a believer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2022
- Messages
- 1,649
- Reaction score
- 8,025
One more oldie from my archives, this one from 2002. It was an email I had sent to Greg Stafford, back around May 15, 2002, in response to his then-recently published Dissertations. Greg has long since dropped off the map, as it were, although I do not claim to know his present circumstances— only that he has largely vanished from the scene.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything he has expressed through his books, at least he was receptive to email conversations back then. And he always came across as fairly reasonable.
—Timothy,
a believer.
Greetings Greg,
I want to personally thank you for your efforts in putting together a book such as Dissertations, and for being willing to address many of the concerns which affect not only ex-Witnesses today, but Witnesses who are active in the organization, or who have slowly lost their zeal and drawn away. You seem to have a good grasp of the issues and their implications.
Having said that, I want to also say that in reading Defended (2nd edition) *after* reading Dissertations, I detect a maturity in your discernment that I might have otherwise missed if I had read them in reverse order, although I've had to do some double-takes in similar materials between the two books (until I read your note in Dissertations regarding the "blood issue").
Jehovah willing, I will inquire much more about your material as written in the days ahead. However, I wanted to start with a specific topic, and that is this:
Does the Governing Body study the Watchtower?
The reason I ask this question is because it has been my understanding that the Watchtower magazine is carefully previewed and approved by the Governing Body before its publication, with much of its content actually planned by the Governing Body months in advance. Articles written by various ones, presumably at Bethel, are read thoroughly under this arrangement before their inclusion in the Watchtower magazine.
I went looking for the statement, because while I seem to remember that point being mentioned at one point in the videotape series, I wanted to find a similar reference in the literature itself.
The most specific admission I could locate was in the March 1, 1987, Watchtower, page 15:
'Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed.'
I have found no statement to change this understanding (which does not mean that there hasn't been an alteration of this-- only that I couldn't find it using the '97 Watchtower CD) and it is upon such a statement that I wish to explain why I asked the question in the first place.
I have often seen it written in a variety of publications and books, both opposed and in support of Jehovah's Witnesses, that a "writer" made a certain point or wrote things in a certain way that gave a certain view (which may or may not have been accurate or the actual view of the Society).
In Dissertations, page 46, you used the following statement in reference to a March 15, 2002, Watchtower article:
This, as I mentioned, is an example similar to others I've encountered.
On the surface, it is almost a deferring of responsibility for the statement made. In other words, the subtle implication is that the Governing Body cannot be held responsible for the statement made-- that it is the writer who is at fault.
But either the statement made in the above-mentioned Watchtower is correct in that "EACH ARTICLE in both The Watchtower and Awake! AND EVERY PAGE, INCLUDING THE ARTWORK, is SCRUTINIZED by selected members of the Governing Body BEFORE it is printed' (emphasis added) or it is incorrect.
If the statement is correct, then it seems to follow that the "selected members of the Governing Body" that "scrutinized" the material in question "before" publication gave approval to its content, and thus lent it accuracy in either its viewpoint, content, or both. That would remove responsibility from the writer and place it squarely upon the Governing Body, ultimately, would it not?
And in the event that something slipped by those who "scrutinized" the material, there currently is no provision for (retractions) of statements made in the literature which may not have the actual (approval) of the Governing Body, so that an error is allowed to multiply (even if the writer is reprimanded privately and encouraged to be more accurate in the future).
Doesn't this create a difficult environment for Jehovah's Witnesses, because we look to publications such as The Watchtower for guidance and "food at the proper time" from the "faithful and discreet slave." When we read such statements as the one you were making reference to, we try to bring ourselves into line with such statements, whether they are ultimately correct or not.
My concern is further complicated by the following "Questions from Readers" that was published in the May 15, 1951, Watchtower:
'Q: Would one of Jehovah’s witnesses be wise to say he accepts as from the Lord and true each issue of The Watchtower even before he opens it? or should he say it is provided by the “faithful and discreet slave” but he will prove everything in it before accepting it?—L. P., Montana.
A: If the heavenly Father would not give a stone or serpent or scorpion to a child who asked for bread or fish or an egg from him, and if The Watchtower is a gift from Jehovah through Christ by the “faithful and discreet slave”, are we to take each issue of The Watchtower into our hands as if we were going to be bruised by a stone or bitten by a serpent or stung by a scorpion? (Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13, NW) Are we to be doubtful and suspicious about each succeeding issue? The Beroeans first “received the word with the greatest readiness of mind”, and then they went to “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so”. (Acts 17:11, NW) So we should receive The Watchtower as an instrument that is always endeavoring to bring us the truth, if our past experience with it warrants that, and then, not in a combative spirit, we should Beroeanlike prove by the Scriptures what it says. That is what we want you to do, that you may be convinced and make these things your very own.'
The same statement is made the following year, in the February 1, 1952, Watchtower, where we read on page 80:
'Now some may ask, Should we accept as from the Lord and true the food provided through the discreet slave, or should we withhold acceptance until we have proved it for ourselves?'
The answer then given is similar to that given earlier, but with a slight edge to it:
'If we have gained our present understanding of the Bible by feeding at the table set by the slave, if we have been thereby freed from false doctrines and built up in the clean and undefiled worship of God and given a new world hope, we should have some confidence in the slave’s provisions. After being nourished to our present spiritual strength and maturity, do we suddenly become smarter than our former provider and forsake the enlightening guidance of the organization that mothered us?'
While the paragraph goes on to encourage us "After receiving these food supplies we prove their Scripturalness for ourselves to make the message our own, in a spirit of meekness and trustfulness and not combativeness" the seeds seem to have been sown that finally show their fruitage when the issue is again addressed thirty years later, in 1981.
In the February 15, 1981, Watchtower magazine, in an article that discusses "Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible?" in the subheading 'Our View of the 'Slave'" a statement is made that casts a troubling shadow on those statements made in 1951 and 1952:
'If we have once established what instrument God is using as his “slave” to dispense spiritual food to his people, surely Jehovah is not pleased if we receive that food as though it might contain something harmful. We should have confidence in the channel God is using.'
It helps to read that acknowledgment is given that "the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible" in the paragraph that follows the cited material, but the entire (flavor) of the article is troubling all the same, because statements regarding our responsiveness to the "food" provided us seem to be directed contrary to the advice (and encouragement) given back in the 1950s.
The following statement is an example of what I am speaking of:
'How shall we view the spiritual food provided by this “faithful and discreet slave”? Should it be viewed critically-‘Oh, well, it might be true but then again it might not be and so we have to scrutinize it very critically’? Some apparently have felt that way about it. To support their way of thinking they have quoted Acts 17:11, which says of newly interested persons at Beroea: “Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (p. 18/19)'
After spending some time explaining that the Beroeans were only (scrutinizing) in response to things they heard that were "new" to them, and that they had a willingness to believe the things heard, the statement is made:
'But nowhere do we read that those brothers first, in a skeptical frame of mind, checked the Scriptures to make certain that those letters had Scriptural backing, that the writers really knew what they were talking about.'
The implication is that we should not approach the Society's literature in a skeptical frame of mind, doubting its (truths). We should accept such literature eagerly, instead.
But what if we do not approach the literature with "skepticism?" What if we read something that is "new," perhaps a new understanding, and we respond like the Beroeans and "scrutinize" what we hear or read?
The article to which you referred in Dissertations could have been one of those articles where we happened to take such course. Perhaps we came to a similar conclusion as you, where whoever wrote the article was either presumptuous or just a sloppy writer. Perhaps it pricked our conscience into being a bit more keen to things that were being published from then on, and wanting to take a closer look at things that were said/published in the past, and more (sloppy writing/errant statements) are found? What then? Is it not possible that before long we ARE approaching the literature in the mentioned "skeptical" frame-of-mind, cautious (Matthew 10:16) and like the Beroeans (Acts 17:11).
