Opening a Debate with Helge Fauskanger on JW (Trying to, on quora)

Q

Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow for differences in opinion on spiritual matters related to the Bible or does everyone have to accept a common dogma?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Jehovahs-Witnesses-allow-for-differences-in-opinion-on-spiritual-matters-related-to-the-Bible-or-does-everyone-have-to-accept-a-common-dogma

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

studied at University of Bergen

Answered Sat

The viewpoints that appear in the literature are expected to be accepted with absolutely minimal debate or questioning. I guess a Witness may get away with saying he or she does not “understand” a specific doctrine, if that Witness does not make any further issue out of it, but rocking the boat by explicitly arguing against an official doctrine would be a monumental faux pas in this organization.

It is a central idea that this is “God’s organization” and that it provides timely “spiritual food” in the form of literature, the Watchtower leaders supposedly being appointed by Jesus as his “faithful and discrete slave.” Suggesting that there might be something wrong with said “spiritual food” calls into question this central concept of the unique status of this organization. Now Witnesses will have to agree that the doctrine has been tinkered with many times, but this is always presented as progress and refinement, God throwing ever more “light” on the Bible as time goes on (which however does not explain why some doctrinal changes have since been reversed: flip-flopping instead of a any tidy process of “progress”).

But as an individual rank-and-file Witness you must not argue for doctrinal refinements. That would just be “causing divisions” and is vehemently condemned. It is only the top echelon of the organization, ultimately 7–8 elderly gentlemen who claim to be the collective “discrete slave”, that has the right to revise the doctrine.

At all lower levels of the organization, anything that veers in the direction of critical discussion would be strongly frowned upon.

The only matters that are left to individual judgment are matters that have been explicitly defined as matters of “personal conscience” by the organization itself. For instance, while no Witness is allowed to have a blood transfusion, it is a “conscience matter” whether transfusions of certain blood components are allowed.

Comments

in four sections, I, II, III, IV. Each ends with a comment of mine, first version of this post, and on each of them Helge can, but so far has not, first version of this, answered. The first three of these also consist only of mine, still talking first version.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

As far as I have seen in recent decades, Witnesses are Old Earth, specifically Day Age Creationists, they are also Heliocentric.

Do you think a Witness could even get away with being Young Earth Creationist these days?

Could he get away with being Geocentric, even if that is very certainly not the position of Charles Taze Russell even?

I ask, because some Catholics here in Paris are putting down my Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism to being too influenced by Witnesses.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

“It is a central idea that this is “God’s organization” and that it provides timely “spiritual food” in the form of literature, the Watchtower leaders supposedly being appointed by Jesus as his “faithful and discrete slave.” Suggesting that there might be something wrong with said “spiritual food” calls into question this central concept of the unique status of this organization.”

Sounds like the Catholic Church, except for one thing : we can account and they cannot account for where this organisation was in 5th or 8th C. AD.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

“But as an individual rank-and-file Witness you must not argue for doctrinal refinements. That would just be “causing divisions” and is vehemently condemned.”

That does not quite sound like Catholicism, any priest, I suppose by extension any theologian is allowed to posit dubia to the Pope or his dicasteria in Rome, like certain bishops did about Amoris Laetitia (to Pope Francis, as they call him) or like what I just did about the thesis of Jean Colson, which got an imprimatur in 1968, to Pope Michael (he would not consider the imprimatur per se valid, since under Antipope Montini).

If Pope Michael directly in due form answers my dubia, and “PF” doesn’t answer those on Amoris Laetitia, he will then have showed a more Witnesses like attitude than Pope Michael.

IV

Kelly Patrick Dugan

Sat · 1 upvote

Were you a JW? This is frighteningly accurate. I was born and raised and disfellowshipped twice for good measure, and my father was an elder. Contrarian views were considered some type of heresy. Well said.

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

Sun · 2 upvotes

No, I have never been a Witness myself. In fact I am not even religious in general. But I happen to know more about the organization than most “outsiders” apparently do. Here is my grotesquely overlong account of my relationship with Jehovah’s Witnesses: Helge Kåre Fauskanger's answer to Will Helge Kåre Fauskanger ever become a Jehovah's Witness since he is so profoundly obsessed by this religion?

Chris Gigliotti

Sun · 2 upvotes

including Helge Kåre Fauskanger

You know more about the religion than most insiders, too. I can say with certainty you know about the minutia of the faith than I did, even when I was pioneering.

Eoin Peel

14h ago

It's just ashame with all your knowledge of Jehovah's witnesses you lack the key essential ingredient. Love, love for Jehovah as the only true God, love for his son and what he has done and love for the truth itself. Your situation reminds of the Apostle Paul words in 1st Corinthians 13 verses 1 to 3. All your knowledge of Jehovah's witnesses is absolutely useless without the love.

It's a shame really. Kind regards and best wishes.

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

3h ago

To me, this is a case of “love makes blind” — blind to the faults of this organization, to the harm it has caused many, even to the pretty unsavory nature of the Biblical deity. As described in the Bible, Yahweh/Jehovah is an irritable cosmic dictator whose chief concern is absolute, unquestioning obedience. He has little appeal to people who have internalized humanitarian ideals of tolerance and freedom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

You would consider Babel an indication of this?

Because, I have another view of what happened …