One possible explanation for the change to CBS (& maybe other changes?) (page 2)

JWFreak

Sir 82

You have hit the button.........

Although...my sources tell me 4 liberals 3 die hard -hard liners and 2 on the fence...that is why not all the upcoming changes are coming as quick as the 4 wish. plus the 4 need to also keep the 3 sweet from time to time.

Make no mistake this is the most divided GB ever.

JWF

JWFreak

Ps

I forgot to mention.............

I was speaking with Jack Barr last month.....no BS here.

His story is that the Book study change took 2 years to decide from the original suggestion. He was really proud of the fact that they deliberated so long about the brothers needs..........gag!!

JWF

besty

LOL at Jack Barr

He prolly thought the CBS change wouldn't hapen in his lifetime :-)

Must be tricky running an Armageddon cult these days ....

sir82

my sources tell me 4 liberals 3 die hard -hard liners and 2 on the fence...that is why not all the upcoming changes are coming as quick as the 4 wish. plus the 4 need to also keep the 3 sweet from time to time.

Would seem to validate my "good cop bad cop" hypothesis....

The liberals manage to cut the Sunday meeting by 15 minutes and completely eliminate an entire meeting night, but have to allow the hardliners to persist in their irrational positions on blood, education, treatment of the DF'ed, etc.

We all know Ted J. is the leader of the hardliners....I wonder if the liberals have a "leader" of sorts?

M.J.

I hope the hardliners are older than the liberals. If so, I wonder if the hardliners have a strategy for passing on the hardline torch.

slimboyfat

If what you say is correct then they are reforming all the inconsequential bits (long meetings, pioneer hours) and keeping the nasty stuff they really should be getting rid of. (DFing, blood, education and so on) Not much backbone if they truly see themselves as reformers if you ask me.

james_woods

One danger in hoping for the older "hardliners" to die off and be replaced by the younger "liberal thinkers" is the U.S. Supreme Court dilemna.

You never really know what a person is going to do once you promote them into a position of absolute power for life. We have seen SC justices go from conservative to moderate, moderate to liberal, and all of the reverses thereof. It sometimes seems like only Clarence Thomas has not altered course dramatically.

I wonder if some on the GB may be politically motivated as much as ideological. According to Franz, many on the fringes wait to see which way the wind is blowing before committing on an issue - and sometimes strong personality could probably flip a vote the other way.

Somehow, though, that Barr quote that it took two years to change the book study (and then they didn't really change it for another year after they announced it) - that pretty much sounds like the real deal for these geezers.

neverendingjourney

This assumes that a 2/3 requirement is still in place.

We learned from Ray Franz that there was a 2/3 voting requirement on the GB, but that was as of 1980. None of us know what has happened since then. At first, GB decisions had to be unanimous, but Knorr later instituted the change. Does the 2/3 requirement still stand? Must decisions again be unanimous? Will a simple majority suffice? None of us knows the answer.

yknot

I always heard that if you got Brother Jack talking......he would tell some enduring stories...

slimboyfat

"Enduring stories"

I reckon Gerrit Loesch must be classed as a hardliner in any event - going by his comments on that youtube video of a convention part where he compares going to college to shooting yourself in the head.

One possible explanation for the change to CBS (& maybe other changes?)

Share this