Posts by Cold Steel

77

Thoughts on Jesus' Resurrection

by Perry in

i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.

the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.

it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.

Cold Steel

Ravens: ...the jehovahs witnesses believe that jesus was reincarnated from a man who died and came back as an angel.

Say what?

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Resistance is Futile: I wasn't asking specifically about who he married. I was asking about the claims that he had sex with teenage girls in his community while he was married to his first wife Emma. Do you feel that the claims that he had sex with Fanny Alger (age 16), and Marinda Johnson (age 16) are credible?

No, I do not. Many of those claims came from sensationalist sources after the saints arrived in Utah.

According to the Mormon Church how many official wives did Joseph Smith take? You said there is no evidence he had sex with his 15 year old bride Helen Kimball; was this true of his other wives? What I'm asking is, were all his other marriages asexual? Did he publicly deny the practice of polygamy [while] secretly taking multiple wives? Why would he feel the need to cover-up what he was doing?

No, it was not true of his other wives. That said, there were many women he was sealed to simply so they would be under his care and protection. Some of our critics howl because Joseph married Elder Orson Hyde's wife whilst he was on his mission to exercise the keys or restoring Judah to the land of its inheritance. He was gone a considerable time, yet when he returned, his wife was sealed back to him and about nine or ten months later they had a child. It was not Joseph's.

How many wives did Joseph have? That's difficult to say. Some were sealed to him after his death, but for those known to have been sealed to him during his life, for whatever reason, the most accurate number I've come up with is...29.

As for your other questions, the answers are yes, he publicly denied the practice of plural marriage. Why did he feel the need to cover it up? Because the Lord told him not to reveal the doctrine. In the past, God had given patriarchs their wives, and their only sins were in taking wives not given to them, especially to cement political relationships with their heathen neighbors. Since joseph Smith was called to oversee the restoration of the ancient church and Kingdom of God, or, as Peter said, "the restoration of all things," then part of that restoration was bringing back that practice. No one was happy with the commandment, especially Hyrum and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, yet they lived it. Eventually, the Lord let the practice come to an end, primarily because of the effects it would have on missionary efforts and looming federal hostility.

After decades of the saints stubbornly supporting the doctrine they were convinced was from God, the Lord suddenly said, Enough! And Wilford Woodruff, the president of the church, told the saints:

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed.

I suspect that if Joseph Smith were to have been up front about this doctrine, that the people of his day would reacted harshly. Short answer: for the same reason Abraham and Sarah were less than honest about their relationship. (And that, too, was the Lord's idea).

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

Apognophos: The Society rejected Catholic terminology for image reasons, but they are still a church and implicitly admit this. That's because “church” means “congregation.” ... Whether the Witnesses call themselves a church, society, fellowship, or a worldwide congregation, they are still an ecclesiastical body that has the power to excommunicate members. Whether they follow in the footsteps of the early Christians is a question of what they preach and practice, not the word they use in English to refer to themselves.

Yes, but a church is more than just a congregation. Doesn’t it have officers such as apostles, seventy, bishops, priests, evangelists, elders and so forth? And these weren’t self-appointed officers, but they were called and ordained. And the power the ancient church had to bind and loose was a divine power, whereas with the Jehovah's Witnesses, it’s a legal power.

And there’s another problem. The Jehovah's Witnesses made a significant mistake in dedicating themselves to Jehovah rather than Jesus. “Upon this rock I will build my church,” Jesus told Peter. So did the Bible students miss that while they were finding the elusive truth no one else had been able to find? It was one of the first things on the list and yet they missed it. And while Jehovah and Jesus were the same being, they still don’t know that.

The whole idea behind my question is that the Governing Body, as someone else pointed out, has given instructions to the (can I call them “members”?) to not have funerals at Kingdom Halls for those who died whilst disfellowshiped. Or, more precisely, not to give false comfort to family members when the person is most likely going to be resurrected and then destroyed. But how can the Governing Body operate as the Lord’s church without having the keys of authority given to Peter?

The Catholic church claims to have those keys of authority today. Not able to claim them, the protestants simply said they didn’t need them. But they never tried to bind or loose, which means that salvation was between man and God, and that no organization could tell you what to think or believe, as long as you believed in Christ.

