Could Someone Be Disfellowshipped For Not Believing In The "Overlapping Generation" JW Doctrine AFTER Being Baptized?

[PeterR]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I will ask an elder if one has to believe the "overlapping generation' in order to get baptized and I'll get back with you with what he says.

You would be asking the wrong question Anna.

You need to ask him whether someone could be disfellowshipped for NOT believing it after baptism.

If he says no, he is either misinformed, forgetful, or lying.

Now I grant you, not every elder will apply the letter of the law (although in a JC it's more likely because of the group dynamics). But that there are procedures in place to allow for DF'ing someone who refuses to believe in particular teachings is very real.

Let me ask you Anna - if I could prove beyond doubt that this was true would you accept it, or would you continue to make light of it?

If you are determined to see only what you want to see I have no agenda to change that. But I can assure you that I do not speak from a position of ignorance or partial information in this regard.

[Shiwiii]

Peter, it sounds as though you have the facts. Can you share those facts? While I think you are correct, I would like to know myself. This topic instantly brings me to Corporate America and the policy that if you want to remain, you will do and act as "we" say. Corporate America cares not if you believe in the direction or concept of the corporation, just that you obey and conform. That is a hard pill for some to swallow because it shows that the corporation doesn't care about the individual, only the bottom line. Also, in the corporate world there are instances where the policy is not intended to protect anything but the corporation and each employee knows that it is wrong, but what can they do if they are being paid handsomely? 

[JW Insider]

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)

Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe."  But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.

I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.

The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.

On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

[Shiwiii]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)

I thought that all witnesses learn and believe the same thing and that this is a defining factor to prove that the wt is the truth? So you are saying that there IS division among jw's? 

[Evacuated]

13 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

division among jw's? 

Don't be soft. Diversity is not division.

[Evacuated]

14 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I thought that all witnesses learn and believe the same thing and that this is a defining factor to prove that the wt is the truth? So you are saying that there IS division among jw's? 

Argument is not your forte @Shiwii. Try and speak straight. You might have more success.

[PeterR]

I hadn't realized that people could create new topics under your name without your say so. But this is the second one for me now.

So if anyone thinks I started this and haven't replied I can assure you I wasn't even aware that this topic existed until a couple of seconds ago.

[PeterR]

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Peter, it sounds as though you have the facts. Can you share those facts? While I think you are correct, I would like to know myself. This topic instantly brings me to Corporate America and the policy that if you want to remain, you will do and act as "we" say. Corporate America cares not if you believe in the direction or concept of the corporation, just that you obey and conform. That is a hard pill for some to swallow because it shows that the corporation doesn't care about the individual, only the bottom line. Also, in the corporate world there are instances where the policy is not intended to protect anything but the corporation and each employee knows that it is wrong, but what can they do if they are being paid handsomely? 

In my opinion and experience there is an element of this going on. I don't believe it's motivated by corporate greed though. There are different motivators at work. If you want to start to understand what they are you can look at a local level and work up from there.

There are many good brothers and sisters who do good deeds for no personal advancement. This is true of many people outside of the organization also (it would be wrong/silly to suggest otherwise), but most of us are primarily focused on what happens inside. 

At the same time there is a hierarchy. Technically nobody is "greater", but it's implicitly acknowledged that some "privileges" are greater than others. (All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. - Animal Farm)

In recent years the ones being promoted up that hierarchy tend to be younger than they were a decade or two ago. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but most people who see what's going on from inside would say that loyalty is being valued over experience. If anyone cares to argue with that then please go ahead. Loyalty is a valuable quality when applied correctly and directed to the right party. Loyalty to Jehovah God and his Son is essential. But if the organization becomes interchangeably used with Jehovah, with no practical distinction then there is room for loyalty to become abused by those in authority.

When organization becomes the thing that must be preserved at all costs, and individuals are expendable, bad things happen. The word "organization" never occurs in God's Word, and Jesus always stressed the value of individuals. That's not to say that being organized is a bad thing, but not if "unity" and "organization" trump "love".

By all means I would prefer to support my point of view with specific examples. I could do that, but I won't in a public forum.

It should not be necessary though. Those in the hierarchy know the facts even though they may not care to confront them. And for sure if things are going without problem in your corner of the world then I am happy for you. The question is whether the system itself is geared to serve the needs of an organization when it comes to the crunch, or to help individuals.

Elders - what is the order of priority you have been given at school - 1) Jehovah's name, 2) the congregation, and 3) the individual.

Anyone care to argue?

In practice #1 & #2 actually becomes "the organization" and #3 remains as "the individual".

And the scriptural support for this is .... ? See the problem?

(I already know that certain people will not see a problem)

 

[PeterR]

By the way, even though I didn't raise this topic, the answer to the title question is ... YES

Will it happen? Not in the majority of cases. But the fact that it can and does happen should raise a red flag because some people are getting hurt.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I thought that all witnesses learn and believe the same thing and that this is a defining factor to prove that the wt is the truth? So you are saying that there IS division among jw's?

There is obviously unity, but the best kinds of unity refer, not to absolute conformity of thought, but to the ability of Witnesses of all ages to respond in their own words with Bible answers to many doctrinal questions. Most active Witnesses are able to do this for dozens of Bible questions, using their own words, even coming up with their own illustrations. Continuous training in Bible topics will create a high level of conformity, but it's also a unity of purpose, unity in moral standards, and unity in the sense of getting along with one another with minimal issues with regard to race, nationality, etc.

Not all Witnesses are even interested in potential variations of doctrine, because it is so easy to just listen and learn. I believe that, as Christians, it's our responsibility to question all things, but doctrines need not be the highest priority to Christians. They can't be ignored, but Christians should be more conscientiously concerned with moral standards, serving the needs of others and showing love for God and neighbor and allowing those priorities to motivate all of their life and conduct. Doctrines will find their place as time permits.

Those Witnesses who do question teachings out of a strong desire for truth are not hard to find if you listen closely in person to their talks and prayers. And of course, online, it's possible to find many more hiding behind avatars and fake names.

Remember, too, that many Witnesses who have done their Christian duty to question all doctrines may currently appear to be in total conformity with the vast majority of other Witnesses because their questions and research have brought them right back into full acceptance of the unique Witness doctrines. Some, of course, will do their Christian duty and find that one or two doctrines seem impossible to accept to that individual's conscience. Because they work among fellow Witnesses where the majority view is different, they are usually careful to avoid hurting the conscience of the other person by talking openly about their belief. This might give an appearance of conformity that appears stricter than the actual conformity.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, PeterR said:

I hadn't realized that people could create new topics under your name without your say so. 

Sigh....tell me about it. It led to my Scarlet A.

[The Librarian]

4 hours ago, PeterR said:

I hadn't realized that people could create new topics under your name without your say so. But this is the second one for me now.

So if anyone thinks I started this and haven't replied I can assure you I wasn't even aware that this topic existed until a couple of seconds ago.

@PeterR Moderators can.... and should only when there is clearly a major fork in the conversation.

 

Until one day when @admin decides to introduce threaded replies.