Questions and Answers

by Marvin Shilmer 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Anchor

  Sure would like to see more discussion on this one.

  Anchor
• 

  Jeremy Bravo

  Hey Anchor,

  To answer your question:

  "What next? Loyalty oaths?

  you can find more information here in a post by jukie(Alan)F:
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=6490&site=3#75845

  According to it, it seems a loyalty oath is EXACTLY what is going on now.

  Jer.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Maximus!

  Material in the August 1, 2001 Watchtower is disturbing. Exactly how one of us active JWs is supposed to apply the biblical test of authenticity to something we “must be in full harmony with” is left unstated by the WTS! On top of this we are given a second piece of cake telling us not to advocate personal opinions but in stead to advocate someone else’s opinions—the WTS’. Here it is again, in plain English:
  __

  First, since “oneness” is to be observed, mature members must be in unity and full harmony with fellow members as far as conviction and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible interpretation.

  Rather, he has complete confidence in interpretation as it is revealed by God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and our Writing Department. By regularly taking in this spiritual food provided “at the proper time”—through our publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions—we can be sure that we maintain “oneness” with fellow members in faith and knowledge.

  Second, the expression “the faith” refers, not to the conviction that each individual member professes, but to the totality of our belief, “the breadth and length and height and depth” of it. In fact, how can a member be in oneness with fellow members if he only believes or accepts a certain part of “the faith”?
  __

  Short version: disagreeing with “our belief” makes one immature.

  The term apostate then describes a JW deviating from the party line. That’s fine, as long as the party line and sound biblical teaching are one and the same. But they are not always one and the same. Apostasy becomes any JW deviating from the WTS’ party line. But, wait! Putting an organization ahead of God’s word is… is… oh my God, it’s idolatry! We might just as well go salute a WTS flag!

  *** w90 11/1 26 Our Relative Subjection to the Superior Authorities ***
  We cannot take part in any modern version of idolatry—be it worshipful gestures toward an image or symbol or the imputing of salvation to a person or an organization.

  Hi, drahcir yarrum.

  We agree wholly on advocating control of a person’s opinions and ideas. Advocating a unified message is one thing, but telling anyone they are immature because they advocate a separate opinion is absurd. In this the WTS abuses authority just as they complain of Constantine—they crush personal views based on power of majority instead of doctrinal truth! Hypocrisy!

  Greetings, Anchor.

  Your dilemma is mine too. It’s everyone’s who is a JW, whether they realize it or not. It boils down to this: accept it because we say so! For me that is not good enough when I am also asked to support teachings that lead to sacrificing lives over, oftentimes lives of children. Talk about CHILD ABUSE! Has anyone considered the ramification of Jeremiah 7:31 when it comes to JW parents rejecting platelets for their children? Parent of Jane accepts hemoglobin agent to save Jane’s life—Jane lives. Parent of Suzy refuses platelet agent to save Suzy’s life—Suzy dies. This is clear-cut child sacrifice! Sacrifice on the altar of WTS policy! You and I see it, but we cannot mention it out loud without being cut off from our JW family members and friends.

  Who can we talk to is a good question. Repression is stiff. If we openly speak of areas in need of remedy we are met with ignorance, viewed as a troublemaker, or, worse, shunned for realizing and speaking of inconsistency as the least and outright error at the most. There is no doubt; this is killing the organization of the WTS. That I am not so worried about. More importantly, this is killing peoples’ spirituality and willingness to trust. It is abuse of power.

  Good to hear from you, anon.

  Religion must have value to have adherents. Who adheres to a religion is a result of whatever value is achieved. Generally JWs profess the truest and best value is one to be had from following what the Bible teaches. I feel there is merit in that profession, but where does the Bible end and the WTS begin? For JWs to unitedly profess the Bible is inspired is different from us professing WTS’ interpretation of the Bible should always be followed. JWs are left in a lurch when they find that certain WTS teachings are not well founded or are outright error. The lurch is they cannot do anything about it without paying a very heavy price, an undue price. They must either conform or remain silent, otherwise they will be shunned as sinners or immature—both are forms of shunning. This sort of imposition takes value away, and quickly!

  For a Christian an alternative exists in deciding to follow the master, Jesus, no matter the cost. Following him does not mean prostrating ourselves on the WTS altar by following its rules. We can just slip away letting those behind think of us as immature (if they want) and let our actions eventually speak to them where they will not listen to our words. Not an easy course, but a viable one. Can a thinking JW conscientiously remain in association with the WTS? Is that an alternative? The main concern there is with an appearance of supporting doctrine one may feel is absolutely wrong and, in some cases, death dealing.

  Howdy, Jeff.

  I believe you are correct about the recommendation of loyalty tests. I believe this cropped up in a meeting with bethel elders back in 1980. On the face this recommendation was rejected. But in other ways they have done as much.

