The Governing Body and the Anointed

by greendawn 37 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  under_believer

  5go: "Read animal farm by Orwell."
  
  That is exactly my thought on the matter as well. 1984 is also instructive.
• 

  greendawn

  Good points wozadammy, but again the very cunning argument of the GB that the rest of the "anointed" should in effect forego all Divine inspiration and direction in favour of them is a crude pope like scum. What are they trying to say? Where is the Biblical basis for such an ideology? Does the Holy Spirit share inspiration and knowledge to a handful of "anointed" and completely ignores the rest? Of course it doesn't it shares gifts and knowledge to all it is not biased in favour of some. As for some misbehaving "anointed" the prime examples are the GB members themselves with their inordinate greed for power and control. Everything has to be done through them and everyone else is excluded. They even bend the righteous and unbiased nature of the Holy Spirit to suit themselves.
• 

  onacruse

  greendawn:

  I know the GB (and previously the WTS presidents) are power lusting pigs

  And your evidence is?
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  The Gov. Body of the WTS collectively suffer from a "superiority complex" and do not wish anyone else to be given the acclaim and position which they hold in the eyes of their minions, nor do they wish the threat of a usurpation of their position from others who put their pants on one leg at a time, just as the Gov. Haughty Body does.

  Frannie
• 

  onacruse

  frannie:

  The Gov. Body of the WTS collectively suffer from a "superiority complex"

  They do? On what basis do you make this assertion?

  and do not wish anyone else to be given the acclaim and position which they hold in the eyes of their minions,

  And yet I have personally seen one of them (Fred Franz) deliberately refuse to indulge someone (after an international convention talk he gave) in just such an act of acclaim and recognition.

  nor do they wish the threat of a usurpation of their position from others who put their pants on one leg at a time, just as the Gov. Haughty Body does.

  And how do you know what they wish, or do not wish?

  frannie, and greendawn, just to clarify: I'm not saying that I haven't shared, and even may now share, your feelings about the motives of the men who lead the WTS...but, at least for myself, what I see in these feelings about those men, and those who preceded them, is nothing more than my mere conjecture. Having met some of them, I could just as easily assert that they are completely sincere in what they believe, and in what they do...and I'd be equally without evidence for such.

  Ad hominem attacks (or supports) count for nothing.
• 

  kid-A

  "frannie, and greendawn, just to clarify: I'm not saying that I haven't shared, and even may now share, your feelings about the motives of the men who lead the WTS...but, at least for myself, what I see in these feelings about those men, and those who preceded them, is nothing more than my mere conjecture. Having met some of them, I could just as easily assert that they are completely sincere in what they believe, and in what they do...and I'd be equally without evidence for such."

  And so what? Greendawn and Frannie have simply stated their opinions based upon their experiences and the data they have available. I've met a couple of them too, and in my opinion, they came across as arrogant pricks with messiah complexes. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, but we are all free to create our own estimations. Ultimately, we must base our opinions of others motivations on conjectures we derive from observations and evidence.

  These individuals, COLLECTIVELY, oversee policies and enforce doctrines that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent children and adults over decades, a scandalous cover-up of sexual abuse due to the 2-witness judicial doctrine not too mention the destruction of thousands of familial relationships.

  I have no doubt they are "sincere" in what they believe, and in my estimation the nature of these beliefs more than justifies ad hominen attacks on these self-proclaimed "spokesmen for god".....
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  ad hom·i·nem [ad hómm? nèm, ad hómm?n?m]
  adj
  appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think (formal)

  This is what the WTS does with it's teachings and practices, Ona, so I've been taught well, however......

  The Gov. Body of the WTS collectively suffer from a "superiority complex"

  #1. They do? On what basis do you make this assertion?

  I can honestly tell you, I've drawn my own conclusions from personal correspondence with the Gov. Body in the past over doctrinal vs. scriptural issues. They grew increasingly haughty and dismissive...in their missives to me, ignoring the pertinent evidence I presented, in favor of their own royal "busy-ness" which obviously comes first before correcting errors in their teachings.

  and do not wish anyone else to be given the acclaim and position which they hold in the eyes of their minions,

  #2. And yet I have personally seen one of them (Fred Franz) deliberately refuse to indulge someone (after an international convention talk he gave) in just such an act of acclaim and recognition.

