Do We Give WTS Too Much Credit? Are They Maybe Just Dummies?

by OnTheWayOut 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  metatron

  Here's the reality: If you were a Bethelite way back when, you could go to the steamroom and hang out with Fred Franz. He had a dry sense of humor and enjoyed being a bit eccentric. He usually spoke highly about marriage (he was single his whole life) unlike Knorr who seemed to hate marriage in anything he said (even though he was married).

  Sydlik was funny, had an achingly hot younger wife.

  Swingle was earthy and sometimes used bad language.

  Suiter was cold, aloof, efficient.

  Knorr could be friendly if he 'had a couple' but was mostly a unfeeling dictator.

  Jaracz is an egocentric, cold blooded reptile that no one likes. Bethelites refer to him privately as "The Boss". If psychology is your thing, it is reputed to be because of the way he was raised as a child.

  Hitler liked his dog, Blondi and read books about the American West (think about Poland and the 'Injuns'). Stalin wanted to be a priest. Himmler once passed out at a concentration camp but praised the staff for the tough job they had to do. Reinhard Heydrich had a really nice family, as did Josef Goebbels.

  Kim Jong Ill sometimes makes self deprecating remarks about his height while drinking cognac (and while his people try to live on twigs and grass).

  Various leaders in Afghanistan strongly enforce rules against adultery and fornication but molest young boys as a cultural tradition (see "bacha")

  In summary, I'd love to see a torchlit mob decend on Patterson and drag out the Governing Body and hang them like Mussolini but I have few illusions about human evil. No matter who you are or what you do, you tend to see yourself as "OK".

  metatron
• 

  neverendingjourney

  I think it's important to point out that the two views (evil geniuses vs. braindead believers) aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

  It's quite possible that there are competing camps on the GB and the ultimate policy that gets made depends on what the GB "centrists" end up deciding, whoever those "centrists" may be.

  Think about it in terms of what happens at the US Supreme Court. If you try to analyze their opinions, it often seems as if the institution is bipolar. One year it'll rule one way, the next year another way. Of course, we have the benefit of finding out how the vote went down and reading the judge's opinions. We can determine who the liberals, conservatives and centrists are. You don't get a consistent, harmonious pattern of decisions from the court because it's governed by committee (9 justices) and the ultimate deciders are the swing votes.

  I'll give you an example: In 1986 the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of state laws against sodomy. In 2003, less than 20 years later, the Court struck down such laws finding sexual behavior to be protected under the constitution. What changed? The composition of the Court and social norms.

  If you view JW leadership as a singular, harmonious unit, then one can easily become perplexed at the seemingly contradictory policies that are handed down. However, if you view leadership as an often-fragmented committee like the Supreme Court, then it becomes easier to understand why there are conflicting messages being sent. Sometimes JW leadership sends messages reflecting a long-term manipulative view, such as trying to get JWs to donate their estates and their continual real estate expansion. Sometimes they reflect a naive view of the world with imminent destruction in mind, such as when they discourage education and childbearing.

  It all depends on which faction wins out on the GB, but of course, that's all invisible to us.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  One more thing:

  It's also important to note what Ray Franz says is one of the two primary motivating factors behind GB decision making: The desire to uphold traditional policies.

  If the traditional JW policy is to encourage JWs to donate their estates, the GB is likely to vote to continue that policy. If the traditional policy is to discourage education, that policy will be continued. This is especially true because a 2/3 votes is required to change a traditional policy. At least that was the case in 1980 when Ray last sat on the GB.

  This motivation can lead to contradictory policies being issued. See, Malawi vs. Mexico.
• 

  cantleave

  I can not substantiate this but I think the newer members of the GB, the lawers and the business people of the organisation are very different to the old school who really were captives of a concept. I think these new ambitious big wigs are fully aware of the the damage that is caused by the rules and they are not true believers. The watchtower encourages young ones to make a career in the organisation, and that is exactly what they do.
• 

  metatron

  I think you guys have posted some excellent thoughts here. The Supreme Court analogy may be a good one, especially since this sick organization is self referencing.

  If you ever were an elder, you may have thought to yourself, while listening to the C.O., that the Bible really means nothing to the Governing Body and their field agents. It's just a springboard for them to use to create an illusion that they are the rightfull inheritors of an early Christian tradition, which is far from the truth. Circuit Overseers commonly quote old Watchtowers as the full equivalent of Holy Writ. Interpretation of the publications 'leanings' is critical and all important while the Bible is just "whatever we say it is . They might as well be Rabbis quoting the Oral Law.

  As such, there really is no reason for anyone in the Watchtower organization to have deep, scholarly knowledge of the Bible anymore. It isn't important aside from a few proof texts to get people hooked into Watchtowerism. After that, it's whatever the Organization says 'cause it's the "truth".

  It's both sad and funny when you think about it but I can't think of another "Christian" religion in which making repeated references to Jesus and the "Lord" will get you branded as some sort of heretic.

  I'm sure you're correct that the Governing Body seeks to preserve Watchtower traditions largely because it's all they have to distinguish themselves from other religions. Unfortunately for them, the cash flow often says otherwise, so a hundred years of paid subscriptions ended as a WTS tradition. Brooklyn is headed in the same direction and maybe, someday the Awake magazine.

  My continuing wonderment is , what happens when they run out of cash and traditions they can financially support?

  metatron