The Watchtower study article "Responding to Your Conscience" (October 15, 2007, pages 25-29, studied December 3-9, 2007) dealing with, inter alia, oral sex, contained what I thought was an interesting new way of describing how JW's can form their own personal, and different, conclusions and that no one needs to be 'disturbed' by this.  I have never seen the Watchtower describe it quite this way, even in relation to conscience matters like whether to attend a church wedding.  What was particuarly interesting was the wording of this question Q13) Why need it not be disturbing that two Christians reach different conclusions?. 

This question seems to be worded in this way out of silent consideration for the fact that what the Authoritarian Watchtower Society prizes above all else, is UNITY OF BELIEF.  Unity of belief is prized and sustained even above truth itself because some the GB most certainly know that certain of the Society's interpretations are flawed and false.  That is why it is normally so DISTURBING for JW's to "reach different conclusions" on things.

What is interesting is the thinking coming through in paragraphs 11-13.  What we see in those paragraphs is in fact the correct way that the Society should be treating many of its interpretations.  Where there are very good reasons that can be argued BOTH WAYS, the only logical and proper stance for the Watchtower to take is to let each Christian make up their own mind, based on their own conscientious research and conclusions!  In this example given, both sisters went away and did personal research (unfortuantely to be restricted to the Society's own publications - a point strongly alluded to in para 12) and both formed different conclusions about the SAME MATTER from their research, and based on their own personal circumstances.  How often have we seen the Society present such a balanced and reasonable position???

Sadly, the Watchtower only allows this moderate stance in the most greyest of grey areas.  As para 4 in this study article strongly implies, it is wrong for JW's to ever disagree with the Governing Body on matters of doctrine and even the smallest of interpretations the Society has put forward as being the true scriptural position must never be questioned.  This authoritarian stance is completely unnaceptable.  In contrast to that, the Society has unwittingly declared in these paragraphs 11 to 13 of this study article the exact attitude it needs to adopt with a whole raft of teachings for which good scriptural arguments can be presented both for and against (and in fact, for which the opposing arguments to their position are indeed much stronger). 

In a nutshell, allowing each Christian to form their own conclusions on NEARLY EVERYTHING is what the Society should be doing, but within a certain minimum range of basic doctrine (notice that the apostles & older men in Jerusalem, the first century so-called "governing body" the Society mentions in paragraph 4, say that they holy spirit only expects the congregations to adhere to "these necessary things" - so only a few things need to be insisted upon by the Governing Body today!!).  For example, since there is so much evidence against the 1914 chronology being correct, the Society should humbly announce "there are good reasons and arguments that can be presented both ways...it is not up to us to tell you what you must believe on this matter.....do your own research and come to your own conclusions and tolerate each others conclusions....there is no need to be disturbed by this at all!"  This approach, the approach set out in paragraphs 11-13 in the examples of two sisters faced with the same choice, is EXACTLY the approach they should be taking with a huge range of their debateable interpretations!  What a pity it seems that will never happen in the organisation except for inconsequential so-called "conscience matters" like attending a church wedding.

Here are paragraphs in the articles:

Q11) Describe how one Christian wife might reason on whether to attend a church wedding, leading to what conclusion?

11) Lois reflects on the serious Bible command, `Get out of Babylon the Great,' the world empire of false religion. (Revelation 18:2, 4) She once belonged to the church where the wedding is to take place and knows that during the ceremony all present will be asked to share in religious acts, such as prayer, singing, or religious gestures. She is determined to have no part in that and does not want even to be there and be under pressure to break her integrity. Lois respects her husband and wants to cooperate with him, her Scriptural head; yet, she does not want to compromise her Scriptural principles. (Acts 5:29) Hence, she tactfully explains to her mate that even if he chooses to be there, she personally cannot. She may mention that if she attended and refused to share in some act, it might cause him embarrassment, so in that sense her not attending might be best for him. Her decision leaves her with a clear conscience.

[Picture on page 28] Two Christians facing a similar situation might make different decisions [Husband and wife discuss invitation. Husband has goatee (non-JW); wife holds up hands objecting. Picture represents scenario in paragraph 11.]

Q12) How might someone reason on and react to an invitation to a wedding in a church?

12) Ruth faces virtually the same dilemma. She respects her husband, is resolved to be loyal to God, and is responsive to her Bible-trained conscience. After thinking about points such as the ones Lois considered, Ruth prayerfully consults "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of May 15, 2002. She remembers that the three Hebrews complied with a command to be where idolatry would occur, yet they kept their integrity by not sharing in an idolatrous act. (Daniel 3:15-18) She decides to accompany her husband but not to share in any religious deeds, and she is acting in harmony with her conscience. She tactfully but clearly explains to her husband what her conscience will permit her to do and what she cannot do. Ruth hopes that he will see the difference between true worship and false.-Acts 24:16.

Q13) Why need it not be disturbing that two Christians reach different conclusions?

13) Does the fact that two Christians might reach different conclusions suggest that it makes no difference what a person does or that one of these two must have a weak conscience? No. In view of her past experience with the music and trappings of church ceremonies, Lois may sense that being present would be particularly dangerous for her. And her past interactions with her husband on religious issues may affect her conscience. So she is convinced that her decision is best for her.

If the WTs ever did what the Church of God did, ( a religion that had some very similar beliefs to jws and whose leader was often thought to be an apostate, but he wasn't) ie renounce their beliefs , acknowledge they had hurt many, and make necessary corrections--I  could have some respect for them. As it is, they are just another lying religion, and no better than the Jim Jones crowd.

Interesting and lucid post Must Obey.

What you say about 1914 and by extrapolation many other doctrines is spot on. How many here would still be in if they were a little more flexible? I do not want to go there

How sad that they do not value genuine and passionate debate.

Enjoyed your musing

llbh.

This situation came up with a friend of Clyde's who attends meetings with his wife of 43 years--only this time it was a funeral.  She read this WT article and decided to be like Lois and not attend.  Clyde's friend is really ticked.  I don't see how this is showing "respect" to her husband.  He has shown her "respect" by attending the Kingdom Hall these last 43 years, but she won't attend the funeral of their friend because it's in a church. 

The Watchtower continues to devise ways to break down marriages.

Umm this was all under the guise of headship to an unbelieving husband. 

If the WTS outright says to disregard her husbands headship (authority), then what is the difference in disregarding the FDS self-given authority?......

The only conclusion that made this fine was the wife being in subject to her non-JW hubby.

****of course I know this tatic well******** as my hubby is not a Witness*******

(BTW if the Hubby was a JW and his wife was not and had wanted him to attend, the answer should/'would have had to be NO)

Ahhhh reverse sexism.....a rarely seen sight.

Y

It's my opinion that they put statements in their as is found in paragraph 13 just in case they need to quote something later in the press. They won't point to the decades of rules. They will point to this WT quote and say "See? We encourage people to think for themselves, except in cases where the bible clearly condemns a certain course of conduct." (I have heard this line of reasoning so much it makes me ill to type it right now...)

This is a cover their @$$ quote. I find it ironic that the article sort of contradicts this statement throughout....

Remember that insisting on your own conscience but stumbling another is the most important point according to the WTS.  So even if your conscience allows something, if it disturbs that of another jw perhaps stumbling them you are to set aside your conscience.