Shirley said- additionally, how do you explain the fact that blood transfusions used to be totally acceptable for a JW, but organ transplants were banned? Then the WT banned blood transfusions but allowed organ transplants. Originally, all blood fractions were also banned.
WOW! Undermine your own argument much?
Thanks for reminding me of the organ transplant policy change (#2), and let's not forget about the vaccine ban in the past that is now no longer a DFing offense (#3) vs in the past. Those, along with blood fractions, are now conscience matters. From the perspective of the individual, those are a lightening of the authoritarian burden, thanks to the GB policy changes over the years.
ALL of those are granting individual JWs the right and authority to make a personal decision they weren't allowed to make in the past without facing being DFed in the past. From the perspective of the member, that's a change towards less-authoritarian control.
And no Spit, Sparlock, OF COURSE the GB never had the authority to tell others what to do, in the first place; but that's 'begging the question', since the only ones holding JWs hostages are the individual members themselves, who apparently possess too much timidity to leave.
BTW, if you're concerned about time-frames for the GB, I was responding to Phizzy's comment, and he stated it as the latter-half of the 20th century (1950's) to the present. It was his claim, and he set the time-frame.
Of course, you attempted to 'move the goalposts' by quoting from some 1890's article, not that it matters: Russell may have written the words about "lack of organizational structure" etc, but it was happy clap-trap written for the consumption of the rank-and-file, which directly contradicted how he actually ran the show: he made no bones to others who exactly was in charge of the monarchy, eg board of directors had to sign their letters of resignation at the time of accepting their appointments BEFORE they served on the board, just so Russell need only sign and date the form later when/if they were to be dismissed after displeasing him. THAT'S a puppet show, exerting bald-faced power over others, letting them know without a doubt who's calling the shots.
Russell even openly admitted to shareholders they needn't bother showing up for annual shareholder meetings, saying that he and his wife were majority shareholders, and the shareholders had no say or input into how the show was run. It was his ball of wax, and it was his way or the highway.
I suspect you're reading what you want into the cherry-picked excerpt from the 1890's, since the actual evidence indicates that he wasn't lying: a monarchy needs no "formal organizational structure", esp one that operates as a theocracy under the delegated authority of God. You're interpreting his words to fit YOUR preconceptions, not what he actually stated.
BTW, you're even arguing against the words of Raymond Franz now, an ex-GB member and the author of 'Crisis of Conscience':
Raymond Franz has disputed those claims, stating that the actions of presidents Russell, Rutherford and Knorr in overriding and failing to consult with directors proved the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses had been under a monarchical rule until 1976, leaving no decisions to any so-called "governing body". [26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
If you read CoC, you'd know that Franz felt the official formation of a GB in 1976 was a step in the right direction to combat such consolidation of power in a single person and lead to a more theocratic congregational system led by a group of elders, and he even held out great hope for the changes which took place after he was forced to resign.
adam: and whether it [bood fractions] was done as a pragmatic concession to avoid future wrongful death law suits is irrelevant"
Shirley said- I wholeheartedly disagree. It is completely relevant.
When a corporation or group in power formulates policy based on potential litigation, and not the welfare of it's ruled-over class, that again is completely authoritarian.
Utterly absurd.
Have you even taken an intro to gov't course? You clearly don't understand what the word "authoritarian" means if you say that, since by definition, responding to fears of litigation from forces outside of the power structure IS admitting that others have the ability to undermine one's authority via challenge from secular AUTHORITIES (namely, the judicial system).
Religions, from RCC to JWs, understand the courts can easily limit their authoritarian control over their members with a single adverse ruling. In fact, that's the whole point of the Conti appeal: the WTBTS is fighting it, since they know their ability to exercise authority over members is at stake, and they respond to such pressures so as to reduce their exposure to liability in the future.
But even if I conceded the point and allowed your claim that it's relevant to the matter at hand, then guess what? You get to PROVE the WTBTS intentionally changed their blood policy to avoid wrongful death lawsuits.
Good luck with THAT!
BTW, if you find a "smoking gun" (which somehow the WT Legal Dept missed), be sure to let lawyers for plaintiffs know what you come up with, since it would be incriminating evidence to support TONS of wrongful death claims in a slew of the landslide of courtcases, and it literally would be worth HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of $$$ to plaintiffs.
Shirley said- You also ignored the fact that WT has hijacked a JWs conscientious decision-making rights in regard to their own healthcare. Again, how does this fit into your fantasy of a "less authoritarian" WT? Especially compared to Russell's view of organization and conscience (which you completely ignored)?
(See comments above).
This whole "the GB is getting more authoritarian than ever!" nonsense not only flies in the face of the actual facts, but bears more than a passing resemblance to another Chicken Little claim perpetuated mindlessly by JWs, talking about "this System of things is getting so much worse in these last days".
Same mindless hyperbole that runs contrary to the actual evidence, but just a slightly-different flavor of the same ol' same ol' nonsensical thinking.