Instruction vs Indoctrination

[skyrider]

Education is defined as "the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind, character, etc.

Instruction is defined as 1) the act of instructing; education, 2) knowledge; information, etc. given or taught, 3a) a command or order, 3b) any of the sequence of steps to be followed as in doing, using, or operating something, 3c) a sequence of bits, specifying an operation to be performed.

Indoctrination is defined as "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

When I step back and look at my twi experience, I find these questions:

1) Did wierwille initiate a ministry that was designed to instruct the believer in right doctrine?

2) Was the pfal class a series of sessions to promote consideration and assimilation of concepts?

3) Or, was pfal a series of sessions that provided a sequence of steps toward indoctrination?

4) We were told that all questions would be answered......but, were they?

5) Did twi provide an environment for questioning and dialogue after bible study? after classes?

6) What about corps training? Wasn't there deep-provoking questioning to engender more learning?

7) Or, was CP#2.."Receive training in the whole word so as to be able to teach others also."..a sequence of indoctrination?

8) Was there heavy-handed intimidation used against those who asked genuine, and disturbing, questions?

9) Didn't Jesus see thru how Pharisees laid traps with their questioning...yet, disciples had true, heart-felt questions?

10) If one quits asking questions and critically examining doctrine...is that the tipping point towards indoctrination?

In another recent thread, on the advanced class......some are questioning the learning process.

That's a good thing, right?

[waysider]

Critical thinking is a two-edged sword. It can keep you out of trouble or put you on the hot-seat. I still prefer it to blind acceptance.

[skyrider]

Indoctrination is defined as "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

Indoctrination is a process of inculcating ideas.

...."inculcating" is to trample underfoot, to impress upon the mind by frequent repetition or persistent urging.

Were our ideas and attitudes and emotions suppressed?

Were our ideas and attitudes and critical thinking trampled underfoot?

Were our ideas and attitudes and goals diminished and side-tracked?

Doesn't "The Teacher"......the instructor, carry the bulk of the responsibility in impacting young minds?

Doesn't the "Authoritative Figurehead" set the parameters of the learning environment or supress it?

Doesn't the "Class Instructor" become the indoctrinaTOR when a sequence of teachings has a self-serving agenda?

Doesn't a 55-year old preacher have an unfair advantage in subtlely usurping a 22-year old's freewill?

TRUE learning is an exciting adventure.

PSEUDO learning is deceptive entrapment.

.

Edited January 15, 2012 by skyrider

[waysider]

Indoctrination is the reason PFAL was structured the way it was.....overload of information, crammed into a short period of time, dealt out in incremental portions, with no room or time to consider alternatives. It's the reason you could not walk into your local bookstore or public library and pick up a copy of PFAL or RTHST. I actually asked, one time, why, if we were so consumed with spreading our message, did we not make the materials more readily available to anyone who wanted them. I was told (by leadership) that the systematic build up of the class was just as important as the material, itself, and the casual reader would be missing that. In plain English....it's an indoctrination process.

[skyrider]

I was told (by leadership) that the systematic build up of the class was just as important as the material, itself, and the casual reader would be missing that. In plain English....it's an indoctrination process.

Wierwille was fond of the phrase...."Most people just think they think -- dat's riiighhht!"

So, the question I have is.........."And, what did wierwille do to change that?" Even some in the Research Department have come forward and shared that "wierwille's research" was not to be questioned. So, if it can't be questioned and/or altered with greater insight.... then in blunt terms, wierwille has ALREADY DONE ALL THE THINKING FOR US.

How convenient....for the one who gets to rule and pontificate from his porcelain throne.

[johniam]

quote: Education is defined as "the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind, character, etc.

Instruction is defined as 1) the act of instructing; education, 2) knowledge; information, etc. given or taught, 3a) a command or order, 3b) any of the sequence of steps to be followed as in doing, using, or operating something, 3c) a sequence of bits, specifying an operation to be performed.

Indoctrination is defined as "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

This reminds me of a few things. I once did a word study. There's a verse in Proverbs quoted in Hebrews. So I thought it might be interesting to look at the old testament word and the new testament word. I don't have a bible with me so I can't remember exactly which verses they are, but the gist of it is...my son, despise thou not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him. The OT word for chastening is musar, which is translated instruction pretty much every time it's used in Proverbs. The NT word in Hebrews is paidiea (verb)/ paideuo (noun). That word, according to Bullinger meant what we refer to as education.

