Over the weeks and months, the articles on the "JWsurvey . org " blog has discussed a number of issues ranging from child sexual abuse, the complications of an interfaith marriage within a JW household, to raising a child with autism. There were many interesting comments from the bloggers and from readers who posted comments that responded to the articles. I myself can relate to much of what has been said, but not everything. Ex-JWs hold a plethora of opinions and beliefs and are free to express themselves in appropriate ways on the " JWsurvey . org" blog. In contrast, dissenting opinions about official beliefs and practices within the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society ( WBTS is what I personally call it) are not allowed and such persons who dare do so are subject to religiously-based punishments which may result such a person being "disfellowshipped" (excommunicated) from the organization ( the "JW Church") and shunned by JW loved ones and associates.
A recent article that was posted on April Fool's Day of this year has caused some controversy, but I don't believe that it was done to stir up people's emotions in a negative way. It dealt with a "what if" scenario about the WBTS changing some of their practices in regards to child and teenage baptisms, allowing blood transfusions and immediately reported known cases of child sexual abuse to the police, no longer requiring the practice of shunning ex-members. Some commenters found this kind of satire to be too offensive for their tastes. As for myself, I don't think that the WBTS will change its rules on these or other issues, at least not anytime soon. These rules may never be changed. I think that the JWs only really change their beliefs and practices when it suits them to do so, when they think it is necessary or when it is required by secular authorities if a rule seriously conflicts with the laws of the land to where they might loose their tax-exempt status or something of that nature.
I do think that " JWsurvey . org" is probably helpful to many doubting JWs who are questioning their religious beliefs and practices, as well as for ex-JWs who want to discuss their experiences and frustrations. I think it may be helpful for lifelong non-JWs who may be interested in the experiences of ex-JW's and doubting JWs. I do think that it would be biased to not look at the views of ex-JWs and non-JWs who may disagree with the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and practices. I do think you should know why the JWs believe and do what they do from their perspective, but I think it would be biased to ignore what ex-members think. It requires a balance of both. As for myself, I disagree with the JWS obviously, since I am an ex-JW myself. I think that it is important to look at JW literature objectively to decide on whether or not you agree with it. Looking at it from an objective point of view and doing research may help you decide as to why you do or do not agree with the information presented. Would you automatically trust what the JWs say about Roman Catholicism just from reading their denominational literature or would you do your own research from a more objective standpoint to decide as to what you think about the Roman Catholic Church, its beliefs, practices and history and not merely just rely on what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society writes about the denomination from their official point of view? I no longer agree with Roman Catholicism, but I personally don't think that the JWs are very objective or unbiased when they write about non-JW religious groups in their literature. I personally don't think that the JWs are unbiased or objective when presenting their denominational beliefs, practices or history either when they are mentioned in their literature or in person without treating them as "unquestionable truths", those some people would state that this might be an "obvious fact".
I think that it is best to do objective research on the JWs and decide what you think for yourself if the subject interests you. I would say that the same thing goes for Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Seventh-day Adventism or any other religious group that I once belonged to or that you may have belonged to. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment