Hello Bob,
Your use of the term “Central Doctrine” reminded me of this exchange awhile back on another (now defunct) board. I think that it addresses your point.
Fundamental Doctrine of JWs
Posted by AF [AF] on April 11, 1999 at 12:54:35 {W9OtcxMCf.tWYktmF7cQdaOt1gg/Zk}:
I have repeatedly stated on this forum that the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovhah's Witnesses is that their Governing Body speaks for Jehovah and is God's direct and unique representative to mankind on earth today. Corollary to this is that their Governing Body is not to be questioned, since questioning it is tantamount to questioning God. Also corollary is that Jehovah's Witnesses are uniquely God's people, i.e., no one else will get salvation.
To date, not a single JW on this forum or any other forum I'm aware of has even attempted to offer proof for this doctrine or its corollaries. Instead they always offer it as a basic assumption, much like certain basic unprovable assumptions in mathematics. The difference is that mathematicians are well aware of what their assumptions are and they label them as such in textbooks, whereas JWs are loath to admit their assumption and attempt by stealth to convince "new ones" that this Fundamental Doctrine is self-evident. The Knowledge book contains a fine example of such stealth.
But this Fundamental Doctrine contradicts their claim that the Bible gives certain evidence of who would prove to comprise "the One True Religion" at any given time -- "by their fruits you will know them". JWs are not able to give consistent evidence of these "fruits" and show that such "fruits" are unique to their organization.
Some JWs, of course, don't believe this doctrine and therefore are not real JWs according to JW teaching. They are, in fact, apostates according to the Watchtower Society.
In any case, various JW apologists on this forum have been specifically challenged to provide proof or even evidence for their Fundamental Doctrine. Not a one has risen to the challenge.
If this forum is meant to be one for reform of the JW organization, doesn't it make sense to deal with the most basic question of all first, and only after that is settled go on to less demanding details?
AF
Friend - Fundamental Doctrine
[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by AF [AF] on June 16, 1999 at 10:35:53 {Y0pyXdsUMUDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
: 2. According to you the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the idea that the Governing Body and only the GB speaks for God to mankind today. According to you, this doctrine means that one who accepts it must defer to the GB in spiritual matters, since not doing so would be usurping the God-given chain of authority – his “theocratic arrangement”.
: I agree with number one but disagree with number two.
Ok, but you at least agree that what I call The Fundamental Doctrine is a basic doctrine, and you’ll probably agree that if it’s not the fundamental doctrine, it’s no worse than Number Two.
: More fundamental than your proposition is that Jehovah’s witnesses consider the Bible paramount, it is the Word of God. Any loyalty that Jehovah’s witnesses give to the Governing Body is imputed, as they perceive that body being loyal to God’s Word. In other words, that governing body’s words and actions are themselves governed by scripture. Jehovah’s witnesses consider God’s Word supreme.
You are, of course, stating what JWs like to tell themselves. Unfortunately this lofty sentiment is not what the bulk of JWs go by in practice. As Tom has also explained, in practice JWs usually defer to the GB’s interpretation of the Bible. This may be a subtle point, but it makes all the difference in the world to answering the question of what JWs in general consider their supreme authority.
Another way of looking at this is to realize that since the Bible does not comment directly on many matters, or uses metaphoric or symbolic language, readers must interpret what it says into something concrete. The question then becomes, Who do JWs generally accept as the final authority in interpreting the Bible? In this form I suspect you’ll agree that the answer is that JWs generally accept the GB as this final authority. As Tom said concerning their acceptance of the Society’s claims on the blood issue, “the rank and file accept this not because the Bible actually says so, but because those in a supposed position of spiritual authority say it says so.