  Voltaire, enjoyed your comment!

  I agree it seems the WTS has made Christian faith out to be its body of teaching. In fact the material Maximus quoted refers to “the totality of our belief.” That says it all. The WTS has MOLDED a MAJORITY view and then called it “the faith.” The correct way—the biblical way—is to conclude Christian faith (teachings too!) from sound biblical reasoning, without regard for any majority view or so called totality of belief.

  Jerome, good points!

  Faith and credulity are not the same, at least not the biblical kind. Christians may sometimes defer based on confidence, but that confidence comes from what they feel sure of.

  It's not "where to go," it's "to whom to go."

  That is sound biblical reasoning at work.
• 

  Nicodemus

  Anchor,

  A quick thought for you:

  The new TMS program, as I understand it, replaces what is now a 6-minute Bible Highlights in a talk format with a 9-minute version which includes audience participation.

  It'll be interesting to see what that might open up.
• 

  anon

  Interesting discussion. Not trying to be antagonistic but some have stated just walk away and have direct relationship without org. How then obey Heb 10:24,25? If no org. then would you say that 1 Tim 3 & Titus 1 about elders and servants is obsolete? If not, does that not imply some sort of organization?
  Dissent - If someone at some point did not dissent there would be no change. 'Generation' would mean the same. No blood fractions would be allowed. Are not these changes a product of dissent? At some point some human raised the question, 'Hey, isn't this wrong?' This privilege is apparently restricted to only a few at the top. Compare this WT comment:

  *** w94 12/1 29-30 Fulfilling a Basic Human Need Through Recognition ***
  Thus, when elders meet, and they pray for Jehovah’s guidance to shepherd the flock of God, they will strive to make decisions that are Scripturally sound. Christian modesty, meekness, and humility will prevent any elder from trying to exalt himself, dominate over his brothers, and impose his opinion at these meetings. (Matthew 20:25-27; Colossians 3:12) Whenever possible, the chairman of the elder body would do well to invite input beforehand from fellow elders and then provide an agenda far enough in advance to allow time for careful and prayerful thought to each point itemized. During the elders’ meeting, he would try, not to shape the opinion of the elders, but, rather, to encourage them to exercise “freeness of speech” on matters under discussion. (1 Timothy 3:13) In turn, fellow elders should carefully listen to the expressions of one another and gladly benefit from the insight of elders who have many years of Christian experience.—Exodus 18:21, 22.
  Overseers understand, however, that Christ can use any elder on the body to provide the Bible principles needed to cope with a situation or to make an important decision. A good spirit will prevail among the body when proper recognition is given to each elder for his contribution in caring for the spiritual interests of the congregation.—Acts 15:6-15; Philippians 2:19, 20.

  At what point is this no longer true? Do policy makers believe that they could be corrected by someone in the field? If many write in about the same point would that fact get filtered up to GB? What is the trigger to bring about some change? Is atmosphere of paranoia regarding asking questions accidental or a product of design?

  This is partly what led me here, since it is hard to know who it is 'safe' to talk to without being looked at suspiciously.

  For those who are or were elders, do you feel there is any change in the positions expressed in these quotations?

  *** w99 6/1 15 Appreciating the "Gifts in Men" ***
  These “gifts in men” do not seek to control the lives or faith of their fellow worshipers. Paul, although having apostolic authority, humbly told the Corinthians: “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.” (2 Corinthians 1:24) Paul did not wish to control the faith and way of life of his brothers.

  *** w96 9/1 22-3 Living by the Law of the Christ ***
  What if the Christian thereafter makes a decision that does not seem wise to the elder? If the decision does not directly transgress Bible principles or laws, the Christian will find that the elder recognizes the individual’s right to make such a decision, knowing that “each one will carry his own load.” The Christian should remember, however, that “whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.”—Galatians 6:5, 7.
  13 Why does the experienced elder act in this way? For at least two reasons. First, Paul told one congregation that he was not ‘the master over their faith.’ (2 Corinthians 1:24) The elder, in helping his brother to reason on the Scriptures and make his own informed decision, is imitating Paul’s attitude. He recognizes that there are limits to his authority, just as Jesus recognized that there were limits to his authority. (Luke 12:13, 14; Jude 9) At the same time, elders readily offer helpful, even strong, Scriptural counsel where needed. Second, he is training his fellow Christian. The apostle Paul said: “Solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Hebrews 5:14) Hence, to grow to maturity, we have to use our own perceptive powers, not always relying on someone else to give us the answers. The elder, by showing his fellow Christian how to reason on the Scriptures, is in this way helping him to progress.
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Marvin,
  
  an excellent topic, worthy a very
  long discussion and debate, using the Wts publications/
  versus Bible's teaching.
  The questions were also discussed many times under:
  "Apostate, apostasy, God's organisation " etc.

