by slimboyfat 17 Replies latest jw friends
In my congregation there have been up to 3 "anointed" sisters at one time. A neighboring congregation had 1 who was a very old sister in her 90's. When speaking of her, everyone would say "she's one of the anointed". When speaking of the other 3, since they were younger, and "obviously" replacements, many would say " she PROFESSES to be one of the anointed".
Warlock
The GB as an institution now feels strong enough to clearly state that individual "anointed" JWs have no authority
( i.e., nobody will dare to ask the GB where their authority comes from, and if someone does s/he will automatically
disqualify him/herself).
Narkissos, I am going to paraphrase this so that I can remember it in conversation. You do well at simplifying
these complicated matters.
Claiming to be anointed give one no special ability or authority, one must be on the Governing Body to have authority.
The Governing Body's authority is unquestionable, and if someone claiming to be anointed forgets that it's
unquestionable, they are obviously unqualified to be anointed.
Althought all Witnesses have the potential to meet the criteria, there is certainly enough open to interpretation for people to criticize almost anyone's claim to be anointed: "He can't be, he doesn't 'work hard' enough on the ministry", "she can't be anointed because she is opinionated and tries to 'teach' the brothers", and so on.
In view of the very first standard that anointed ones are expected to meet, I suggest that it is fairly logical to ask whether the governing body are in fact anointed. They are in clear violation of the rule:
1. They must not be the sort that claim "special attention", or that they have more "insights" or "holy spirit".
They do not technically claim more "holy spirit", but they certainly claim "insights" on a whole range of matters that others are obliged to follow.
I wonder which elder will be the first to spot this and have the governing body disfellowshipped.
Slim
They are laying the groundwork for something. I still say they are either trying to nip something in the bud (a coup within the org?) or set the stage for some major upcoming "new light".
Seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to eat a cracker and have a sip of wine. We know the JWs will talk, gossip, and judge any new "partakers" in spite of what the article says. They can't help it. They live to judge and gossip. It's too much shit for too little reward. Have your wine and crackers at home.
W
So far and until the next change, the authority of the GB rests, theoretically, on its claim to represent the "FDS" -- every individual member of the latter being denied any authority. This is not unlike the (French, for instance) republican system where theoretically the people is sovereign and all positions of authorities, elected (president, mayors, etc.) or non-elected (prefects, judges) act in the name of the people -- which of course doesn't qualify the individual citizen to anymore authority than the subject of a monarchy.
Authority ultimately rests on nothing, its theoretical justification is always circular, and its practical justification is nothing but the fact of submission.
What they are really saying is that your heart may belong to Jehovah but your ass belongs to the WTBS!!!!
They are just control freaks (the GB), why shouldn't they be subject to the same rules eg why do they think that they are something special or have more Spirit? I am sure there are among their "anointed" people that are of much better spiritual quality and capable leaders than they are. Where does their special status rest, how does it fit in with the early church?