We see this acceptance of GB authority anytime JWs are challenged with “difficult” subjects. I’ve had plenty of personal experience with it. One of the strongest proofs in my experience was in dealing with the Society’s top scholar in ancient history and Bible “chronology”. About five years ago I ended up in touch with this guy by phone, and then met with him and two other JWs at the home of one of them in New York. We covered many things during a pleasant all-day discussion. One thing we discussed was the Society’s interpretation of certain material in Jeremiah and how it bore on the overall Watchtower 1914 chronology. I pointed out that the Society is entirely unable to incorporate one of the fundamental scriptures bearing on “the 70 years” into its chronological framework, namely, Jeremiah 25:12. This scripture, the WTS scholar admitted, says clearly that Jehovah would punish the king of Babylon after “the 70 years” ended. But the Society teaches that these 70 years ended not in 539 B.C.E., when Belshazzar the king of Babylon was killed, but two years later. Therefore the Society’s teaching contradicts the Bible, and this scholar was forced to admit it. I asked him how I ought to view this blatant contradiction, since it was obvious that if the Society took the Bible’s statement at face value, the entire 1914 chronology would crumble. He said, “Wait on Jehovah”. In other words, this scholar was willing to defer to the Society’s official teaching until the GB might change it, if ever, even though he directly admitted that it contradicts a clear Biblical teaching.
I know that this guy is the Society’s top scholar in this field because Albert Schroeder as much as told me so, in that when I discussed this same topic with him I mentioned that I had spoken to the scholar. He told me that if this guy couldn’t explain the problem, then no one else could either. What this told me is that the Society now has a serious problem, because a top scholar knows that a doctrine is wrong but won’t push for a change because he defers to the GB, but the GB doesn’t understand the issues enough to make an intelligent change, and worse, doesn’t want to make a change because of the far-reaching consequences of jettisoning the 1914 doctrine. So here we have a case where the Fundamental Doctrine has resulted in intellectual gridlock – the “spiritual authority” doesn’t change because of inertia and the deference that is paid to them by those who know the facts, and those who know the facts are afraid to push on “the faithful slave” because they think that God will magically cause the problem to be solved in its own due time. This is another “blood policy” situation.
I think you know that I’m speaking the truth about these matters.
: Let me ask you a question. If the Governing Body announced tomorrow that its own writing had superseded the Bible as supreme authority, do you really think the organization known as Jehovah’s Witnesses would survive?
Yes, but in a radically modified form. I don’t think that this would ever happen. Remember also that there are degrees of change.
: If you answer yes, then you are simply nuts.
Not at all. Probably the majority of JWs would quit, and the organization would change drastically and probably split into several sects, but a substantial number would continue, out of inertia if nothing else. This has happened to many religions, such as the Worldwide Church of God in the 1980s. You’d have a drastically modified Watchtower Society but I think you’d see some sort of organization retain the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
A very probable scenario is that within a decade or so, after the current GB members die, drastic changes will be made in areas such as blood, chronology, prophecy and so forth. The JW community will change greatly, but a large fraction will accept the changes as coming from God, and gradually forget that the new teachings would once have been denounced as apostasy.
: If you answer no, then you agree that the authority of the Bible is considered fundamental more so than that of the Governing Body.
If the GB made such an announcement, I think that the majority of JWs would find something else to do.
But that’s not really the point about this Fundamental Doctrine. At least some of the Society’s writers have clearly believed that they were inspired or virtually inspired. Fred Franz was one of these. Evidence of this can be found sprinkled throughout WTS literature. For example (I don’t have the reference here), Franz once wrote that it was perfectly ok at that time to ignore Jesus’ statement about “not knowing the day or the hour”, because he was virtually certain that “the end” was coming by 1975. In various other writings the Society has stated clearly that God has given JW leaders understandings that are just not found in the Bible. They don’t claim direct inspiration, but an indirect inspiration that they label “divine guidance”. Of course, they never explain just what this “divine guidance” is or how it works. In particular they don’t explain how it results in coming up with unscriptural doctrines like their policy on blood transfusions.
: The simple fact is that when people accept beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses they do so by first comparing what their Bibles say with our beliefs. Those who consider our beliefs compatible with the Bible will investigate further and possibly become Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those who consider our beliefs contrary to scripture will cease investigation of our beliefs altogether. Whatever anyone accepts from the Governing Body is founded upon their own study of the Bible.
