First of all, my apologies... I goofed in my first attempt to comment on this.
The recent thread by Bibleexaminer prompted me to comment on how the WTS sometimes seeks to disseminate something ``through the Back Door,'' i.e. verbally via its Circuit or Disttict Overseers rather than face the embarassment or other negative consequences of mitigating or altering an official position in print.
Usually, step one in this process is to cease any reference to the obsolescent teaching, counting the rank and file's short memory span. Step two, of course, is to quietly marshall the army of visiting overseers to support the retraction verbally, in talks and informally in conversation with individual dubs and with the bodies of elders.
One prominent example of this is have adroitly they've scuttled the 7,000-year Creative Day teaching, which in many ways was the lynchpin of thie 1975 fiasco. Never matter that it all seemed to fit so beautifully with the ``antitypical Jubilee'' and the expiration of man's 6,000 years, etc..... ``just stop talking about it and it will go away,'' seems to have been the approach.
Rarely when they print an article that amounts to a major shift in doctrine or policy, will they make a forthright ``heads up'' statement to the effect that ``take note of this, friends, for it changes our previously held view.''
The onus is on the dubs to alertly ``pick up'' on such changes. Their transparent cynicism and contempt for the average dub's intelligence is palpable.
Where such duplicity slips in one silly interprettion of prophecy to replace another, it's innocuous and even laughabl.
Ominously, it becomes deadly, even criminal, when it governs their treatment of life-and-death matters.
Blood is one such example. Because of the Society's refusal to date to publish a straight-talking official statement update unambigiously summarizing all the details of its current blood policy,I bet that not one JW in a hundred knows what's permissible and what ain't.
``New Light'' Via the ``Back Door''
by Room 215 5 Replies latest jw friends
-
Room 215
-
Frenchy
Agreed. Same goes for the voting thing.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
-
Maximus
Now why in the world would the Society and the Legal Department want the brethren to be in the dark about the blood policy? Do you know WHY there is no one article that definitely lays out "doctrine"? Here are the facts:
If church policy is fuzzy or confused in the mind of the parishioner, that indicates that policy is individualistic and not communal. The church is therefore not responsible for acts resulting therefrom.
It's all about protection against liability not scriptural doctrine. They have not refuted one iota of the material presented at http://www.jwbloodreview.org
But policy changes will continue to leak out as they have been .........
Max
-
Room 215
Right, Maximus,
And in the interim, loyal people -- including innocent children -- are sacrificed on the altar of Arrogant Intransigence -
Francois
Room 215
What you describe is exactly to the letter the way that politicians handle the electorate. Exactly.
And we are to avoid the mere "appearence" of evil? While the governing body acts exactly like the cheapest, sleaziest political operative from the most typical ward political machine?
I want to be there when the governing body gets its karmic reward. Actually, I think the GB does not believe in any God but money. If they believed that they would one day have to face God with these behaviors, I don't think they'd engage in it.
Francois
NOTE TO GOVERNING BODY: You've been challenged to a debate, boys. Dont you have ANY balls?
-
Seeker4
Room 215, I found your statement that not one Witness in 100 actually understands the WTS blood policy very interesting. It paraphrases exactly the statement made to me a couple of years ago by a very faithful elder who is a total company man.
What a sad commentary that is - on the WTS, on its policies, and on the membership who continue to put up with such nonesense.
On another note, I checked with my wife on the last CO's visit, and she has no memory that the CO made any of the references to Matt 24-25 that have been indicated by BblXmnr. She could easily have missed that - most of the friends do, unfortunately. But is there anymore verification that these are in-general talks being given by the COs?? Has anyone come forward with more info on this? Room 215's analysis of how changes are made is accurate - but is this new change just a rumor? Have you heard anything, Max? Dropping the prophetic significance of our time is the death toll for the WTS. Why stay with this ridiculous organization if there's no ax over your neck?
Thanks
S4