  Ona, as probably many long-time witnesses were told of this story and that GB member (the elder Franz, wasn't it?) that portrayed his own anointing as totally insignificant, it smacked of self-importance on the GB member's part and was done (in a haughty tone from what I was told) to put the newbie Bethelite servant in his proper place....again....well beneath the royal WTS heirarchy and with an implication of simple-mindedness for having brought the subject up. Have you not heard, "Me thinks thou doth protest too much." ?

  Edited to add here: Does the GB member's posturing in this particular incident not smack of reverse psychology? As if to say, "I KNOW I'M important, it goes without saying.....especially for your part, you lowly peon."

  nor do they wish the threat of a usurpation of their position from others who put their pants on one leg at a time, just as the Gov. Haughty Body does.

  #3. And how do you know what they wish, or do not wish?

  Ona, see my answers to #'s 1 & 2 above for my reasonings on what they appear to wish or do not wish.

  And thank you, Ona, for prompting me to give more detailed reasonings as to my thoughts on this matter. So often I forget that not everyone else has the same experiences to draw on and can't get (via osmosis) the critical information from my brain necessary to draw the same conclusions.

  Frannie
• 

  onacruse

  kidA:

  And so what? Greendawn and Frannie have simply stated their opinions based upon their experiences and the data they have available.

  Yes, they have, and I didn't condemn them for that, did I?

  I've met a couple of them too, and in my opinion, they came across as arrogant pricks with messiah complexes.

  You're certainly entitled to your opinion...perhaps that means you'd rather not play poker with them?

  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, but we are all free to create our own estimations.

  As I said...but, those are just "estimations." In my "estimate" the lady down the street who harbors 100 cats because she thinks they need a shelter may be looney-tunes, but her "motives" are beyond my human capacity to evaluate.

  Ultimately, we must base our opinions of others motivations on conjectures we derive from observations and evidence.

  And that's what I suggested: evidence.

  These individuals, COLLECTIVELY, oversee policies and enforce doctrines that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent children and adults over decades, a scandalous cover-up of sexual abuse due to the 2-witness judicial doctrine not too mention the destruction of thousands of familial relationships.

  As have the decisions and policies of hundreds of thousands of religious leaders and politicians and sociologists and psychologists and psychiatrists and pediatricians over the last several millenia...does that mean that each and every one of them was culpable for deliberate malfeasance and self-serving motives? You answer:

  I have no doubt they are "sincere" in what they believe,

  and yet:

  and in my estimation the nature of these beliefs more than justifies ad hominen attacks on these self-proclaimed "spokesmen for god".....

  So, I would ask you the same question: On what basis do you "justify" your position? If it is nothing more than "your estimation," that's perfectly OK!!! And I mean that it's perfectly OK!!!! But let's just call a spade a spade.

  Craig (of the "I obviously have my own relatively worthless opinion" class)
• 

  wozadummy

  That word "collectively" is important for just taking individuals and critisizing one of that GB would not neccessarily paint the rest the same ,but what does is the effect of their cummulative power as expressed thru the org and it's teachings and subsequent dealings with the R&F .

  Sincere as they may seem individually ,the effect is what matters on peoples lives, like the policy of dealing with pedophiles has greatly affected me and my wife personally and I can't see how Jesus could ever forgive their cruelty.

  As for Franz ,well of course he could have feigned humility as this would be expected in public would'nt it ,what sort of fool would he be - he's not a politician after all.
• 

  onacruse

  Frannie:

  And thank you, Ona, for prompting me to give more detailed reasonings as to my thoughts on this matter. So often I forget that not everyone else has the same experiences to draw on and can't get the critical information necessary to draw the same conclusions by osmosis from my brain.

  Well, I'm not sure I'd want to do an osmosis with your brain...at least not without an activated charcoal filter. LOL

  But, JWD is, after all, a discussion board, eh? And very few of you know how much I think about the things I post here (before I post them), and how much I think about your responses (sometimes for months). Therefore, the privilege is mine!

  And, for now, I'd like to leave it at that, because I feel the my "devil's advocate" posture on this and another thread may have alienated some folks for whom I have nothing but best regards.

  Craig