WT Society and Religious Education

[Anna]

23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

In most countries one goes to a technical college to learn a trade - so it is higher education.

But I don't think that's what the WT has in mind. When the WT talks about higher education it means getting a bachelors, masters or doctorate degrees (in the USA). An associate degree is only for 2 years and is more akin to a trade certificate, it seems neither are viewed as "higher education" by the WT.

[Arauna]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

associate degree is only for 2 years and is more akin to a trade certificate,

Not the same thing. Many degrees are generic and useless. A two year technical trade can get you a good job....and salary. There are trades that can take 5 years or more.. depending in the field.......and level of mastery. 

There are countries which allow the person to work in the trade while studying for his specific job skills e.g. making tools.

Trades provide skills for people to open their own business which I think gives the person an independence from a boss. Also,  a way for an individual to choose their own working hours while earning better money for the same number of hours  in a generic office job with a degree.  Think of a plumber, electrician etc etc.

The point is that people say we are against higher education.  We are not. Higher education includes trades because one can do it after 12 years of school education.  There are high schools which do prepare one for higher education.  My major in high school was music which was equivalent to first year university.  Technical high schools do the same.

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, Anna said:

An associate degree is only for 2 years and is more akin to a trade certificate, it seems neither are viewed as "higher education" by the WT.

In the U.S., an Associates Degree can be akin to a trade certificate, but I think @Arauna is correct in highlighting the difference. It's also my experience that since Associates Degrees are usually given by the same colleges that give 4 year Bachelors Degrees, that most local bodies of elders will not consider them different enough without an explanation. It's possible to focus on a two-year degree geared to a specific trade or profession, and it's true that the latest WT focused on 4 year degrees and higher as the more "dangerous" types of education. This has been the implicit cut-off in prior articles, too. 

From personal experience, even 35+ years ago, I was pioneering after Bethel and had just been recommended to join the local body of elders in my congregation. I told them that I would be going to college to get a 4 year degree for computer programming. This would delay the appointment until I graduated and might be seen as rejecting the appointment altogether if I was not able to continue pioneering as I thought I would be able to do.

Today, by the way, there are many ONE and TWO year certificates one can get in programming which will make you MORE qualified for specific jobs in IT than many four-year degrees. In practice, these are often picked up by persons who already have a FOUR year degree and had trouble getting a job. In fact for a person with a FOUR year degree, they can usually pick up a separate programming certificate for only a few additional weeks of computer programming, or a PMP for project management. There is a still a prejudice at many large companies (like the one I just left) to hire FOUR year degrees for everything, even if the degree was not relevant to the job. They just liked the fact that they were hiring persons who had proved the ability to communicate and expect a certain level of general knowledge and vocabulary. I hired philosophy and English majors many times for programming and IT jobs, as long as the person also had prior experience in a company doing similar IT projects to our company.

When my own children began getting good college offers due to AP classes and high school class standing, I decided I would want them to go to college if they wanted, and they all did. The first two lived at home to attend NY universities, but the youngest lived 150 miles away, on campus. I wouldn't have to give up being an elder for the first two children, but since the newspapers had already made a big deal out of my youngest, (revealing his college choice) I would not be able to remain an elder.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

So the rules of men stopped you serving God as much, in what you would describe as a good capacity (Elder). 

How old was your youngest when they chose to go to that college / uni ? 

I would ask again. Where did the GB's Lawyers get their qualifications from ? 

Where did the planners / designers of the 'new' HQ get their qualifications from ? 

But no, GB = dictatorship.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

So the rules of men stopped you serving God as much, in what you would describe as a good capacity (Elder). 

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.

But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.

But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 

I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.

But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.

But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 

I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

@JW Insider  No disrespect but you didn't actually answer my questions, unless I'm a bit blind

Quote "The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently,.."

NEED to step down, seems to show a dictated instruction. In my opinion it is a Man Made rule, not a direction from God. I would lump it into the 'traditions of men' category.   What do you think on that ?

Also I asked how old your 'child' was when they went to a college a long way away. Surely if they are of a certain age to make their own decisions then it was out of your hands. And why should the newspapers get knowledge of it ? 

The latter half of you last paragraph made me laugh. Quote " I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote .... " etc,  Um, a tactful way of saying 'I don't believe half of what the GB say but I'll stick with it anyway'   

And the, Quote "on which we might well be right .."  Fact is it's not WE that might well be right, it's following the GB's interpretations. There is no WE. There is only THEM ( at the top) and  congregants (at the bottom) .  And the congregants go out and preach exactly what they are told to preach (Workbook).  

Smiley faces as I'm trying not to be too serious about all this. No offence meant on any of it. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

7 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Smiley faces as I'm trying not to be too serious about all this.

They should be embarrassed faces. Isn’t there an emoticon for that?

7 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

In my opinion it is a Man Made rule, not a direction from God. I would lump it into the 'traditions of men' category.   What do you think on that ?

Step into your own church and assume pastorship duties if you think there are not requirements going above and beyond that of members/

9 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Um, a tactful way of saying 'I don't believe half of what the GB say but I'll stick with it anyway'   

What it says is that the requirement to walk in lock-step, as you must have said elsewhere, is a figment of your imagination. If you haven’t said it, it is only a matter of time, because you buddies say it ad nauseam.

11 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

There is no WE. There is only THEM ( at the top) and  congregants (at the bottom) .  And the congregants go out and preach exactly what they are told to preach 

This is too stupid to respond to. I just can’t do it.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

A case in point where by Mr Harley only answers by trying to make fun of someone. 

