- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SamBee wrote:
They tend to use their own translation which suits their doctrine and is inconsistent.Also, a lot of their doctrine is dependent on [Ensign]. And doctrine changes on a regular basis. A lot of [Mormons] notice this if they are around for long enough.
This sounds a lot like us, doesn’t it?
😈 dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
They tend to use their own translation which suits their doctrine and is inconsistent.Also, a lot of their doctrine is dependent on [Ensign]. And doctrine changes on a regular basis. A lot of [Mormons] notice this if they are around for long enough.
This sounds a lot like us, doesn’t it?
😈
The short answer is no,
we don’t use Ensign to anything like the extent they use Watchtowerexcept perhaps the General Conference issues. Watchtower is more like their equivalent of the Book of Mormon. The articles in Watchtower tend to be unsigned too. Unlike Ensign. Watchtower is famous outside the JWs. A lot of non-members have read it. But we hardly ever see LDS missionaries just handing over copies of Ensign to people they have never met before. Like I say, Watchtower is more like their BOM. Try name recognition with non-members – everyone’s heard of Watchtower, no one’s heard of Ensign… (but may have the BOM)
I only occasionally read Ensign. But I can get away with that and still pose as a “good” LDS. With a JW, not reading every single Watchtower makes you bad.
Also we don’t use our own translation of the Bible – except for a few stray bits in the Triple Combination. The JST doesn’t feature that much and no one carries a complete copy of it in the LDS. (A lot of parts of the JST are no different to the KJV). Again, the BOM is a more appropriate example. LDS prefer to add books to the scriptures rather than changing the Bible. (The NWT is something else – you’ll never see the word “cross” or “church” in it for example.)
Yes the LDS changes doctrine, but I think it is fair enough to say the JWs do it even more. I can still quote most of the talks from the 50s and 60s (black priesthood stuff aside!!!) in church, but with the JWs, you only want to do that with stuff from the past five years. Most of our major change happened between JS and WWI.
We’ve had some pretty radical changes over the past 120 years. But the JWs have even more form. There have been claims the world would end at least twice in the 20th century from their leadership at specific times. People were discouraged from having families, now they’re encouraged. People would sell everything. Now they’re told to dig in. JWs also get told previous leaders were wrong. The LDS can never quite do that. I put this down to them being a younger organization.
Over the past twenty years some stuff has changed. But very little of radical import IMHO. Most of it has been cosmetic. Lowering missionary age for example. Merging HP & EQ is the most radical thing I’ve seen. The last really big one I would suggest is the temple back in 1990, nearly thirty years ago.
I am by no means an expert of Jehovah Witnesses – just sharing observations from my experience. Watchtower: For a time I was somewhat jealous of this publication. It seemed to have articles that were scholarly with footnotes. I got the impression that I was learning about a variety of topics (Science, sociology, archeology … with perhaps a less than subtle JW interpretation). Many the issues would ask a doctrinal question on the cover and then answer it on the inside. (I am the type that read Mormon Doctrine and all 5 volumes of Answers to Gospel Questions and took them as Gospel truth). The Ensign by contrast can feel trite, retread, or stale.
Now that I am not a traditional LDS believer I am glad that I did not read tons of Watchtower-like articles to learn about the world around me. It can be hard enough to disentangle what I believe doctrinally from what I was taught. It might be harder still if my understanding of a variety of subjects where intertwined with religion worldviews. (for example if I had misconceptions about archeology from reading watchtower/FARMS)
SamBee wrote:
There have been claims the world would end at least twice in the 20th century from their leadership at specific times. People were discouraged from having families, now they’re encouraged. People would sell everything. Now they’re told to dig in.
Part of this comes with how seriously they take their religion. The bible does talk about the end of the world, that we are in the 11th hour, Jesus will come like a thief in the night, etc. When people believe that the end of the world is immanent they act differently. One of the primary justifications used for polygamy was that it was necessary to produce righteous offspring quickly on the eve of the millennium. I am very happy that the millennial rhetoric in Mormonism has been steadily toned down since the time of JS and BY.SamBee wrote:
JWs also get told previous leaders were wrong. The LDS can never quite do that.
The leadership was explained to me as a stewardship. Like Aaron was tasked with overseeing the administrative tasks of the camp of Israel while Moses was away. The JW are stewards but they are not prophets. They lead with prayer, deliberation, and inspiration – but not revelation. They are safeguarding the kingdom until Jesus returns to take command. Leaders can be shown to be wrong in hindsight as they do their best.