Without a practical and realistic provision for revocating error that may from time to time appear in the publications, openly and unreservedly, so that the error is not magnified, do we have any choice but to look at said literature with a "scrutizing" eye so that we do not become exposed to misunderstanding, and is not such a course contrary to the recommendations of the literature itself? Are we really "doubters" or "critical"-minded when we do so?
And can it not also be said that responsibility for errors that are published falls upon the members of the Governing Body which, themselves, scrutinized the material before its publication, and not upon the writer alone as has been suggested many times by various ones? And if so, then why isn't there a means of (retraction) of error, to promptly correct the mistake? Why must the error be allow to propagate not only through the literature, but through the dispensation of the literature through the field ministry itself and the repetition of the literature through the Watchtower study?
What thoughts must arise in the mind when they (the Governing Body) read such statements after they are published in the literature? That is, if they even study the Watchtower...
Just some thoughts.
Submitted for your perusal,
Timothy
***
Once there was a man who went to his most trusted friend. To his friend, the man related how he regretted deeply having said something that he now knew was in error. Having spread such an error, he now wondered how it could be corrected, how he might set things right.
The trusted friend considered things for a moment and then took the troubled man to a tall, very tall hill, bringing with him a bed pillow. At the top of this hill he turned and handed the troubled man the pillow and told the man to shred and tear the pillow. Unsure, the troubled man did as he was directed, and when done, looked to his most trusted friend.
The friend was silent for several moments, watching as feathers from the rent pillow were carried upon the winds in every direction, and then he looked to his troubled friend, a sadness in his eyes, his voice quiet as he spoke: "Gather all of the feathers that you see being cast about by the winds, brother, and return here when you are done, and you will have your answer."
The man departed and was gone for an exceedingly long period of time, but finally returned, more distraught than before. "I tried. I tried so very hard," he told his most trusted friend. "But I couldn't find them all."
The most trusted friend sighed, his shoulders slumped with mute defeat. "The answer, although you have found it, is not easy to bear, but it is the Truth. Our words, when released, be they true or not, can never ever be recaptured by us. . ."
***
While I don't necessarily agree with everything he has expressed through his books, at least he was receptive to email conversations back then. And he always came across as fairly reasonable.
—Timothy,
a believer.
Greetings Greg,
I want to personally thank you for your efforts in putting together a book such as Dissertations, and for being willing to address many of the concerns which affect not only ex-Witnesses today, but Witnesses who are active in the organization, or who have slowly lost their zeal and drawn away. You seem to have a good grasp of the issues and their implications.
Having said that, I want to also say that in reading Defended (2nd edition) *after* reading Dissertations, I detect a maturity in your discernment that I might have otherwise missed if I had read them in reverse order, although I've had to do some double-takes in similar materials between the two books (until I read your note in Dissertations regarding the "blood issue").
Jehovah willing, I will inquire much more about your material as written in the days ahead. However, I wanted to start with a specific topic, and that is this:
Does the Governing Body study the Watchtower?
The reason I ask this question is because it has been my understanding that the Watchtower magazine is carefully previewed and approved by the Governing Body before its publication, with much of its content actually planned by the Governing Body months in advance. Articles written by various ones, presumably at Bethel, are read thoroughly under this arrangement before their inclusion in the Watchtower magazine.
I went looking for the statement, because while I seem to remember that point being mentioned at one point in the videotape series, I wanted to find a similar reference in the literature itself.
The most specific admission I could locate was in the March 1, 1987, Watchtower, page 15:
'Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed.'
I have found no statement to change this understanding (which does not mean that there hasn't been an alteration of this-- only that I couldn't find it using the '97 Watchtower CD) and it is upon such a statement that I wish to explain why I asked the question in the first place.
I have often seen it written in a variety of publications and books, both opposed and in support of Jehovah's Witnesses, that a "writer" made a certain point or wrote things in a certain way that gave a certain view (which may or may not have been accurate or the actual view of the Society).