But then comes the WTBTS and suddenly it becomes a hierarchal structure assuming all the power of the Catholic church but with no callings, no revelation, no ordinations, no angels. But to them they had something even more powerful. They could assume it.

It’s like a car that needs keys to drive. The Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans each claim they have a car and the keys necessary to operate it. As a Mormon, I believe those keys of authority were restored to the earth through heavenly messengers, which would like getting a new car and then being given the keys for it. Who has those keys is a debate for another time and place, but we know who doesn’t have either a car nor the keys, and that’s our friends at Bethel. Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn’t fret over the spiritual ramifications of being disfellowshiped. And if they lose loved ones who have died whilst disfellowshiped, they shouldn’t lose hope of ever seeing them again.

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

Resistance is Futile: You mentioned that there is a lot of misinformation spread by former members of the Mormon Church. As a current member I'd therefore appreciate your input. Is it true that while Joseph Smith was already married to his first wife he had sex with several teenage women? Do you think he may have used his position of authority in his community to take advantage of young impressionable women in order to satisfy his own sexual impulses?

Well, this is way off topic, but no, Joseph Smith was married to one teenage girl and it was a marriage instituted by her father, one of our greatest prophets, Heber C. Kimball. Kimball loved Joseph and was a loyal friend. Accordingly, he wished to be bound to him, his family to Smith's family. The best way he could do that, he reasoned, is by arranging a marriage with his daughter. As far as we know, this marriage was never consumated. At the time, the daughter, Helen Mar Kimball, was taken back by this. One of our historians writes:

Though listed as fourteen at the time of her sealing to the Prophet, Helen Mar Kimball was nearly fifteen (see pp. 487, 499). She herself explains that her father took the initiative to arrange the marriage: "Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth" (quoted on p. 498). Helen was approaching eligibility, and a vital social life was opening up with possible proposals. Since some young women married at sixteen, Heber C. Kimball and the Prophet evidently arranged an early marriage to insure the desired personal and family relationships. However, Helen continued to live with her parents. Because Helen's circumstances were exceptional, there is every reason not to assume a sexual dimension in her sealing to Joseph Smith.

Helen later went to Salt Lake City with her family and wrote a story about her life. She gave no indication that a sexual relationship was entered into. She died in full faith and fellowship in the church, and when she wrote of Joseph, it was glowingly. As a people, we have endured a great deal of disinformation. If you'd like any more information on this or any other aspect of Mormonism, please send me a PM and I'll reply.

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

TD: The Society actually does not disfellowship anyone. Your relationship is entirely between you and your local congregation.

Yes, but the congregation is the Society. Every Kingdom Hall has to abide by the rules and regulations handed down by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. And even if it comes down to the congregation, again, why would members be so terrified of being disfellowshiped? The only ones who can loose on Earth and Heaven are those possessing the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus gave to Peter. Of course these aren’t literal keys, but keys of authority.

No one in the Society claims it is a church, and no one claims to have these keys. So when they cut someone off and expect God to honor that decision, they’re acting as if they possess those keys.

Narcissistic Supply: As I understand it, each of the KH's are a separate corporation. So it would be like being disfellowshiped from a small corporation under the umbrella of Microsoft. Or a small corporation under the umbrella of Apple.

This is probably true. The churches of Christ have congregations all over the U.S. and each is an independent cell. But they have no governing body to direct them, and except for not having musical instruments in their services, they can pretty much operate any way they wish.

I doubt that Kingdom Halls, as cells, can do the same. The overseers and elders disseminate the information and then they direct how the material will be interpreted and incorporated. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but if you’re disfellowshiped in one KH, you’re considered disfellowshiped in all KHs, right? And if you want back in, or reinstatement, doesn’t the decision have to be signed off by the original KH?

I’ve heard of people who are disfellowshiped moving to another KH and not telling anyone. Some even go through the Bible Study and are baptized again so they can restart.

Cantleave: And how do you know about JW's? —oh yeah by reading! How do you think I know about your stupid Mormon cult? Oh yeah by reading. I probably know as much about your religion as you do JW's.

I really doubt that. I’ve read your posts and you do little more than engage in name calling. Let’s see, ummm...”stupid Mormon cult.” Yeah, you sure seem to have really nailed us.

