by Phizzy 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
SOP said- The proof is simple...it is call "BRAZEN" conduct. With that change, all authority can be wielded without remorse or regard.
Give that poster a ceegar!
Sure, that's ONE valid example of the GB upping their authority (and actually allowing the elders to exert more local control; there's a few more, too).
Adam: Sure, that's ONE valid example of the GB upping their authority (and actually allowing the elders to exert more local control; there's a few more, too).
--
by your own admission you acknowledge the GB is "upping their authority". I think the best way to undermine then refute your arguments, Adam, is just to let you continue to post all by yourself.
--
You just revealed the ridiculousness of your assertion and your total lack of sincerity. You know the GB/WT is increasing their authority, but pretend you don't know it...but then argue with anyone who also says the same thing.
gas bag
KingSolomon/Adam's only message is that Adam knows everything about everything; and especially about things that he actually knows nothing about.
His mistake is to confuse education with intelligence.
Shirley said- by your own admission you acknowledge the GB is "upping their authority". You know the GB/WT is increasing their authority, but pretend you don't know it...but then argue with anyone who also says the same thing.
Holy Hades, Shirl, jump to 'hasty conclusions' much? What happened to coming to conclusions based on evidence to support the belief?
Out of the literally MILLIONS of decisions that the six committees that operate under the color of authority of the GB have made over the past 50 years, some have an effect of increasing their authority over the R&F (eg redefining 'brazen conduct', as mentioned by SOP), some have the effect of loosening their authority (vaccine/organ/blood fractions), where MOST decisions have absolutely NO EFFECT AT ALL (eg the choice to use the silver color for the color of the new RNWT).
It should be obvious that the authority of the GB comes from MULTIPLE decisions they make over a long period of time, and the question is how ALL of the decisions operate collectively over time, as a net tightening or loosening of authority.
Cofty said- His mistake is to confuse education with intelligence.
Nope, sorry, but that's not an example of either tightening or loosening of GB's authority (although it does speak to your willingness to open your mouth and remove all doubt).
DA'ing didn't mean absolute shunning until the late 70s/early 80s right? Does that count or is that further back than we're looking? I'm also pretty sure they've got stricter on further education.
And they do seem to go on about shunning and apostasy a lot, I can't say it's more than they used to because I've not been paying attention long enough but at least it doesn't appear as if they're generally loosening their authority.
Not to mention that about 6 or 7 years ago, whilst I was aware of the GB as a group, I and I think a lot of JWs could not have named any or more than a few individuals, but now the GB seem to appear in all the videos, hold a prominent AGM and international conventions where they all get to feature, any devout JW could name several or all of the GB. They're pushing themselves more of recent.
And finally if Adam was raised a JW in what sense is it fair to say he was never a JW?
ITA with the OP.
Every responsible adult is accountable for his/her own actions--the hierarchy for brainwashing, lying and manipulating, and the R&F for following along without question.
Adults cannot abdicate personal responsibility. It just doesn't work like that.
Holy Hades, Shirl, jump to 'hasty conclusions' much?
--
I don't need to jump or be hasty- do you even read your own posts, Adam? I can read post #2395 as plainly as you...or do you not believe a word you write?
Frankly, I think you are so intent on arguing you'll deliberately contradict yourself in the interest of keeping a fight going.
---
please substantiate this statement with verifiable evidence:
Out of the literally MILLIONS of decisions that the six committees that operate under the color of authority of the GB have made over the past 50 years
--
no documentation? I didn't think so.
-
you are full of yourself, aren't you, Adam? You spout whatever comes to mind and expect all of us to accept your nonsense as fact.
Adam: some have the effect of loosening their authority (vaccine/organ/blood fractions)
--
how is this a "loosening" of their authority? Prior to the mid-1960's a JW would be disfellowshipped for accepting an organ transplant but could accept a blood transfusion with the WT's sanction.
Then WT flip-flopped. Now a JW could accept an organ transplant but be disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion. (keep in mind blood fractions are NOT acceptable yet- a disfellowshipping offense if accepted).
-
Please explain how this is an improvement? How is this a "loosening of authority"? With either situtaion, innocent people have lost their lives, and will continue to, not for following their conscience, but for bending to the will of the GB.