In Dissertations, page 46, you used the following statement in reference to a March 15, 2002, Watchtower article:
This, as I mentioned, is an example similar to others I've encountered.
On the surface, it is almost a deferring of responsibility for the statement made. In other words, the subtle implication is that the Governing Body cannot be held responsible for the statement made-- that it is the writer who is at fault.
But either the statement made in the above-mentioned Watchtower is correct in that "EACH ARTICLE in both The Watchtower and Awake! AND EVERY PAGE, INCLUDING THE ARTWORK, is SCRUTINIZED by selected members of the Governing Body BEFORE it is printed' (emphasis added) or it is incorrect.
If the statement is correct, then it seems to follow that the "selected members of the Governing Body" that "scrutinized" the material in question "before" publication gave approval to its content, and thus lent it accuracy in either its viewpoint, content, or both. That would remove responsibility from the writer and place it squarely upon the Governing Body, ultimately, would it not?
And in the event that something slipped by those who "scrutinized" the material, there currently is no provision for (retractions) of statements made in the literature which may not have the actual (approval) of the Governing Body, so that an error is allowed to multiply (even if the writer is reprimanded privately and encouraged to be more accurate in the future).
Doesn't this create a difficult environment for Jehovah's Witnesses, because we look to publications such as The Watchtower for guidance and "food at the proper time" from the "faithful and discreet slave." When we read such statements as the one you were making reference to, we try to bring ourselves into line with such statements, whether they are ultimately correct or not.
My concern is further complicated by the following "Questions from Readers" that was published in the May 15, 1951, Watchtower:
'Q: Would one of Jehovah’s witnesses be wise to say he accepts as from the Lord and true each issue of The Watchtower even before he opens it? or should he say it is provided by the “faithful and discreet slave” but he will prove everything in it before accepting it?—L. P., Montana.
A: If the heavenly Father would not give a stone or serpent or scorpion to a child who asked for bread or fish or an egg from him, and if The Watchtower is a gift from Jehovah through Christ by the “faithful and discreet slave”, are we to take each issue of The Watchtower into our hands as if we were going to be bruised by a stone or bitten by a serpent or stung by a scorpion? (Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13, NW) Are we to be doubtful and suspicious about each succeeding issue? The Beroeans first “received the word with the greatest readiness of mind”, and then they went to “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so”. (Acts 17:11, NW) So we should receive The Watchtower as an instrument that is always endeavoring to bring us the truth, if our past experience with it warrants that, and then, not in a combative spirit, we should Beroeanlike prove by the Scriptures what it says. That is what we want you to do, that you may be convinced and make these things your very own.'
The same statement is made the following year, in the February 1, 1952, Watchtower, where we read on page 80:
'Now some may ask, Should we accept as from the Lord and true the food provided through the discreet slave, or should we withhold acceptance until we have proved it for ourselves?'
The answer then given is similar to that given earlier, but with a slight edge to it:
'If we have gained our present understanding of the Bible by feeding at the table set by the slave, if we have been thereby freed from false doctrines and built up in the clean and undefiled worship of God and given a new world hope, we should have some confidence in the slave’s provisions. After being nourished to our present spiritual strength and maturity, do we suddenly become smarter than our former provider and forsake the enlightening guidance of the organization that mothered us?'
While the paragraph goes on to encourage us "After receiving these food supplies we prove their Scripturalness for ourselves to make the message our own, in a spirit of meekness and trustfulness and not combativeness" the seeds seem to have been sown that finally show their fruitage when the issue is again addressed thirty years later, in 1981.
In the February 15, 1981, Watchtower magazine, in an article that discusses "Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible?" in the subheading 'Our View of the 'Slave'" a statement is made that casts a troubling shadow on those statements made in 1951 and 1952:
'If we have once established what instrument God is using as his “slave” to dispense spiritual food to his people, surely Jehovah is not pleased if we receive that food as though it might contain something harmful. We should have confidence in the channel God is using.'