Have you ever sat down with our missionaries? Have you completed the discussions? Have you ever read our scholars? Of course not. I’ve gone through the JW Bible Study and I’ve read both sides of many issues. If someone asked me about the religion, my criticisms would be spot on. Everyone knows about their ritual shunning, their being forbidden to read the religious publications of other churches, of their doctrine of soul sleeping, and so forth.

From reading your posts, I’ve concluded that you don’t seem able to form and express your thoughts without being insulting and rude. And this seems to be consistently characteristic of ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons.

You get you info by visiting Ex-Jw sites and I get my info on your cult by visiting ex-mormon sites.

That must be why you know so much. But if you knew anything about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you wouldn’t be calling it a “cult.” I’ve been a member for more than 40 years, and the only fault I see in its members is that they should know more about their religion.

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

Cofty: All cults dismiss the testimony of their former members. It's one of the hallmarks of a cult.

Oh, you’re an expert in cults, then?

Well, then you undoubtedly know that all religions begin as cults.

Do you think that early Christianity wasn’t a cult? The Romans certainly considered it a cult and Pliny the elder called it a “monstrous cult.” The words “culture” and “cult” are related, as you surely know, and the latter is defined as “a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.”

So the person using the word gets to decide which religion is extremist or false, and there is nothing to keep him from deciding that all religions are extremist or false. And if you happen to be an atheist or self-appointed minister of the gospel, you can go nuts labeling every religion you don't like as a cult.

Was first century Christianity considered extremist or false? It was. Did its members live in an unconventional manner? Yes, the scriptures say the early Christians had a form of lifestyle where they consecrated all their possessions to God and donated their excess to the church. And didn’t Peter, by the power of the Holy Spirit, judge Ananias and Sapphira and watch them fall to the ground in death when they attempted to cheat God? (See Acts 5) And wasn’t Jesus a charismatic leader? Indeed.

So based on this, yes, I suppose first century Mormonism, like Christianity, also was once a cult. But the real question is whether first century Christianity and first century Mormonism in the same proverbial boat as, say, the Branch Davidians, Hare Krishnas, Charles Manson’s Family, Aum Shinrikyo, Raëlian Church, Jonesboro, Heaven’s Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Scientology and other fringe groups? If so, well, we’ll just have to disagree and let people make up their own minds.

As for the testimony of former members, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a number of scholars not only writing about early Hebrew history and writings, Israel’s history from Moses onward, early Christianity, ancient scripture and cultures, but the Book of Mormon, its claims, the LDS foundational claims and the charges of former members and other anti-Mormons. (See BYU’s Religious Study Center, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and FAIRLDS). These three surpass in scholarship anything I’ve seen in any other sect.

As it stands, “cult” can mean any religion the user doesn’t like, or wishes to demean. The more prestigious books on cults fail to include the LDS church or attack its beliefs. And the books that do tend to be published by evangelical Christians and other wacko groups which are themselves almost always cults.

Ironic, ain’t it?

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

Jeffro: Disfellowshipping isn't less drastic. Catholic excommunication means a person doesn't receive communion but the person isn't shunned (many other Christian groups view it in a similar way). Excommunication vitandus (actual 'shunning') was reserved for things like physically attacking the Pope, but excommunication vitandus was abolished in 1983.

The thing that frightened most people (except unbelievers) was, however, being damned to perpetual hell fire. I don’t underestimate the unhappiness that can come from ritualistic shunning, which is a horrible thing, but the Governing Body has the right to banish someone, not to determine their eternal fate.

Christadelphians also use the term disfellowshipping, where it refers to exclusion from membership, but it doesn't require shunning.

Yes, but the Christadelphians may not have believed disfellowshiping was anything other than banishment from the society. Because of the keys of authority which the Catholics believe they hold, when they cut someone off, their threats become more credible.

Jeffro: JW elders aren't allowed to give a funeral talk for a 'disfellowshipped person' unless the person was considered to be 'giving evidence of repentance', and even then, the service can't be at a 'Kingdom Hall'.

Ouch. Somewhat heartless, too. But again, since the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses don’t have any heavenly authority except the legal right to “expel” a person from the congregation, they needn’t be feared if you wish to conduct the funeral, say, at the funeral home. Most have small chapels, but of course they aren’t churches. On the other hand, according to the Governing Body, the Society isn’t a church, either.

