::ALL THAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT THEY NO LONGER TAKE ACTION AGAINST YOU IF YOU ATTEND COLLEGE
I understand where you're coming from. We're cool.
True. "They" don't take action such as DF or considering you have DAd yourself. You won't be shunned. But you most likely will be treated differently and viewed differently, and parents may very well pay a price.
What I'm trying to point out is the hypocrisy that says there is no rule, college is an honorable choice, and you are truly free to make that choice, while at the same time all the code language in the publications, convention talks, and the service meetings says the opposite.
What CO or DO dares get quoted as telling someone it's okay to get some advanced education? The article was written in response to pressure that said, 'Times have changed, high school is no longer adequate.' They were forced to make the '92 statement, but that hasn't changed the mind of the GB.
It's very much like the pedophile issue. No one is in favor of sexual abuse of children. But the code language and overt direction from the top favors and virtually insists on protection of the pervert and rarely looks at the abused. Generally it's, "We want to protect Jehovah's good name." To go against that is extremely difficult, which is what silentlambs is telling us. The message is, Protect the organization at all costs.
Go to college, you are materialistic, selfish, not interested in 'setting theocratic goals to advance Kingdom interests.' That's the message in this service meeting demonstration, and it may be enforced in any way local elders want to, with nary a word from on high to the contrary.
That's what's reflected in these posts, representing literally hundreds of real-life experiences that I personal have had, to my great sorrow. Did I privately tell kids to go to college? You bet. Some are still thanking me for taking that risk.
Maximus
