When we were in the Organization, I noticed that some persons WANTED rules. NEEDED them! There are people in society that also feel secure when they have stricter rules than not. Personally, I see a need for some common sense rules but I'm more a libertarian at heart than an overly strict Pharisee or Republican. What's your take on this???
Are You/ Were You Careful To Follow Rules??
No I am just the opposite. I think rules are definitely made to be broken. Critical thinking is the essence that we use to progress as a society. What is critical thinking, basically not following the rules. Just my take...pc
When you were in the congregtion, did you easily "follow the direction of the loving shepherds"?
I admit that I did need rules when I first came into the org. My mother wasn't around much ... working and all and she didn't spend a lot of time teaching me her values ... cussed me out quite a bit and made blanket statements like "all boys want is to get in your panties" ... (me) yeah, AND? LOL. The WT gave me strict guidelines to live by and hey ... I would get eternal life in paradise if I stayed true. But after so many years I realized there were too many rules, and most of them didn't make sense to me anymore. Now I live my life based on my own values, and use critical thinking to check things out. I'm a life long learner now so I'm not going to fall for just anything. And I have no problem saying 'I don't know'.
i agree. traffic by-laws: fine. golden rule: great. but the more esoteric or complex a situation, the more flexibility i crave. i especially enjoy breaking intellectual rules in pursuit of some form of truth. i have always bristled against authority, and when in the org, i tried to steer clear of as many elders, MS's, CO's and pioneers as possible because i craved flexibility. what a place for a libertarian to be! an org that thinks everything is black and white, good and evil, yes or no. no grey areas. no wonder i was depressed in the org!
My ex-husband who is a JW now for 35 years loves the rules made for him. He even imagines he thrives on it. He is upset that me his ex-wife and our sons have turned away from the bogus rules in favor of freedom. Rules are all important to him, he was always reminding us of the rules, and how Jehovah was watching everything we did and said. Yes he still adores the rules of the faithful discreet slave bozo's. Yes he would die for those rules gladly.
Wow... I've been wating for a chance to comment on something like this. Have you ever studied Human Temperament? It's basically the Myers-Briggs stuff, and while it irritated me in the beginning, the more I learned the more fascinated I became.
Here's how it shakes out: about 40% of the population are Guardians, 40% Artisans, 12% Idealists, and 8% Rationals. Guardians are basically defined as Concrete Cooperators. They are the Supervisors, Inspectors, Providers and Protectors we find in society. They want to be seen as dependable, beneficent and respectable. They are the people among us who promote the institutions of society, the ones who always remind us that if we don't follow the rules everything will go to heck in a handbasket.
The good thing about Guardians? They dutifully get stuff done and look after people. The bad thing? If you're not careful, and too great a percentage of them come to be in control, you get Pharisees. Yes, they like rules. And why not? In the absence of rules you have chaos. Where is the balance? I'd say the goal is to have just enough rules to prevent chaos--and just few enough not to restrict the freedom of individuals. That balance though may be defined differently by all of us. The idea is that if enough of us (with our accompanying temperaments) are involved in making decisions within a nation, community or organization, that a balance is struck. The problem? It's the Guardians who are usually the ones who volunteer to oversee, manage and direct groups of people. So a disproportionate amount of them come to be in public office, in managerial positions and, yes, at the helm of a religious organization.
Now I know most of you may have done more study about the history of WTS, but I've done a bit myself. For the great majority of C.T. Russell's life, he seemed to be pretty hands off. Thinking that the term "organization" was something to beware of. Saying that he recognized as "brother" anyone who professed a belief in Jesus Christ--and who endeavored to act in accord with God's spirit (or something like that.) But, as invariably happens when any organization starts to get too big... Problems develop, disunity occurs. Enter J.F. Rutherford. You can bet just as many of us today recoil at his tactics, there were many who felt the same way back then. But, despite his methods, a number of people liked the way he cracked the whip, the way he took charge. It seemed to shut people up a bit. And you can bet that a huge percentage of the people who appreciated Rutherford were Guardians--the people who nearly always vote in favor of organizational unity, more rules, life definitions clearly laid.
And that's what we've got today, isn't it? When an elder body (or a Governing Body) sits around the big table and votes on something, who wins? The people warning that too many rules create the environment of restriction that Jesus Christ sought to vanquish? Or the people who vote for MORE rules, in the name of caring for the friends, in the supposed best interest of others, and to support commitment to the organization? Well, when the body is 60 to 80% Guardians, unfortunately the latter argument nearly always wins.
Re: Are You/ Were You Careful To Follow Rules??
Yes, it was everyone else who broke them
I'll bet you were a real rules breaker! Just got that feelin'. You and your whole brood.
I also remember while in corporate America, they told us that only 10% of any given population is CAPABLE of management.
The Dubs keep trying to force a square peg into a round hole.... because the HS will make it work... they violate the very laws their own "God" put in place..... interesting.
Thus the designation sheep (most people) and wolves (predeatory "Guardians") and shepherds (benevolent "guradians").
JC had it right.... watch out for "wolves" in "sheep's" clothing!
u/d (of the not by the hair of my chinny chin chin class)