So funeral home directors or Governing Body members...they both have the same authority from God, which is none at all. Interesting that many people who have had “near death” experiences report that people are most often allowed to attend their own funerals. If true, how do you suppose the deceased would feel if they didn’t have one? Besides, even if they are simply sleeping (another false doctrine), their surviving families aren’t, and Christians would owe it to them. (As one colorful leader of my church said about eulogies back in the late 1800s, “Why I’ve given many a man a ticket to heaven that I knew damn well wouldn’t get them more than about half way!”)

Keep in mind that the leaders in the early church weren’t self appointed, but were appointed by God through his servants who had been called of him and ordained. And the thing that gave these servants power was the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The members also were a church, not a society, so they had ecclesiastical power from God.

The leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not have these keys of authority, which include the calling and ordaining of other church officers. And if I had a friend who died, you can bet I wouldn’t send him off without comforting words for the family. At least not unless and until the Governing Body was able to produce its rightful pedigrees.

CantLeave: Of course the Mormon cult is just as harsh.

Is it? And you would know this...how?

Steve2: The parallels with the Witnesses were very telling, as was the emotional turmoil. I've heard of instances in which, either an ex-JW becomes a Mormon or an ex-Mormon becomes a JW - leaving me wondering, haven’t these individuals learnt anything?

So you were reading this on an anti-Mormon website, eh? Well, then I'm sure it was all very objective and accurate. Don't worry though, mate, you've still got your right to an opinion. It's like the old saying, know how to make someone uninformed? No. Simple, take away their anti-Mormon books. Know how to make them misinformed? You give 'em back!

44

Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel in

the more i read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the society, the more i wonder how the governing body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation.

first, the society doesnt consider itself a church (unlike the ancient christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church).

yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members.

Cold Steel

The more I read about ritual shunning and disfellowshiping in the Society, the more I wonder how the Governing Body and elders have pulled the proverbial wool over the eyes of the congregation. First, the Society doesn’t consider itself a “church” (unlike the ancient Christians, who did consider themselves to be part of a church). Yet, like other sectarians, they have their hands out for contributions and exercise immense power over their members. I don’t know whether it suggests a ten percent contribution or not, but since Armageddon is just around the corner, it’s probably a good idea.

But how does the Society explain the words of Jesus?

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:18-19)

The Society claims it’s not a church...so shouldn’t the people be looking for the church of Jesus Christ? And if Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, does the Society hold those keys today? If so, how did they get them? If not, shouldn’t they?

The real question here is if the Society doesn’t have the power to loose on Earth, then how can it disfellowship anyone? And why doesn’t it use the term “excommunicate,” which is to ostracize, banish, cut off, exclude, eject or expel. Disfellowshiping is essentially the same thing, but considered less drastic. Fellowshipping is “companionship of individuals in a congenial atmosphere and on equal terms,” so disfellowshiping would be a reversal of that. In Catholicism and most formal religions, excommunication means a withdrawal of salvation, whereas disfellowshiping is a withdrawal of fellowship. Catholics (even hardened Mafia killers) fear excommunication because it means sure damnation. And the reason they fear the church is because of those dreaded “keys.” If the church says you’re out on Earth, you’re out in Heaven!

Now if the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses don’t have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, they, nor their underlings, can either bind or loosen. Certainly they have the legal right to include or exclude from their society of worshipers, but its legitimacy as God’s organization on the earth is open for serious doubt. In the past, Yahweh called prophets and apostles when he wished to bring something about. This would usually come by way of angelic ministrations, and he never, ever, departed from that mode of operating.

So if the Society isn’t a church and it doesn’t have the keys of the kingdom, and if it can’t bind or loose in Heaven or Earth or affect your salvation in any way, shape or form, nor is there the slightest evidence the Society was founded by Yahweh, then why do members fear judicial action and disfellowshiping?

There’s nothing in the scriptures saying people can’t believe what they wish, or that they’ll be destroyed by God if they fail to abide by the Society’s instructions, yet people are terrified by the people who should be their best friends.

5

If God is so set on devoted "worship", why didn't he create animals with abilities to do this as well?

by lurk3r in

not sure if the way i phrased this sounds retarded or not, but i feel it's a legit thought.

god creates the earth giving it "life".

gives animals and the rest of his creation the same, but never created them to "worship".