Quite strange that Mr Harley missed off the word WORKBOOK when he quoted me above. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

41 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

A case in point where by Mr Harley only answers by trying to make fun of someone. 

Come, come. This is not a gentleman's’ club. The only gentleman here is JWI, who astounds me with his civility, even in the face of downright hostile comments. I confess that I sometimes wonder if I should try to emulate him more.

His civility does him no good, however. Malcontents take his civility and beat him over the head with it. But he is of the sort who believes that theocracy dies in darkness, and I think their response does not matter to him,

45 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

A case in point where by Mr Harley only answers by trying to make fun of someone. 

It is a little mean, I will concede the point. And I have no problem apologizing. Still, when you take the stage to level the most outlandish accusations, ill-informed except for from the playbook of other opponents, you cannot cry if someone pointedly takes exception to your shooting from the hip.

48 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Quite strange that Mr Harley missed off the word WORKBOOK when he quoted me above. 

It frankly didn’t make any sense to me. But if it makes you happy, Mr 4Jah2Me: “WORKBOOK.”

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Come, come. This is not a gentleman's’ club. The only gentleman here is JWI, who astounds me with his civility, even in the face of downright hostile comments. I confess that I sometimes wonder if I should try to emulate him more.

His civility does him no good, however. Malcontents take his civility and beat him over the head with it. But he is of the sort who believes that theocracy dies in darkness, and I think their response does not matter to him,

It is a little mean, I will concede the point. And I have no problem apologizing. Still, when you take the stage to level the most outlandish accusations, ill-informed except for from the playbook of other opponents, you cannot cry if someone pointedly takes exception to your shooting from the hip.

It frankly didn’t make any sense to me. But if it makes you happy, Mr 4Jah2Me: “WORKBOOK.”

I do believer the Workbook is the item used at mid-week meetings, when telling the congregants exactly what they should be preaching. And as I had mentioned that congregants were told what to preach i thought it right to reference the Workbook. 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I do believer the Workbook is the item used at mid-week meetings, when telling the congregants exactly what they should be preaching. And as I had mentioned that congregants were told what to preach i thought it right to reference the Workbook. 

Oh. I see. That perception is incorrect, though. Sample presentations are included, but they are but a small part of what is contained in the workbook. The workbook is simply the program for the upcoming meeting, making it possible to prepare for it. Any meeting of any sort  is better if you can prepare for it.

The segment you refer to runs about 15 minutes in an overall meeting of nearly two hours.

I haven’t used one of the sample presentations in ages. For the most part, I don’t like them. They are presented as a form of coaching. Door-to-door preaching is not the easiest thing in the world, you know. Try it yourself and let me know what you think. 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

NEED to step down, seems to show a dictated instruction. In my opinion it is a Man Made rule, not a direction from God. I would lump it into the 'traditions of men' category.   What do you think on that ?

Yes, it is a man made rule, but based at least in part on scriptural principles. Also these are man-made rules coming from those who should be in a better position to see a wider set of statistics and experiences as they get reports from all around the world. Elders are sometimes called "epi-skopos" in Greek, meaning overseers. When we consider those who literally watch over a flock closely, we might expect them to count the number of sick, the number who die, the number eaten, the number of sheep in various categories: mottled, speckled, young, old, male, female. They also know the dangers of taking them through "Wolf Ravine" or making them wade through "Poison Water River." Similarly, if the elders working at headquarters got 100 reports of divorces right after holding an international convention in Las Vegas or Amsterdam, but no reports of divorces every time they held the same size international conventions in Helsinki or Reykjavík, I think it would be a wise man-made rule not to schedule international conventions in Las Vegas or Amsterdam. Not all traditions make the word of God void.

16 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I would ask again. Where did the GB's Lawyers get their qualifications from ? 

The WTS had a program to pay for Law School for selected individuals already working full time at Bethel or other full time service who showed promise or aptitude for such. This program was dropped, and you can be sure that there those at HQ who were counting the cost, much like those shepherd counting the survivors of "Wolf Ravine." They reverted back the previous system of using volunteers who had finished Law School before becoming Witnesses.

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Also I asked how old your 'child' was when they went to a college a long way away. Surely if they are of a certain age to make their own decisions then it was out of your hands. And why should the newspapers get knowledge of it ? 

Age 17.

But all scores that count are measured at the end of Junior year, not Senior year of American High School. Therefore it requires a conscious choice to pick the maximum number of advanced placement classes which could result in the best choices and scholarships and would therefore be a path chosen by age 15 or 16 at the latest.

Local papers print up the bio given by a Guidance Counselor office of each high school reporting on the scores of their "Valedictorians" and those who are accepted by certain colleges.

16 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Where did the planners / designers of the 'new' HQ get their qualifications from ? 

Asked and answered in a prior post.

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote .... " etc,  Um, a tactful way of saying 'I don't believe half of what the GB say but I'll stick with it anyway'   

So far, I believe well more than half of the GB says.   

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And the, Quote "on which we might well be right .."  Fact is it's not WE that might well be right, it's following the GB's interpretations. There is no WE. There is only THEM ( at the top) and  congregants (at the bottom) .  And the congregants go out and preach exactly what they are told to preach (Workbook).

I believe that since WE, if we hope to be noble-minded individuals, are responsible to search the Scriptures and see whether these things are so, then this must be WE not only THEM. And there are many ways to tell someone about the Kingdom hope, the paradise, the resurrection, God's purpose, God's government, and why it's got to be a sight better than what we are putting up with now. Sometimes the CLAM workbook is spot on, sometimes it doesn't fit my style at all.