It helps to read that acknowledgment is given that "the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible" in the paragraph that follows the cited material, but the entire (flavor) of the article is troubling all the same, because statements regarding our responsiveness to the "food" provided us seem to be directed contrary to the advice (and encouragement) given back in the 1950s.
The following statement is an example of what I am speaking of:
'How shall we view the spiritual food provided by this “faithful and discreet slave”? Should it be viewed critically-‘Oh, well, it might be true but then again it might not be and so we have to scrutinize it very critically’? Some apparently have felt that way about it. To support their way of thinking they have quoted Acts 17:11, which says of newly interested persons at Beroea: “Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (p. 18/19)'
After spending some time explaining that the Beroeans were only (scrutinizing) in response to things they heard that were "new" to them, and that they had a willingness to believe the things heard, the statement is made:
'But nowhere do we read that those brothers first, in a skeptical frame of mind, checked the Scriptures to make certain that those letters had Scriptural backing, that the writers really knew what they were talking about.'
The implication is that we should not approach the Society's literature in a skeptical frame of mind, doubting its (truths). We should accept such literature eagerly, instead.
But what if we do not approach the literature with "skepticism?" What if we read something that is "new," perhaps a new understanding, and we respond like the Beroeans and "scrutinize" what we hear or read?
The article to which you referred in Dissertations could have been one of those articles where we happened to take such course. Perhaps we came to a similar conclusion as you, where whoever wrote the article was either presumptuous or just a sloppy writer. Perhaps it pricked our conscience into being a bit more keen to things that were being published from then on, and wanting to take a closer look at things that were said/published in the past, and more (sloppy writing/errant statements) are found? What then? Is it not possible that before long we ARE approaching the literature in the mentioned "skeptical" frame-of-mind, cautious (Matthew 10:16) and like the Beroeans (Acts 17:11).
Without a practical and realistic provision for revocating error that may from time to time appear in the publications, openly and unreservedly, so that the error is not magnified, do we have any choice but to look at said literature with a "scrutizing" eye so that we do not become exposed to misunderstanding, and is not such a course contrary to the recommendations of the literature itself? Are we really "doubters" or "critical"-minded when we do so?
And can it not also be said that responsibility for errors that are published falls upon the members of the Governing Body which, themselves, scrutinized the material before its publication, and not upon the writer alone as has been suggested many times by various ones? And if so, then why isn't there a means of (retraction) of error, to promptly correct the mistake? Why must the error be allow to propagate not only through the literature, but through the dispensation of the literature through the field ministry itself and the repetition of the literature through the Watchtower study?
What thoughts must arise in the mind when they (the Governing Body) read such statements after they are published in the literature? That is, if they even study the Watchtower...
Just some thoughts.
Submitted for your perusal,
Timothy
***
Once there was a man who went to his most trusted friend. To his friend, the man related how he regretted deeply having said something that he now knew was in error. Having spread such an error, he now wondered how it could be corrected, how he might set things right.
The trusted friend considered things for a moment and then took the troubled man to a tall, very tall hill, bringing with him a bed pillow. At the top of this hill he turned and handed the troubled man the pillow and told the man to shred and tear the pillow. Unsure, the troubled man did as he was directed, and when done, looked to his most trusted friend.
The friend was silent for several moments, watching as feathers from the rent pillow were carried upon the winds in every direction, and then he looked to his troubled friend, a sadness in his eyes, his voice quiet as he spoke: "Gather all of the feathers that you see being cast about by the winds, brother, and return here when you are done, and you will have your answer."
The man departed and was gone for an exceedingly long period of time, but finally returned, more distraught than before. "I tried. I tried so very hard," he told his most trusted friend. "But I couldn't find them all."
The most trusted friend sighed, his shoulders slumped with mute defeat. "The answer, although you have found it, is not easy to bear, but it is the Truth. Our words, when released, be they true or not, can never ever be recaptured by us. . ."
***
