JW Culture has Changed!

by Amazing 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker4

  About the talk monitoring. At District Conventions this was THE way things were done in the late 80s early 90s. I worked in the Chairman's office for several years, and the outlines would be divided among a handful of brothers, and it was your job to follow along - both to make sure the timing was going to be OK, and that the brother followed the outline. Often you were the program chairman for that part of the program as well.

  I often worked with DO Paul Illingworth when he was the Convention Chairman. It was funny, because Paul was known for totally straying from the outline, and he made sure that no one followed along with him when he was the speaker!
  S4
• 

  Makena1

  "This stuff about monitoring the public speaker is complete nonsenes. There are no such instruction and there is no such practice. As far as quoting from the outline, etc. there were specific instruction three or four years ago not to do that. I don't know where some of you get this stuff."

  I was talk coordinator from 1994-1998, and frequently spoke at outside congregations. The secretary in our cong monitored the speaker, and had me call or write the PO of the visiting speaker if they deviated from the outline too much. One speaker in particular did not have the audience crack open the Bible until 30 minutes into the talk. I was "counseled" one time at a neighboring congregation when one point "from the outline" was not in line with one of the latest watchtower's "new light". The brother slyly asked me, you really meant to say THIS when you said THAT? I said, ya sure, and left shortly afterwords for a nice luncheon and fellowship with the bookstudy assigned to PR with the visiting speaker.

  Last meeting I attended was memorial 2000, so don't know if this is still practiced.
• 

  JT

  PorK Chop says:

  "This stuff about monitoring the public speaker is complete nonsenes. There are no such instruction and there is no such practice. As far as quoting from the outline, etc. there were specific instruction three or four years ago not to do that. I don't know where some of you get this stuff."

  #######

  well in one sense you are correct- THERE ARE NO WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR BRO TO FOLLOW ALONG ON OUTLINES IN THE LOCAL HALL

  but allow me to share some light on where this comes from- this is really an example of the problem that wt has always had- where it's Power structure is given so much leeway that so many rules become law- showing just how little god has to do with the org but more so each Area Manager and District superivors runs his own ship

  At the Distric convention i used to work in the Chairmans Office and one of the jobs up in the Air Conditioned Booth while sister faithful with 4 kids is down there sweating-was to follow the outlines of speakers - at the end of their talk they were to report to the Chairmans office to be graded and counseled.

  If he left out too much stuff he got dogged
  if he adlibed to much he got dogged

  manuscripts had to be followed WORD FOR WORD while outlines were a little more looose--

  well what happened- some elder or CO figured IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE DISTRICT LEVEL THEN BY GODLY I know it's good enough for the circuit or local hall>

  and there was born THE WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR OUTLINE DOGMA

  once again an outgrowth of the wackyineess of wt

  So while you are right there is no rules saying to follow
  the wonderful mother org has planted the seed and merely allowed it to grow

  you see they know agout things like this and could stop it the next week with a letter to the body- but why bother- it makes sure that by someone following along- the guy will stick with what is in print

  I too had a guy - a young black bro from Northern VA Kevein Swan he was shooting for the CO work- did Sub work- he was well known in the circuit for pulling elders to the side along with a fellow elder to ask you:

  "ro I didn't see that in the outline where did you get that from"

  well i was ready for this chump cause i knew that an outline allowed you leeway- I used to give this same talk in GB, Boys in Writing and the SErvice dept hall when i was in NY so i knew that it has passed the test- in fact RP Johnson helped me put it together

  so i was ready for my boy

  and sure enough after the talk and during the WT study a bro taps me on my shoulder to come into the backroom- now Kevin was a Sub CO so alot of the local elders feared him

  i was like : Man Please I used to sit with Theodore Jaraz and Dan Sylick for breakfast- so some low level local Yokel elder doesn't scare ,me;

  so he started that Sh!t about he didn't see some of the points i brought out in my outline- well being a "Society Man" i knew that the only way you can win in WT- you better know PAGE AND PARAGRAPH of the point you are making and if i didn't know anything I KNEW WT RULES LIKE THE BACK OF MY HAND-

  SO WHile he was standing there along with his little sidekick Barney Fafif( the guy who hung out with Andy Griffin) I asked him for his Reference on not working additional thoughts into the outline if they were practical locally- well the hey ha hey ha started:

  we went around for about 10 mina and i concluded by telling him

  "If you can't show me IN PRINT_ THEN THIS IS MERELY YOUR OPINION"

  and right then and there I put a monkey in his program-

  just my 2

  james
• 

  Room 215

  Hi again,
  The whole public lecture program as presently constituted is a sham, another example of WT duplicity. Though it purports to be a series of talks, each prepared by mature local and/or visiting elders to share with us their research on a particular topic, when all these ``talking heads'' are doing is lip-synching words as surrogates for their Brooklyn ventriloquists.
  Proplog2,
  Your observations re the edler arrangement are right on the money. So many of us, me included, were glad to see the autocratic days of Knorr and his predecessors end when the elders came into the picture.
  In retrospect, while Knorr was a tough bird, he was not really a micro-manager on doctrine. Knowing his position was unassailable and well beyond the ability of any subordinate to challenge, in social situation he frequently made statemewns that caused those with earshot to raise an eyebrow, i.e: ``1914? Yeah, we may well be right; I sure hope we are; meanwhile thenmain thing is to serve Jehovah and let the details work themselves out,'' or words to that effect.
  No spiritual giant, he was basically a pragmatist, who more than once ``rounded the corners'' on principle in interests of getting a particular job done.
  Once his coterie of sycophants took over as the Governing Body, all lacking the self-assured aura and absolute power to say anything that popped into their heads that King Knorr possessed, each felt duty-bound to show himself more rigid than the guy sitting next to him at the round table. Hence the stridence, paranoia and witchhunting of the post- Knorr era.
  Anyway, just my 2 cents.
• 

  LDH

  JT you are the best!

