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

by yaddayadda 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Open mind

  LOL @ Ninja.

  Pin the pitchfork on the new light. I like it.

  Open Mind
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  It seems to me .....
  changes appear to be completely reactionary
  complete lack of sincere desire and will to proactively examine their interpretations and teachings.
  nothing more than a kind of Corporate Board concerned only to deal with issues of global corporate strategy.
  complete complacency and cocksureness on their part.
  blinded to its own flaws and weaknesses.

  It seems to me that you have covered what they do very well. BUT- They have less corporate power than
  in the past, so what are their jobs now really?

  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.

  Still the same, I imagine. More free time to think about the money situation and how to improve it. More
  time to discuss recruitment techniques, how to salvage things.

  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.

  I have to imagine that there's no real change here. Somehow, they have learned to keep the GB members
  that join in line. There's got to be some post-Ray Franz rules in place for existing members to indoctrinate
  new members in such a way as to force them to see the importance of cult-preservation over real progress
  of the doctrine. I am sure they are unwritten rules, but enforced through their own lobbying. That still means
  they could lose power if enough say "ENOUGH." but they figure it wouldn't happen easily.

  Your thread strikes at my nerves. Do they spend time discussing the effects of shunning? Do they really
  consider the blood policy and it's scripturalness. I bet they do. They kick around thoughts that stopping the
  shunning will allow more people to leave, that ends that discussion. They reminded folks of the new blood
  policy in place for years about fractions- this had to be driven by legal considerations. They probably weighed
  the legal ramifications of A) doing nothing B) removing the whole blood ban C) slowly expanding the fractions
  articles. They chose C for the least amount of legal problems.

  Pet theories advanced, little real research on proposals, a vote on it after some brief discussion with the older
  ones leading the cause to keep the status quo. I think this still goes on the same as before, but now they read
  some legal advice before putting a vote to bed.

  I think that this handful of men get so delusional that they think their vote on matters will suffice, no matter what.
  If they are wrong, and people die or are shunned all their life, oh well, at least people still bow to them.
• 

  zack

  They are men that believe they alone are the guardians of the universe and will eventually be among the few who are the masters over it.

  How can humility even play a role when they have become gods and kings?
• 

  Confession

  There's got to be some post-Ray Franz rules in place for existing members to indoctrinate
  new members in such a way as to force them to see the importance of cult-preservation over real progress
  of the doctrine.

  I think if you pay close attention to organizations of all kinds, you'll see that "the preservation of the group" usually becomes the number one priority.

  Consider the U.S.A. When you read what the "founding fathers" wrote, you find a primary intention was creating a government that could never have the great control over people that former governments had. (Not unlike C.T. Russell's many comments about how a person should never let an organization 'bind one's conscience.')

  But, given time, we see that this country's government (while still being pretty good as governments go) has not upheld its former commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as originally expressed. (Not unlike the abandonment of C.T. Russell's admonishment to "beware the term organization.")

  Again, at some point, perhaps through some biological human trait, the "preservation" of the established authority structure becomes even more important than the principles it was founded to maintain. (Not at all unlike the example of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.)
• 

  yaddayadda

  (I've added to my original post quite a bit, so apologies for those who posted before that).
  
  Sir82, although its true that the organisation squelches independent thought, I don't agree that those who make it onto to the GB are persons who have been so 'squelched' that they are incapable of having a new idea. Ray Franz relates in his books a number of examples where senior Watchtower persons often came up with new ideas that were presented to the GB (some quite bizarre, eg, the 1980 'sputnik' proposal to move the start of 'this generation' to 1957! - Crisis of Conscience p. 218-220). Ray also related that from time to time senior Branch personnel sent letters to the GB proposing changes to certain policies, eg, the number of meetings, military service, etc. Fred Franz himself, as the 'oracle' of the organisation, came up with many new ideas through his many chimerical interpretations.
  
  Since the GB appears to have evolved into nothing more than a group of senior executives running a gigantic global publishing corporation, lets examine their corporate strategy from a business-model perspective:
  
  Since 1995 there has been practically zero 'new light' when it comes to their body of teachings/interpretations. The culture appears to have degenerated very much into a 'maintain status quo '. They seem to be saying: "we have given up on tweaking our body of teachings. We have given up on our product mix. We are only concerned about dealing with the scale of the organisation (ie, it's size, entering new markets, etc) and marketing (changing colours, styles, freqency of publications) rather than the product itself (the truthfulness of the teachings)."
  
  But the GB have got it all back to front. The purpose of the leaders of any religious organisation should be to teach scriptural truth, to continously improve their teachings, ie, to improve the quality of the products, NOT just to improve the scale and glossiness of the business. In fact, they are failing on both fronts because their market is shrinking in the western world, (hence the cashflow problems). Why has this happened? Because some of their products (their false teachings) are of such poor quality that they are enough to deter any potential buyer. Buyers now have access to rich sources of information about any product/service they are thinking of buying (though the internet). When a company has a bad, defective product and the public become aware of this, purchases on all products takes a big hit. The company must recall defective products and improve them ("new and improved recipe"). Yet the Society appears to have no mechanisms in place to do this! It appears to be blithely unconcerned to test and improve the quality of its products. There is no process to test deeply entrenched assumptions and premises. There is no quality control system for their products!
  
  The GB are obviously brainwashed men, but they are not stupid. They are merely captives of their own concept. But despite this, it is apparent, as sincere as some of them no doubt are, that they have been collared by lawyers and financiers who have warped their vision. Posters who note that they are obsessed with money and control are absolutely correct. The vision and mission statement of the GB, their prime objective above everything else, should be: To teach the truth from God's word the Bible!! ("Let God be true though every man be proved a liar"). Sadly, the GB seems to have concluded that they cannot be teaching the truth any better, that the quality of their product line is beyond improvement. They appear incapable or unwilling to look at the ingredients, either through flaws in their own internal structure and processes, or because of deliberate intransigence.
  
  I would love to see some really serious, constructive discussion on this, even though most on this forum feel the GB is hopelessly corrupted, reform is impossible and dismiss the organisation out of hand.
• 

  parlay

  They are the modern day hypocritical Pharisees, drunk on power, position and prominance.
• 

  yaddayadda

  (removed - double post)
• 

  yaddayadda

  Some great thoughts are coming out, thanks.
  
  Thought scenario: Imagine that the GB have admitted to themselves that the organisation is going off track and something seems to have gone wrong. They have hired you as a consultant (but you are also a believing JW) to analyse what is going wrong with the organisation. What questions would you ask? What would you (respectfully) report back to them?
• 

  greendawn

  They have to change their entire doctrine or be damned. In fact they can't really change much of it because they want to carry on exploiting their members so they can't do away with the current body of teachings which makes it possible.
• 

  parlay

  A sincere brother will either play the organizational game or eventually be crushed by the nature of the organization.

  Conformity is the rule. The GB's track record shows that they are not interested in dispensing truth if that

  truth means any admittance of wrong on their part. For how could they, the mouthpiece of God, be wrong!

  They appear to be far more interested in keeping their followers in line and in the dark, stunting they ability to

  think and reason, and impressing upon them the neccessity to listen and obey...listen and obey...listen and obey.