SamBee wrote:
Over the past twenty years some stuff has changed. But very little of radical import IMHO. Most of it has been cosmetic. Lowering missionary age for example. Merging HP & EQ is the most radical thing I’ve seen. The last really big one I would suggest is the temple back in 1990, nearly thirty years ago.
To be fair to the LDS church, If I had to choose a church with steady almost imperceptable changes or a church with sudden whiplash changes I would most definately prefer the former.
I would suggest we got the big changes out of the way early on back in the 19th century. The JWs are some decades younger than us and didn’t even become like they are until the 20th century. Dwight Eisenhower was a JW in his childhood but really nothing like the modern outfit.
Roy wrote:
The leadership was explained to me as a stewardship. Like Aaron was tasked with overseeing the administrative tasks of the camp of Israel while Moses was away. The JW are stewards but they are not prophets. They lead with prayer, deliberation, and inspiration – but not revelation. They are safeguarding the kingdom until Jesus returns to take command. Leaders can be shown to be wrong in hindsight as they do their best.
This is actually a very healthy way of looking at things in my view.
Some early JWs such as Judge Rutherford were treated like prophets though… but he doesn’t have the same kudos JS or BY did. Interesting to note that the JWs didn’t get a seventy/GA type system until the 70s, and it is only in more recent decades rank and file JWs really knew who they were.
My wife has relented to have a new JW couple come and talk to us. We even attended their church meeting last week. All of the stuff from SamBee’s OP was still present.
There was a speaker that made mention of having given the speech many times. It made me think of traveling high councilmen.
The watchtower study was super scripted. It felt like we were reading along. Even when there was a question posed by the facilitator, it seemed that somebody would answer the question by quoting from the section that we had just finished reading. There didn’t seem to be any room for going off script.
There was a section on not having unnecessary contact with sinners and unbelievers. One brother shared that this also includes family members. Of all the JW practices and beliefs, shunning is the most troublesome for me.
I understand the scriptural supports but nearly cutting off family that do not believe or follow JW customs is pretty textbook cult behavior.
I’ve never been to a JW meeting in person, but because of my job, I have been a fly on the wall for many of their telephone worship services. Those are also heavily scripted. They usually involve a leader or two guiding the service, playing prerecorded sermons, playing tracks of hymns and music (though I have heard a service or two where a real person would sing live with no music) and having listeners read their scripted comments. All of it is in a choreographed order of course. I live about a mile from my local Kingdom Hall, so I get quite a few JW missionaries at my door too. They’re nice people, and I always enjoy talking to them. I’ve always had good, pleasant conversations with them, but they usually realize I’m off the market when I tell them I’m LDS. I do get cultish vibes from them. But to be fair, people feel that way about us too.
SamBee wrote:
Roy wrote:
DW and I met with a very nice JW couple for several months. Observations:1) JW beliefs are generally internally consistent. Looking from the inside there is nothing that seems off. They have a system of belief based on the bible with particular emphasis on some verses over others (just like other Christian churches of which I am familiar).
There are other issues. They tend to use their own translation which suits their doctrine and is inconsistent. Stylistically I find the NWT horrible – JWs have never has a knack for beautiful prose.
Do you find any bad translations in the NWT? From what I’ve seen, some of their important deviations from normal translations are actually warranted. Although they don’t encourage higher education, so they don’t have scholars like we do to articulate it, there is Biblical scholarship that confirms some of their unique beliefs.Melvin Jones wrote:
there is Biblical scholarship that confirms some of their unique beliefs.
Right, there are many different offshoots and interpretations. It doesn’t surprise me that some scholarship supports JW interpretations.In my former school district in my former state I worked with several Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were good folks. They treated me well. I never attended a meeting. I actually never thought about doing so. I do believe to be considered fully active you are engaged in at least 10 hours of missionary work a week. As far as shunning goes, I believe I would fail at that. Reading the stuff about shunning within the JW community I can’t help but think it how common it is within LDS circles too. While it’s not official doctrine, members of the church have demonstrated this time and time again to be shunners of anyone who they do not like. While this is most likely more perdominent in places like Utah, and other traditional LDS communities in AZ, CA and Idaho – it’s not widespread across the church. But someone like me, I have experienced it myself many many times. I still remember my Mom tell me how shocked she is how I have managed to remain active within the church with the way I have been treated in the past by fellow church members. In terms of social interactions or social studies, shunning is an interesting practice in society. Shunning can be defined in a matter of degrees. In a religious setting, for example,
Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or emotional distance. In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or group, and follows a particular set of rules. It differs from, but may be associated with, excommunication.
