What is driving change at WTS? What is the GB? Has it failed the flock?

yaddayadda

I have been wondering a lot about this lately.

What drives changes to policy and interpretations? What processes are in place, if any? Is it just individual members of the GB who come up with pet theories and randomly present them to the GB for a vote? Or does the GB set up projects and working teams to analyse certain teachings and interpretations that they feel might need to be re-examined and tweaked? Or is the GB merely reacting to reports coming in from the Bethels around the world on trends? Or all of the above?

It seems to me that there is no real mechanism in place at the Watchtower Society to keep testing and researching their own interpretations on certain matters. Any changes appear to be completely reactionary. They seem to be only concerned with adapting to the environment around them, particularly pressures from the external legal/political environment (eg, making going to a polling booth a 'conscience matter' in some lands, tweaking the blood policy, joining the UN) and the march of time (eg, 1995 'generation' change). Mounting financial pressures have also led to certain changes, notably in the frequency and extent of how the Awake and Watchtower are published (the change to the latter being effective from Jan '08).

It seems to me that there is almost a complete lack of sincere desire and will to proactively examine their interpretations and teachings. The GB appears to be nothing more than a kind of Corporate Board concerned only to deal with issues of global corporate strategy. In terms of actually bringing the organisation's teachings more closely into harmony with the scriptures and caring for the flock, it is evident that there is complete complacency and cocksureness on their part. The culture for healthy change at the doctrinal level appears practically nonexistent, or severely crippled, stultified. Why is this?

The question is: what actually is the GB? What is role, it's purpose, it's objectives? Ray Franz's book are about all we have in trying to assess what goes on behind the smoke and mirrors in the GB boardroom. From those books it appears that the GB is mainly concerned with flying around the world meeting with Branch heavyweights, giving talks at DC's, examining initiatives and strategies for growth, building projects, expansion, and occasionally dealing with difficult questions that have come from one of the Branches, largely on some grey area about judicial/disfellowshipping matter. There doesn't seem to be any process in place whatsoever to research and unearth new ideas concerning the accuracy or otherwise of their interpretations on the debateable teachings that are turning many people away, for example, the shunning policy (although there is a rumour that some of the GB have recently sought change on this), the flawed 'two-witness' rule re child abuse accusations, letting babies and children die for want of a blood transfusion, unscriptural disfellowshippings for things like merely smoking, their erroneous chronology/1914, etc. Any new proposals on these matters seems to derive from individuals only, either on the GB or Branch overseers, completely randomly. The individual submits his pet theory or 'new light' to the GB, who, according to Ray Franz, don't research the proposal thoroughly but are content to vote on it after some brief discussion in the boardroom that is largely dominated by two or three strong personalities.

The decision making processes at the Watchtower Society and the role of the GB are clearly in need of a total overhaul. The GB appears to have evolved into nothing more than a corporate strategy board, hopelessly trapped in a business-model paradigm, blinded to its own flaws and weaknesses. It is clearly failing to address the needs of its flock and is not at all concerned with humbly correcting its glaring errors and harmful, unchristian teachings and interpretations that have stumbled millions of persons. It is obsessed with statistics and unity at all costs. The GB has failed in its mandate to care for Christ's interests on earth.

Gerard

What drives change at the Watchtower Society?

Attempts to cover their a$$ets.

ninja

they pin a list of stuff needing changed to the GB door...blindfold Jack Barr and spin him round three times...then get him to pin the list with a pitchfork...bang....theres new light!!....fast forward three months later....people are drooling over Jehovahs chariot changing direction

jgnat

What change? Any change I think is forced on them by laws, lawyers, and lawsuits. Case in point, the rearrangement of the leadership a few years ago, the donation arrangement, and the completely bungled blood policy.

Isn't change more a three-year cycle? Try it out in the convention, then a QFR, then act as if that was their policy all along.

sir82

It seems to me that any changes are completely reactionary.

I think you pretty much nailed it there.

Their "oracle" (Fred Franz) died in the early 90's, although he was pretty well incapacitated several years beforehand.

JWs are trained to be followers and squelch "independent thinking" - the better you do that, the higher you rise in the organization. By the time you get to the top, beng on the GB, you have no idea how to have an original idea.

They have some warped idea of a "spiritual legacy" - that was a popular buzzword appearing every 2 or 3 months in t heWathctowers from a few years ago. They're pretty much incapable of changing anything other than what is necessary, "necessary" meaning "saves us money" and/or "avoids lawsuits" and/or "saves us embarrassment".

stillajwexelder

Listen to ABBA - Money, Money, Money, its a rich man's world

Mad

As far as their view of themselves: DELUSION.

ninja

yay mad you crazy apostate you....give me a hug...in a manly sort of way of course..muhahahaha

greendawn

There are no changes in their doctrine except those imposed by necessity as for example the meaning of the 1914 generation it was changed when it was obvious that it could no longer hold. On the blood issue they want to change but can not because it can blow them apart with too much bad publicity and numerous law suits. This remains an extremely conservative organisation.

compound complex

Great commentary, Yadda -

Thirty-five years ago at Gilead graduation I personally heard NHK tell the audience that the elder arrangement would be tried at Bethel for six months 'to see if it works.'
An experiment in terror? You be the judge!

CoCo

What is driving change at WTS? What is the GB? Has it failed the flock?

Share this