual human beings. And the organization of JWs is severely in need of immediate psychological help.

  With a straight face it points the accusing finger at others, failing to realize that each time it does so, it points three at itself.

  I wonder if it really is aware of its own hypocrisy? I tend to think not; I tend to think they are not aware of their own spiritual need. Only those who feel poor in spirit will ever hunger for righteousness. And the GB does not seem to do so. Only the humble seek for divine strength and crave spiritual power. Righteousness is a pleasure, not a duty as JWs would have you believe. Jesus' righteousness is a dynamic love--fatherly-brotherly affection. It is not the negative or thou-shalt-not type of righteousness. How could one ever hunger for something negative--something "not to do"? And aren't the precepts of the JWs mostly demands that you do not do certain things?

  Anyway, thanks for a great post.

  Francois

  Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.
• 

  Copernicus

  Farkel asked:

  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 subtly convey WT hypocrisy to those R&F who can think.

  Why go through all of this trouble to try and reach 2% of your reading audience? I mean really, the percentage of JW who can think (ie: catch and apply the subtleties being conveyed) is near zip. In my experience, we’re talking one or two pubs per congregation, tops.

  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.

  Aware dubs will get the message and then what? Become even more frustrated? There is no direction implied or contained in the “message.” So what would be the point?

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

  Now here’s a possibility! They’ve just got a warped sense of humor, and they want to push the envelope of idiocy to see just how much the flock will swallow? This sounds barely plausible, in a sick sort of way.
  
  

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

  Fark, maybe it’s just this simple: occasionally a few honest folks (in a position to do something about it) get a twinge of conscience and they express some real feelings.

  Or, certain members of the writing committee get so BORED doing cut and paste re-writes that they break the mind numbing monotony by slipping in something original once in a while.

  In any case, if the articles weren’t all anonymous, at least there’d be some accountability to the readers. I’ve always hatred the way they hide behind the absence of a by line. I think if they signed off on the stuff, we’d all begin to see a certain pattern emerge. Get my point?
• 

  wasasister

  Fark said:
  

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

  Copernicus said:
  

  maybe it’s just this simple: occasionally a few honest folks (in a position to do something about it) get a twinge of conscience and they express some real feelings.
  Or, certain members of the writing committee get so BORED doing cut and paste re-writes that they break the mind numbing monotony by slipping in something original once in a while.

  Has anybody considered a really wild possibility: That many members of the writing staff have been pushing "brain-dead" ideas so long, they have become brain-dead as well? Is it possible we are reading this entirely differently because of what we now know? Could the author of this particular article really believe the thought applies to "Christendom" and not Jehovah's Earthly Organization?

  Just another bite to chew.
  Was
• 

  Maximus

  :: Could the author of this particular article really believe the thought applies to "Christendom" and not Jehovah's Earthly Organization?

  Absolutely not. The writer knew exactly what he was doing.

  Maximus