Cold Steel

All things have a purpose and we aren’t God’s first creations. I’ve always thought the idea of God being a singular being, with no peers or companions, who existed for countless googolplexes of millennias with no one else around except for Him. And then, for whatever reason, he gets up one day and thinks how nice it would be to have intelligent creatures who would worship him. So it takes him six “eras,” or days, to create Earth, when, if He has power to speak a universe into existence in a fraction of a second, He can’t do instantly. What are the six eras of time for? Well, in my view it’s just priestcraft.

If there’s a God, and I believe there is, I don’t think he’s vain enough to go into the creation business for company, nor do I think He filled the immensity of space with matter, anti-matter, dark matter and any other kind of matter just so He could put one planet in one galaxy and then stock it with animals and plants and everything else just so He would have someone to praise Him.

One scholar writes:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Why did He do so? asks the atheist. To put people on earth that they may worship God, comes the traditional Christian reply. “Suppose that an infinite God exists, what can we do for him? Being infinite, he is conditionless; being conditionless, he cannot be benefited or injured. He cannot want. He has. Think of the egotism of a man who believes that an infinite being wants his praise!”14 Traditional Christians are still, to my knowledge, at a loss to answer this criticism. Why did God create us? He doesn’t need us, so what was He thinking? Usually the answer goes something like this: since He is the perfect being, He wants to share Himself with others. “What is man’s chief end? To glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.”15 I have never heard consensus from traditional Christians on exactly how we are to glorify God. But all this would make sense only if there were others to glorify Him and share Himself with. There weren’t any such others, so He had to create some. This answer begs the question; the reasoning is circular. The only reason humans, and probably the angels for that matter, were created was to fulfill a need that did not exist until they were created! And then it goes back to the question of why God wants to share Himself—which has still not been answered. (Source)
14 Ingersoll, “What is Religion?” 491.
15 Elmer W. Homer, “The Master Purpose in Life,” in American Lutheran Preaching, ed.
Miles W. Krumbine (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928), 91.

To me, the religionists have always managed to make religion look ridiculous. Both the old and new testaments have agreed that man isn’t just a creation, but progeny. And if man is in the image of God, then why is God in the image of a terrestrial being? Why does He have a head, eyes, ears, nose, hands, feet and so forth? Is it possible that He ever lived on a world like ours and was Himself resurrected and glorified, and since has become an heir of His Father? And is it possible that creation is a part of an ongoing process in which man falls, is tested, then judged and redeemed?

In Revelation, John writes of Jesus: “...and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father.” (1:6) If Jesus was Jehovah, the intercessor, the king of kings and lord of lords, the first and the last, the great I AM of the Old Testament, then He has a God and Father. And if we become joint heirs with Christ, inheriting all that the Father has, then are we not also subject to the same “God and Father”?

Regarding animals, even though they’re less intelligent than man, they, too, are eternal beings and have spirits like man. Under the atonement, they will be resurrected and they, too, will praise God, not only because of their creation, but because of their redemption.

Just food for thought.

29

"False Prophets" part notably uncomfortable

by Separation of Powers in

so, service meeting last night.

bro handling the "false prophet" part was notably disturbed.

every time he spoke of previous "expectations" his body language was like "oh my god, can you believe i'm saying this?

Cold Steel

Nathan: Then why do any damn thing they say?

That’s a question every Jehovah's Witness should be asking themselves. The Governing Body has now put themselves in the same league as the apostles and have removed all references and caveats that in the past put distance between them. Their position used to be: Well, we don’t receive revelation like the apostles did, but we do provide spiritual food to Jehovah’s people, which comes in the form of Watchtower and Awake! articles. And while our writings should not be construed as inspired in the same sense as scripture, it should be taken as spiritual “meat” in due season.

Bnybyt: At first I thought, maybe he knows TTATT and doesn't want to say anything himself. Then I thought, not this guy, he wants people in the audience to open themselves up and if anyone says anything not supportive of the current view then they'll be marking that one.

You make it sound as though these people are trying to entrap members into revealing any doubts or dissatisfactions. If the audience opens itself up and reveals those doubts, what then? Make an example of them and hope that quells any rebellion? The way things are right now, maybe there is some doubt at the top, and this is what you’re seeing.