# For Friend

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

Posted by CPiolo [CPiolo] on November 18, 1999 at 18:46:51 {KEdmzBXaT6HljYPCrMsQfhe3reEu4M}:

Friend
CP
: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.
F
:I was speaking of [the] 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.
I don't feel you've successfully countered my above argument. The above example of abortion still holds true. There are those (a community) who practice abortion within several different geo-sociopolitical communities around the globe. Their existence is tolerated but the practice of abortion is opposed and found unacceptable by the surrounding community. To an extent, we must speak in generalities because, of course, the smaller community comprises part of the community at large. We must therefore speak of the majority opinion as being the opinion of the community at large.
This also holds true of JWs. Their existence is tolerated while some of their practices and beliefs are found to be unacceptable and opposed by the surrounding community at large. Of course this is true for almost any point of view, opinion or belief. You can't hold a point of view, opinion or belief without finding opposition somewhere within your smaller community and the at-large community.
F
: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.
It is arguable as to whether other larger communities can make informed decisions as to tolerate or not the practices of JWs. I am, at least, as informed as an average person. Speaking from personal experience, I knew only about some of the more "sensational" and "newsworthy" aspects of the JW faith. No holidays, birthdays or blood transfusions, their refusal to salute the flag or serve in the military, their preoccupation with the Armageddon and their failed prediction of said day in 1975. I was not aware of their shunning policy, the extent of their vehement intolerance of "Christendom" and other religious groups, or many of the reasons they believed and practiced what they do nor that they had incorrectly predicted Armageddon several times before. In fact, it was of little interest to me because they seemed to be a strange fringe religious group that had little or nothing to do with my life.
CP
Yo:u 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."
F
:That statement is false as I pointed out earlier.
I agree the statement is incorrect. I should have said most not all.
F
: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 ideas¼
I must disagree. They may admit that individuals may hold divergent views, but from their own literature (quoted below), they do not accept or tolerate even the formation of such views:
Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, 1991 Edition
Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.
"Attain Completeness in the New World Society"
To hold to the headship of Christ, it is therefore necessary to obey the organization that he is personally directing. Doing what the organization says is to do what he says. Resisting the organization is to resist him. (The Watchtower r, May 1, 1959, page 269)
"Is Obedience Always Proper?"
When our heavenly Father, Jehovah God, speaks, whether through his Word, the Bible, or through his earthly organization, it is all the more important for us to listen and obey, thus proving that we are obedient worshipers who do not ignore the loving reminder: "Did you hear me?"
(The Watchtower, April 1, 1988, page 31)
"Help Me Out Where I Need Faith!"
To ensure their salvation, Noah and his family needed to exercise faith. This meant following instructions and the leadings of God's holy spirit. During the great tribulation, it will be just as imperative that we follow the leadings of the holy spirit and obey Jehovah's instructions through his organization.
(The Watchtower, September 15, 1991, page 17)
So important is it never to raise the voice in bitter criticism of the Lord's organization or its made for these and other unprofitable sayings.-Matthew 12:36, 37; Leviticus 19:16; Jude 8. Those who despise Jehovah's teaching include individuals who criticize and complain about Jehovah's clean organization and its rules for maintaining peace and good order. There is only a fine line of demarcation between such and those who are outright rebels. (The Watchtower r, May 15. 1984, page 17)
At times there are heard from immature ones slighting remarks, careless talk or outright criticism of the Society's operations. Such is outright lack of respect for the means Jehovah is remarkably using to perform his will in this pre-Armageddon time. Truly the Society as directed by God's Holy Spirit merits our deepest respect and wholehearted obedience. (The Watchtower r, July 15. 1960, page 444.)
Beware of those who try to put forward their own contrary opinions.
(The Watchtower, March 15, 1986, page 17)
Avoid Independent Thinking
(The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, page 22)
How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization.
(The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, page 22)
Fight Against Independent Thinking
(The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, page 27.)
F
¼ 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 quiet. 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-quiet-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.
I agree with the proceeding but feel the theory is nothing more than the "party line" to maintain power and the status quo. For Christ was highly, openly and honestly critical of those things he found fault with. In my opinion, to consider oneself Christian, apart from questions of Christ's divinity or divine origens, that person should emulate to the best of their abilities the good example of Christ.
F
: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 [insulate?] itself in the litigious environment of modern society? Doing so is an act of prudence. It is not an issue of right or wrong.
I don't think there is anything wrong with an organization protecting itself in our overly litigious society. Of course, this adds to the litigious atmosphere. However, I don't believe it should be part of a religious or spiritual experience or practice. Maybe they could have new members sign a contract before or after the baptism. It may not be an issue of right or wrong, I would like to think about that more, but it certainly is, in my opinion, one of appropriateness.
F
:Jehovah's Witnesses make no sacred dedicate[ion] 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 individual¼
I would argue as understood by the organization.
: ¼ 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.
Their organization is also a legal, corporate entity and something quite different from a brotherhood. The early Christians were also a people of divergent views and practices as regards their Christianity, again something quite different from the JW organization.
CP
: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.
F
: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.
The community itself has no right to gauge what contributes to and what doesn't contribute to the goals of association. That is decided the top-down centralized system of the WT and is the responsibility of the GB. The question is also what personal price does that person have to pay in order to leave or express their dissatisfaction after the organization has changed the agreement without the consent or participation of the member.
F
: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.
Again, I don't think many when entering are fully aware of the sanctions taken against those who leave or sever ties with the WT organization.
F
: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[me] 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.
The extent that you go along is your choice, but as the previous quotes show, there is little room for disagreement. I commend you for being more concerned with your own conscience. I find it a high principle and an often difficult one to follow.
F
: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 mean openly, honestly and publicly stating what you think and how you feel about important issues. I don't believe being honest needlessly upsets people, or, if it does, they are being overly sensitive.
F
: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.
I don't fault you for using a moniker, I and many others use them here as well for our own personal reasons. I do find fault with an organization that creates an atmosphere where one finds the need to use a moniker or pseudonym. The growing number of JWs who would not shun you for your contrary ideas and actions would face shunning for such action. I am glad you participate in these forums. Your voice is needed.
C
:Also, the flaws of most communities don't cause their member's death.
F
:You must be kidding me.
You're right. I didn't think that one out well enough. I participate in the discussions as time permits at work and don't always review as best I should what I have said. I was way wrong there.

In peace,
CPiolo

Follow Ups:

- *For Friend Friend 12:39:52 11/22/99 (0)

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 ]