In a work setting, shunning can be exercised by bias in the employment interview process through choosing who is let go during periods of downsizing.
When a church declares that we are members of the “only true church of Jesus Christ”, the membership, in general, expects perfection in its
members. That’s my guess anyway. When perfection doesn’t occur, then we MUST exercise judgement which leads to consequences.
Life is interesting. For others, it can be painful.
In our church, I would say shunning mostly seems to happen at the family and friend level. I’ve seen quite a few relationships end over the years from one person not living up another person’s expected standards. It doesn’t help that it’s encouraged by church leadership. Pres. Nelson’s recent remark on not taking council from non-believers is one example. A talk Elder Christofferson gave back in 2014 is a more blatant example of it. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/saving-your-life?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/saving-your-life?lang=eng
Quote:The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.What’s ironic about that talk is in the paragraphs immediately before that quote, he mentions the difficulty of some LDS members being shunned by their former Amish community. The message I guess being that shunning institutionally is bad, but on a personal level it’s okay?
Another aspect I’ll bring up is that most of the “interrupted relationships” I’ve seen have revolved around missions, or the not serving of a full one. More than one guy I knew growing up was kicked out by their parents, or had it threatened, for not serving. I’ve also seen a few young men quickly lose the positive attention of their bishop once they decided not to go on one. It’s very sad to see. And not very Christ-like in my opinion.
Admittedly my knowledge about JW shunning does not come from a firsthand source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_(2017_film) Ivanna is Luisa’s mother. Luisa is pregnant outside of wedlock and disfellowshipped.
Quote:After clarifying what is acceptable with the elders, arguing that Luisa needs some basic support as she is heavily pregnant, Ivanna proceeds to visit Luisa and help her clean her flat. Ivanna encourages Luisa to continue speaking to the elders and comments about the possibility of all of them seeing [another deceased family member] soon in the new system. Ivanna meets with the elder Steven to ask if Luisa is ready for reinstatement, but he says that while she is on her way, it is not quite in her heart yet. He urges Ivanna to further minimize contact and to stop visiting Luisa, as unnecessary contact with disfellowshipped individuals is itself a disfellowshipping offence. Luisa meets with the elders and they ask her what she has done to demonstrate repentance; she states that she has been respecting the disfellowshipping arrangement, living on her own for seven months, attending meetings, and praying. An elder comments that he doesn’t think allowing Ivanna to clean her fridge is necessary contact.
The idea that parents could face coercive pressure to not socially visit or share a meal with disfellowshipped children seems to put JW shunning in a different category for me.
Roy wrote:
The idea that parents could face coercive pressure to not socially visit or share a meal with disfellowshipped children seems to put JW shunning in a different category for me.
I agree with this sentiment Roy. The following is from an earlier post in this thread:
Quote:My son’s best friend in high school was a JW. My son thinks highly of JWs, and did attend a couple of meetings (they have weeknight study meetings as well). After high school his friend “fell away” and is currently being shunned. He doesn’t care about the shunning per se right now because he, like lots of LDS boys, has decided the “church is not true” and doesn’t desire to be part of it any more (and would have to do a whole lot of penance to return anyway). The thing that bothers him is his family. They won’t speak to him or otherwise have contact with him. A few months ago he went out to dinner at a restaurant not knowing they were there. They were in the middle of their meal and got up and left. I’m not condemning them, I’m just saying that shunning is part of their practice and culture and were it part of our practice and culture we’d do the same thing and be fine with it.
I neglected to say in that earlier post that these people were also at the time our neighbors. They have moved to a different state and my son’s friend has also moved to a farther away state. My son still has regular contact with his friend and the young man (now married) still has no contact with his family and as far as he knows his younger siblings have stayed “true to the faith.”
I also live in an area with a growing Amish population. Their practice of shunning is also very pronounced and devastating to the person being shunned.
Within the CoJCoLDS there certainly are instances of families “disowning” children for coming out as gay or perhaps even for less serious things like not serving a mission. It is my observation that this is much more based on individual beliefs and personality than it is part of the church. Judgementalism certainly exists and is alive and well in the church, but it does not reach near the level of institutional shunning like that of the JWs or Amish. I consider myself fortunate to live in a ward that is pretty mellow as far as the judgementalism goes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.