  Lisa,
  Sick of all the Barney Fifes class
• 

  worf

  Hey JT!

  I grew up with Kevin Swan.I know his whole family.He is from the Jamaica NY area.We went to the same kingdom hall.He originates from Jamaica Cong.And I can tell you he is definitely right-wing WT.BTW his father who was an elder for many years was deleted a few years back because the youngest son got into a lot of immorality,impregnated two young sisters, and Kevins father who was the PO tried to cover it up and keep his son from getting disciplined.So he was removed and then ran to another cong where he knew his good old boy network would appoint him again.He was reappointed. GODS SPIRIT IN ACTION EH!
  worf
• 

  cyberguy

  Amazing --

  I find it very interesting that you brought up this subject, because I had recently discussed this very issue with a friend of mine. The Witness culture has changed from what I remember as a kid in the 1960's. I recall some public talks where the speaker would encourage Bible study, but if we had a serious question and couldn’t find a satisfactory answer from Witness literature, we should "write the Society." I also recall several conversations with some old timers that lived in the early 1940's. They claimed that congregations allowed special orders for bible commentaries and other non-Watchtower publications -- we certainly don't do that any more!

  Recently, I got my ass burned when some self-righteous elder-jerk found out that I had a number of non-witness bible commentaries in my house. He wanted to know why I had such apostate literature in my house and what other apostate things I was doing! However, I truthfully answered him by stating that I purchased the volumes while in Bethel (late 70's), and had actually ordered them from Bethel's own literature depot (not sure if they do this now). Anyway, that shut him up!
• 

  Pork Chop

  JT your comments are interesting. I can see how things could happen that way and maybe some congregations have had the practice. Personally, I've given many public talks and as far as I can tell I have never been monitored. Staying with the outline has never been something that was important to me so there has been ample opportunity to raise the issue. One guy did try to give me some grief because I read something out of one of Ariel Durant's books and one took exception to a comment I made about 1975 but that's about it.
• 

  Room 215

  Hi again Pork Chop,

  As I said, I believe the monitoring probably peaked in the immediate aftermath of the COC book, the release of which scared the bejabbers out of the GB and ``apostasy'' hysteria and witch-hunting reached a fever pitch.
  Prior thereto, there was much freer flow of informal conversation and the friends felt little inhibitions about asking questions, reading pretty much anything (I remember many times freely discussing the then-current round of anti-JW literature, asking for comment, in the spirit of ``let's be ready for this if they hit us with it in field service;'' we usually came to the conclusion that most of it was flawed, poorly written, etc.). The one caveat was that one should never cause problems among the friends nor promote one's private views too aggressively.
  There was also much less of a demarcation drawn between brothers with positions and those who were simply publishers; it was much more egalataraian in practice, and pretty much any brother in good standing could be expected to be called upon for prayer, as an example, lor to read the WT. Today, it seems that it's an unspoken policy to limit these ``privileges'' to elders or MSs.
  There were lots of spontaneous baptisms, in bathtubs, etc. which would be unthinkable today. Reading non-WT Bibical commentaries, etc. did not bear the stigma it bears today.
  The changes, the ratcheting up of human authority, the progressive reduction in freedom of expression, personal and congregational autonomy, came about slowly, almost imperceptibly.
  But there's no question that the Society today is a much more repressed, vastly less attractive fellowship than it was 40 years ago, with almost no ``comfort zone'' available to the conscientious worshiper.
• 

  Seeker

  There is another factor at work here: the variance between congregations. As JT says, a lot of WTS rules are unwritten, but known. But that leaves a lot of leeway for the local body of elders to decide local standards. Although I'm well aware of congregations that followed the outline to make sure of compliance, I, like Pork Chop, happened to be in a congregation that didn't follow that rule. When I gave talks, I would go all over the place, moving sections arounds, minimizing some sections, expanding others. When I was done with an outline, you could hardly tell how it had begun -- yet I was covering the key stuff, and although I was doing things in a sophisticated manner, if I had been called on the carpet I could easily show how I had covered the material in a way that they hadn't even noticed.

  The only comment I ever heard in this area was when an elder told me afterward, "You know, I give this same talk and the way you did it was entirely different." He meant it as a compliment.

  So once again we see an example of how the "unity" of JWs is often broken down on the local level, when the bodies of elders decide for themselves whether or not to follow these unwritten rules. This is why when someone comes here and tell us, "I just confessed so-and-so to the elders. How will they react?" our first response should be, "Depends on your elders."