Interestingly, in Luke, it's used when Pilate said I will chastize (whip) him and release him, but from Acts onward its meaning is more like a system of education. Acts 7 Moses was 'learned' in the wisdom of the Egyptians and Acts 22 Paul was 'taught' according to the perfect manner of our fathers. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 it's 'instruction' in righteousness. Thrilling huh? <_<

I think that anybody who is enabled to educate others will be tempted to cross the line from instruction to endoctrination. A teacher, a military drill sergeant, a judo instructor, not just religious instructors. Yeah, we were like a sales force. I don't have a problem with the doctrine, but twi shouldn't have constantly tried to guilt people into being "committed beyond their life time". IMO.

[Ham]

Indoctrination is defined as "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

So what ideas were inculcated, what cognitive strategies or *professional(cough)* methodologies were inculcated during one's stay at da way?

one "attitude" I saw first-hand.. don't you DARE touch *MY* (self) righteousness.. hissssss.

As far as professional methodologies.. were we not "trained" to sell.. pfal, then intermediate, then what.. all kinds of little classes to get into the "big one".. then loy's half-baked set of classes..

no wonder da offshoots waited like vultures for victims fleeing da way: they were a ready-made sales force..

[PatAnswer]

Indoctrination is defined as "the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

In retrospect I think one of the most effective tools that TWI used (uses) to indoctrinate its followers is the "no private interpretation" teaching. This teaching is introduced early and often to stifle thinking.

In the foundational class the example is given of a typical bible study group. A verse is read and then each member of the group gets to stand up and say what they think it means. Johnny, Maggie, Henry each stand and say "Well I think it means..." In the example in the class they may have been giving their thoughts on the sower and the seed. Johnny says "I think the seed is..." followed by the others and they disagree with each other. Then VPW says "now we've got three denominations" and "why don't they just keep reading? The Word interprets itself" and in fact in this instance Jesus later says "the seed is...., the fields are....". Oh that it was always that simple!

But VPW says "you nor I dare notprivately interpret the Word". "Private interpretation" (one's own interpretation or letting loose, one's own thinking) is highly condemned. You are not to say what you think the Word means. Now you are ripe for indoctrination. You are no longer thinking but rather accepting someone else's opinion of "what the Word says".

I think the truth is that the private interpretaion verse is improperly taught. It's got nothing to do with an individual "privately interpreting" what the Word means but rather that the prophet does not "let loose" by his or her's own volition. But that's only what I think.

[skyrider]

In retrospect I think one of the most effective tools that TWI used (uses) to indoctrinate its followers is the "no private interpretation" teaching. This teaching is introduced early and often to stifle thinking.

In the foundational class the example is given of a typical bible study group. A verse is read and then each member of the group gets to stand up and say what they think it means. Johnny, Maggie, Henry each stand and say "Well I think it means..." In the example in the class they may have been giving their thoughts on the sower and the seed. Johnny says "I think the seed is..." followed by the others and they disagree with each other. Then VPW says "now we've got three denominations" and "why don't they just keep reading? The Word interprets itself" and in fact in this instance Jesus later says "the seed is...., the fields are....". Oh that it was always that simple!

But VPW says "you nor I dare notprivately interpret the Word". "Private interpretation" (one's own interpretation or letting loose, one's own thinking) is highly condemned. You are not to say what you think the Word means. Now you are ripe for indoctrination. You are no longer thinking but rather accepting someone else's opinion of "what the Word says".

I think the truth is that the private interpretaion verse is improperly taught. It's got nothing to do with an individual "privately interpreting" what the Word means but rather that the prophet does not "let loose" by his or her's own volition. But that's only what I think.

Wierwille's johnny/maggie/henry example of private interpretation.........was a ruse, a deceptive ploy.

He jumps in to lecture us about "why don't they read it in CONTEXT".......but does wierwille teach the significance

of "private interpretation" IN ITS CONTEXT??? No....he doesn't teach the lead up verses in II Peter to give the

full context in its rightful place.

Wierwille was a cherry-picker......and wouldn't find a ladder to reach the higher, sweeter fruit. <_<

[skyrider]

But VPW says "you nor I dare not privately interpret the Word". "Private interpretation" (one's own interpretation or letting loose, one's own thinking) is highly condemned. You are not to say what you think the Word means. Now you are ripe for indoctrination.

And.....and it reeked of wierwille's condescending smugness.