  I do like your quote:

  "*** br78 3-4 Who Are They? ***
  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that all religious teachings should be subjected to this test of agreement with the Scriptures, whether the teaching is offered by them or by someone else. They invite you—urge you—to do this in your discussions with them. "

  Most of us in this forum know very well that the above words
  are not REALLY applicable in terms of a REALLY OPEN DEBATE,
  or discussion. As soon one's deviate from the "WTS official
  reasoning line, or teaching..." the first thing one will be
  accused of "...weak conscience, ...not strong in the faith...
  a rebel...an A P O S T A T E ". We know the rest.

  I do appreciate Maximus and Anon comments,

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello again, Anon

  I appreciate your input to this discussion.

  I don’t see any problem with what Hebrews 10:24 and 25 speaks of. Because a JW no longer attends meetings at a Kingdom Hall does no mean they forsake their opportunities to socialize with and encourage fellow Christians they my know of. Likewise I see no problem with instructions to Timothy and Titus about appointing Christian overseers. Christians regarded as mature by their fellows can easily do the same thing whenever and wherever there is a need for it. Paul’s counsel to Timothy and Titus provide what is needed for these decisions. Let me ask you a question here. Who knows more about whether a Christian meets those scriptural qualifications or not? Those who know them personally and live with them, or those who only read about them in a paragraph or two from an S-2 form? Who then is best poised to make appointments accordingly?

  Much the same can be said of preaching the gospel. Jesus’ followers did not act in concert for the sake of organization. Concerted action arose out of love of Christ’s Father. Love was and is the compelling force leading to concerted preaching, not organization. Followers of the Christ accomplish extensive preaching because they are compelled by love as individuals to follow their masters lead, not because they are organized as marketers. Why did the Ethiopian learn of Christ? Philip was compelled as an individual to make the journey and preach the word. What compelled Philip? His heart condition made him susceptible to leadings of Christ. From that he learned love and acted accordingly, without being organized as a marketer. Acting in concert with other Christians is automatic because other Christians are compelled by and for the same reason, love of our Father and Christ’s. We act the same because we love the same, not because we are told what to do and when to do it. This sort of concerted behavior is true unity. It is what Jesus taught and his disciples lived.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  J.C.MacHislopp,

  Sorry. Didn’t intend to ignore your contribution from yesterday.

  Most of us in this forum know very well that the above words are not REALLY applicable in terms of a REALLY OPEN DEBATE, or discussion.

  The subject of JWs and debating is an interesting one. The WTS tends to acclaim Pastor Russell for his prearranged and public debates, but they turn around and discourage the same thing today. Russell’s own words are used today by the WTS to facilitate this change in direction. Supposedly Russell had decided he would no longer debate in prearranged formats because he believed “that it rarely accomplishes good and often arouses anger, malice, bitterness, etc., in both speakers and hearers.” (Ref: 1975 Yearbook, page 55-56). Still, even today, the WTS acclaims Russell’s debates as successes. So the WTS seems to teach Russell’s actions as warranted and successful at the time but now the same action would be contrary to biblical advice. The WTS has encouraged debate, but not the prearranged and open kind of Russell’s day.

  *** w54 8/15 510 Questions from Readers ***
  Does the Watch Tower Society accept challenges to debate publicly the Scripturalness of various religious teachings?—J. P., United States.

  …To determine the Scripturalness of a teaching we must go to the Bible and calmly weigh all the texts bearing on the point under consideration. The ideal place to do this is in a home, with the two or few involved sitting at a table with open Bibles, dispassionately considering the evidence to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is right.” (1 Thess. 5:21, NW) If a person is in doubt as to a doctrine, he can have a minister from a religion that believes it come to his home and discuss it. The next evening he can have a minister from a group that says it is false. Or he may even wish to have a minister from each group there the same evening and ask questions and hear the discussion. Thus the truth will be more likely to get calm and careful attention, as also will the falsehood. Sincere ones honestly searching for the truth will see the advantage of this method, whereas those interested more in exciting controversy and grabbing publicity will clamor for the emotional, oratorical debate.

  The WTS then advises prearranged debates but not public ones. Naturally, non-JWs are totally free to have whomever engage in these prearranged private debates. Their problem would be finding a JW willing to put themselves in the position of answering sharp questions. Some of the more knowledgeable JWs have decided they will not engage in debate with what they call “studied opposition.” This means they are not willing to have private debates about doctrine (not about words) with persons who disagree and have really studied a doctrine’s ins and outs and therefore can responsibly debate it.

  With JWs things are a bit different. We are allowed to participate in the sort of debates described above, but not if “an apostate thinker” is in the mix. (Ref: 8/1 1993 Watchtower, page 17) And, to my knowledge, JWs are not encouraged to prearrange debates for their own sake (to satisfy questions they have themselves) as otherwise described in that Watchtower of 1954.