Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 24, 1999 at 12:12:18 {BlpRHB6gpcrRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *******For Friend posted by AF on November 24, 1999 at 10:19:57:
AF
How anyone can possibly conclude that the Society’s words above allow for “independent thinking” except perhaps in trivial matters is beyond me.
Articles discouraging independent thinking or conclusions do not discourage individual thinking or conclusions but rather reaching those conclusions independent of considering arguments and conclusions of the Society. The question is, do your citations/references go beyond what I have said to the point of squashing individual thought or expressing that in some acceptable format?
At times, some bring to the attention of the “slave” class various doctrinal or organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly, suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification.—Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order, The Watchtower, 1982: 20
The Society feels it is entirely proper that JWs offer their suggestions for improving doctrinal positions. Just where do those proper suggestions come from if thinking or conclusions different from the Society’s is not permitted? The answer if clear enough, the Society considers thinking things through by the individual JW a proper thing, as long as the Society’s views are considered in that process. Afterward, if a different conclusion is made, then suggesting a change is proper. That entire process—which is considered proper—defeats your portrayal that any divergent thought or conclusion is satanic.
As I said before, The problem lay in the Society’s accepted framework of sharing divergence. While I feel that framework is too constraining it is not as constraining or duplicitous as you portray it. That you feel otherwise is not surprising.
Friend