This is theory; practice is rather different. What really happens is that most people who begin studying with JWs learn a small subset of the beliefs, then make a decision to accept or reject the religion based on very incomplete information. In particular they decide to accept whatever the Society says from there on, without further investigation. They reason, “what I’ve been taught so far checks out, so I’ll assume that everything else would too”. Remember that most people are mentally lazy. This acceptance of the GB’s authority means that whatever doctrines the person accepted as Biblical may well be changed. After a person has been a JW for some time, these changes are easily accepted and even eagerly sought as interesting “new light”. The Bible didn’t change, but what the GB told the JW community to believe did. This easy acceptance of change, all the while believing that whatever teaching is current is really true and is without question what the Bible teaches, is the essence of Orwellian thinking.
Then you have those who are “raised in the truth”. Children are not usually given any options. They’re told, outright or in so many words, “this is Jehovah’s organization and you’re going to accept it come hell or high water”. When these young ones find things that they don’t accept, they’re bullied into “acceptance”, and they decide either to go along and meekly believe, or to bide their time until they’re old enough to do what they want. Many children have found that their questions are dealt with by being told “Just accept it; this is the way it is; you’re a kid – what do you know? Who are you to question Jehovah’s anointed?” Sometimes the adult will promise to find an answer, but never comes back with one. The child learns what kind of questions are acceptable and what will get them in trouble. This is direct training in Orwellian thinking.
If you don’t accept my explanations, then please tell me how an intelligent adult can claim that it is by God’s direction that the Society teaches “7,000 year creative days”, then can abandon that belief when the Society specifically tells JWs to believe something else, and then claim that the “something else” is by God’s direction. Also tell me why JWs are unable to come to a consensus on what they’re supposed to believe about this topic. This is a minor point, but quite illustrative of the thinking process instilled by the Society in the JW community.
In summary, while Jehovah’s Witnesses say that they consider God’s Word the Bible supreme, in practice they accept whatever the JW Governing Body says the Bible says. They do this because they believe that God himself gives a proper understanding of the Bible to this Governing Body. There are individual exceptions of course, so my statement is a generalization. It’s easy to demonstrate that most JWs will suppress their own thinking on doctrinal matters and defer to the opinions of the Governing Body. They tell themselves that they’re following what the Bible says, not just what the GB says, even when GB opinions change. This is self-deception and it is the essence of Orwellian thinking. It’s the essence of the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
AF
****Friend - Fundamental Doctrine
[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by AF [AF] on June 17, 1999 at 09:05:52 {nfxdyGchk.DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ***Friend - Fundamental Doctrine posted by Friend on June 16, 1999 at 14:09:13:
: Well I sure didn’t see your brief idea. It all looked pretty fuzzy to me. Perhaps you’d like to be more specific, that is, since the issue was birthed by your theory.
Alright, here’s what I fuzzily said:
Yes, but in a radically modified form. I don’t think that this would ever happen. Remember also that there are degrees of change. …
Probably the majority of JWs would quit, and the organization would change drastically and probably split into several sects, but a substantial number would continue, out of inertia if nothing else. This has happened to many religions, such as the Worldwide Church of God in the 1980s. You’d have a drastically modified Watchtower Society but I think you’d see some sort of organization retain the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
I meant that the “destruction” of the JW organization could be accomplished by radical or drastic changes, or even changes that could seem minor to an outsider, rather than by the complete dissolution of the Watchtower Society and/or JW organization. Whatever the changes, I meant that they would appear to a current JW that the old organization had been replaced by a fairly different one.
Now, what do you by its “destruction”?
:: This is illustrated by the way you completely ignore the real-life examples I've given, which show that JW leaders are just as taken in by the Orwellian thinking as is the rank & file. It's a means of self-protection.
: Can’t you see how self-serving your comment above is? You dismiss other’s outlook and conclusions based upon your own ideas and experiences. Certainly everyone who has departed from our association does not share your views. That should tell you something. But then, you’ll likely just apply your Orwellian-thinking theory to that as well; quite self-serving.
You can label anything you disagree with as “self-serving” and cavalierly dismiss it. That doesn’t mean your dismissal is valid.
