# *For Friend

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 18, 1999 at 07:10:56 {KEdmzBXaT6rRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: For Friend posted by CPiolo on November 17, 1999 at 15:41:42:

CPiolo

> Friend, I don't understand how being born into a community can illustrate tolerance of that community, except maybe, a forced acceptance. Of course, if we willingly support such a community, it then falls into the second category.

I wasn’t talking about where we were born but rather what communities we support as adults.

> Allowing a group to exist and tolerated their existence is not necessarily acceptance of their beliefs nor of their practices. Again, we can use abortion as an example. It is tolerated many places where large numbers of people, maybe even a majority, find the practice unacceptable.

I was speaking of acceptability of a community’s existence within a larger community, in this case a religious community within several different geo-sociopolitical communities around the globe. When smaller communities are considered intolerable (unacceptable) then their surrounding community opposes them. Reasons for opposition indicates the type of intolerance, whether it is political, religious, humanitarian, or some other ideological difference.

I was not arguing that tolerance of a smaller community represented individual acceptance of beliefs. I was speaking purely of societal tolerance and acceptability.

> Society at large is also largely unaware of many practices of the JW community and, if fully aware, they might not gain the tolerance they have now.

There is enough known about Jehovah’s Witnesses so that larger communities can make an informed decision to tolerate or not. Along those lines the most important issue to society at large is the issue of medical use of blood. Certainly society at large knows the bottom line of that doctrine so as to tolerate it or not. I think most people and societies dismiss other beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses as silly. I do not think that Jehovah’s Witnesses or those dismissing them are discouraged by that view.

> I never stated they were required to participate in every unique practice but rather, most. And no they don't have to defend every JW teaching, but don't they do have to accept every teaching. I believe I've seen this stated in their literature.

You said, “To participate in the JW community it is required that you participate in all those practices that are uniquely theirs, even if you were to find them criminal, abhorrent, morally reprehensible and/or extremely offensive.”

That statement is false as I pointed out earlier.

As for whether JWs must accept every teaching, they do not. The Society admits that individual JWs will hold some divergent views and will thusly see the need for change. What is not tolerated is individual JWs sowing discord with those divergent ideas. In theory that intolerance is intended to protect against individual JWs (or others) being divided away from Christian aspirations. In practice too often the application is that of just telling people to be quite. Such applications do not represent the intent of prohibiting sowing of discord but rather a shortsighted manner of achieving it. In the end the just-be-quite-about-it application is counterproductive and is self-defeating because the tactic itself sows discord. That is why among the more mature JWs (elder or not) you find greater tolerance for expression of views. They realize the fundamental flaw of the simple just-be-quite-about-it approach.

> Not being a JW, I am certainly not as familiar as you with the baptismal vows, but it can be argued, and has been, that some of those questions have been added, not as an affirmation, but instead as a legal maneuver by the society to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have sacred baptismal vows. Questions asked just prior to baptism are just what I said earlier, an affirmation of a persons dedication to God and decision to become a member of the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is public acknowledgment of both. Is there any legal protective inherency in those questions asked? Yes, there is. So what? Do you consider it somehow wrong for a relatively large organization to legitimately insult itself in the litigious environment of modern society? Doing so is an act of prudence. It is not an issue of right or wrong.

> Nowhere in the Bible does it mention affirming your dedication to an organization as part of baptism and your dedication to God. This is significant for an organization that claims to adhere strictly to biblical teaching.

Jehovah’s Witnesses make no sacred dedicate of themselves to the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That dedication is only between an individual and God. Any commitment made to the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is dependant upon future agreement that that association is representative of and conducive to Christian aspirations as understood by the individual. As for whether affirming commitment to an organization is biblical, there is plenty of biblical evidence that early Christians did consider themselves committed to the association or brotherhood that had accrued from their preaching and teaching. In that sense being committed is scriptural and I think it is in that sense that Jehovah’s Witnesses today commit themselves to their organization. They consider their organization a brotherhood.

> But once part of the community, many (not all) of your choices are limited, often times at the often changing whims of the WT organization which has a documented history of doctrinal changes and flip-flops. So what you agreed to when deciding to participate may well be replaced with its opposite. The agreement has been changed without your consultation or participation. The new requirement may be something totally alien to your personal ethics and morals.

The restriction of choice is part of the initial choice to become part of the community. Every community has that attribute. The difference is in the extent or restriction. Admittedly Jehovah’s Witnesses have restrictions of choice within their association and it is that very thing that attracts some. Whether “flip-flops” are cause for concern will very from individual to individual. For some they will represent an inhibition to their aspirations. Others will not feel so inhibited. If they feel so inhibited there are outlets for expressing that. The question becomes how much restriction is too much and whether outlets for expressing disagreement are adequate. The community itself can only gauge both of those questions by considering whether the effects of either contribute to the goals of the association or not. It is an internal affair.

If individuals feel they should no longer associate due to their morality then they should act in harmony with their conscience. Will that cause some anguish? Yes, in some cases it will cause sever anguish. But that should have been understood going in. It should have been a consequence/responsibility accepted with the initial decision to come into the community, any community.

> You have stated that you find some of JW practices lacking - the blood issue and shunning if I'm not mistaken. As long as you remain an active participant in the JW faith, you have no choice but to participate in those practices if you wish to remain within the community. Your refusal to participate in these practices risks your association with the community and would surely result in disfellowshipping if known.

The extent that I go along with those practices is at issue here. Will I teach adherence to the present JW blood policy? No. Have I expressed my views to the Society? Yes, most assuredly I have. Do I have a choice about whether I personally accept blood or blood components? Yes, I do have that choice. I will exercise my choice with regard for my own views considering also whether my actions will stumble someone else. I do not want any millstones tied around my neck. So things are worth dying for and some are not. The individual should decide either. Whether I am later shunned for those actions is of little concern to me. I am much more concerned with my own conscience being clean.

> What would be the consequences of you openly questioning, criticizing and fighting for change about these issues with your JW community. That too would result in disfellowshipping. That is why you are Friend here and not using the name you are known by in your JW community. Your have no choice otherwise while continuing and wanting to continue to participate in that community.

I am not sure what you mean by “openly questioning.” I do not express my divergence so that others are needlessly upset but I do openly express my divergence to those that can do something about it.

I have more than one reason for my use of a moniker on forums such as this. One of those reasons is because my actions here are beyond the restrictions normally applied to those with divergent views. On some subjects—like the one on blood—I would undoubtedly be shunned for my actions on this forum. That is not true of most of what I have to say though. And, frankly, there is a growing population amongst JWs that would not shun me for my comments on blood either. My main purpose on this forum is to defend my fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses, not the Society or its policies. There is not pressing need that I even contribute to discussions here on issues such as blood acceptance. There is plenty already available on that without my contributing to it. In that respect my actions behind the scenes if far more valuable and it is where I choose to work on it. It will take both.

> Also, the flaws of most communities don't cause their member's death.

You must be kidding me.

Friend

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **For Friend

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]