Of course not everyone who leaves the JWs shares my views. I specifically referred to that by saying that virtually all those who have left the JWs for ethical reasons share my views. Those who simply want to go out and fornicate, do drugs, etc., are not included among “those who leave for ethical reasons”. I have yet to speak to someone who has left for ethical reasons who did not share my views. Every one has agreed that the JW organization is extremely controlling, tends to suppress individual thinking, and puts WTS views above all others, including one’s personal view of what the Bible says. Have you spoken to people who’ve left for ethical reasons who did not share these views? Can you point to any ex-JW on H2O or any other public forum who does not?
It’s clear to me that you’re generalizing to the entire JW community based on your own personal attitudes, and perhaps the attitudes of a small number of JWs you can trust. But think about that: how many JWs can you personally trust with your intimate secrets? The fact that you feel you must keep your anonymity on this forum and everywhere else proves that you know that the majority of JWs are untrustworthy. You even extend that attitude of extreme distrust to people like me, refusing to reveal even in private who you are. You border on paranoid because you know very well what most of your brothers would do to you if they knew what you really felt – you reject their Fundamental Doctrine.
As for my views and comments being “self-serving”, what do you think I’m getting out of spending time on this forum?
: As for me supposedly ignoring real life examples, I have done no such thing.
Of course you have. You’ve not commented on a single one. That’s ignoring them.
: Until you can prove your idea is sound, those experiences are certainly more than offset by other contrary experiences. Your assertion is another red herring.
On the contrary, my assertion is an accurate description of reality, of the way the JW organization really works. You’ve offered no rebuttals, only simple denials.
Let’s try a specific example again: How is it that a top Watchtower scholar can read something in the Bible that is so clearly stated (Jeremiah 25:12) that even he can’t deny it, and then refuse to believe what the Bible says because the Society’s current teaching differs from the Bible, without obeying what I’ve called The Fundamental Doctrine? What is this scholar putting foremost? The Bible or the teaching of the Governing Body?
How about GB member Albert Schroeder? He and I talked on the phone in 1993 about this same scripture. We read the passages in parallel and his very first comment was that the punishing of the king of Babylon took place in 539 B.C.E., because that’s completely obvious. Then he stopped short, realizing that he was admitting that “the 70 years” ended in 539 B.C.E., not 537 B.C.E. as the Society teaches. He stopped short, and was quite confused. I offered to send him a written summary of our discussion and he promised to send me a good explanation of Jeremiah 25:12. Of course, he broke his promise. Clearly, Schroeder also rejects what the Bible says in favor of what the Governing Body as a whole teaches.
Tell me, Friend: when a Governing Body member and a JW scholar explicitly reject a very clear Bible statement, and accept traditional WTS teaching instead, and fail for more than 20 years to give any explanation at all for why they reject the Bible, what does that tell you about whose authority they put first? Isn’t it obvious? Their conduct is the same as that of most JWs: they put Watchtower teaching ahead of Bible teaching.
******
You’ve claimed in various posts that the Society doesn’t cause people to be disfellowshipped for simple disagreement with its teachings, that people must actively try to influence others to go along with them in order to be DF’d. That might be true now, but it certainly was not during the 1980s. Ray Franz’s Crisis of Conscience contains a copy of a letter from a high WTS official instructing CO’s and DO’s, I believe, to see to it that anyone who expressed disagreement, even in private and only to elders, would be DF’d. These instructions were carried out, as many have testified. Even today we hear reports of people being DF’d by elders whose main question is, “Do you believe that WTS leaders are God’s spokesmen?” You can even get an audiotape from “www.freeminds.org” which records the DF’ing of Ron and Michelle Leeds. This tape has the elders saying outright that the Leeds’ telling the elders that they disagree with certain basic WTS teachings constitutes “causing divisions” and “spreading false teachings”. Why? Because the Leeds expressed their disagreement to the elders! Where do you think these elders got their idea to act this way? Did they just make it up? Of course not. They were specifically instructed by the Society to do it. So, contrary to your claims, the widespread practice on the part of elders of DF’ing people for mere disagreement proves that the Society was behind it. Today’s fallout is that people like you have to be extremely careful about who you express disagreement to and how you express it. One slip and you’re likely to get booted out.
All of the circumspection you’re forced into ought to prove to you that my description of The Fundamental Doctrine of JWs is correct.
AF
Sam Beli
I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted. Solomon