(Opinion is not acceptable. Please post, as I have, reference material from WT literature. As I said before, your opinion is not evidence of anything but your ignorance of WT history, culture and control).
WT Study Edition, November 15, 2014, p. 20, paragraph 17:
Here's the same point from the "simplified" edition:
It is completely irrelevant whether the GB changes this doctrine or that one, or if any changes seem more "progressive" or "liberal." Any perceived "freedom" or loosening of their authority is an illusion.
The simple fact remains: This cult, from the GB down, demands total, unquestioning obedience.
- King Solomon is a troll and an asshole -
Oulibette said- It is completely irrelevant whether the GB changes this doctrine or that one, or if any changes seem more "progressive" or "liberal." Any perceived "freedom" or loosening of their authority is an illusion.
Since it's only an illusion, then you're actually arguing for "no change in authority overall"?
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that some are failing to discriminate between 'subjective' factors (which is what the term 'perceived' above implies)' vs 'objective' factors on the issue of whether the current GB is "more authoritarian" or "less authoritarian" than in the past, and thus are muddying the waters by attempting to rapidly shift the goalposts between the two.
The resultant confusion highlights WHY the point is NOT what the GB actually says (eg the tone of articles is highly-subjective, based on one's pre-existing biases which leads to quite-different possible interpretations), but what the GB actually DOES, i.e. what effect policy changes (AKA objective factors) have on the ability of members to make certain decisions for themselves.
As pointed out in another thread, anyone who's studied the history of WTBTS knows it's impossible to top the days of President CT Russell and 'Judge' Rutherford (as if the title of "Judge" in the name isn't a MAJOR HINT to a faux 'appeal to authority'!), and many other presidents who ruled over the WTBTS as totalitarian monarchs until the 1970's, when the GB concept was officially announced (with WT adopting an organizational structure said to mimic the more-democratic 'spirit-directed' operations of the mythical 1st/2nd century church, as Ray Franz pointed out in CoC).
The power-sharing structure of the GB was controversial at the time, and as Ray points out it nearly didn't get adopted (since the then-current 'King' had to concede his exclusive power to a body via a change in by-laws), but it was adopted to encourage more-open discourse which supposedly prevented any one individual from being able to exercise totalitarian control. What the GB has now is the ability to claim being 'spirit-directed' by committee, where 2/3 vote (or whatever % it is) is required before policies can be passed.
Regardless if you believe 'Holy Spirit' exists or not, the move in 1976 represents a DIFFUSION (the antonym of CONSOLIDATION) of decision-making power into the hands of a body, away from just one person. In a theocracy, ALL power and authority is supposedly ultimately delegated from God, but as an atheist the issue is irrelevant, since it comes down to whether 1 human decides based on his personal whims, or if 8 humans have to bicker to divvy up the same delegated authority to determine what the r&f should be allowed to do.
And since "authoritarian" is highly-subjective and nebulous (since the assessment could be based on non-quantifiable subjectives, such as tone of articles, or increased visibility of GB vs in the past, etc), a moment's thought should tell us what actually counts is NOT such highly-subjective factors, but the objective factors of what the GB DOES, i.e. what effects the policies the GB introduces have on the ability of individual members to decide for themselves (i.e. what decisions are declared to be 'conscience matters', and which are censurable decisions that potentially sets the person up for DFing). Hence it's important to not just examine subjectives like 'style', but the objective, the SUBSTANCE of how the POLICIES adopted by the GB allow members to decide for themselves.
This concept should be fairly self-evident, analogous to recent changes in laws that loosen laws against marijuana use in some States, such that smoking a joint (which used to get an individual sent to prison, if caught), is now perfectly legal in some states (with medical licenses given, etc). That legal trend is clearly towards "less authoritarian" (or, towards more libertarian) as seen from the POV of the individual citizen, since the laws have been changed to get the government's nose out of the decision. Certainly you'd agree that the authoritarian climate changes from the POV of the citizen who wants to smoke dope.
But unlike the challenge of comparing changes in public perception over time (i.e. comparing 'current' vs 'past' subjective public opinion on marijuana use) it's orders of magnitude easier to compare changes in laws (objective) over time, and ultimately it gets to the same endpoint, since in the end, what actually matters IS the law (esp if you break the law and are caught, or if you accepted minor blood fractions before 2000 and get found out).
The same principle applies to GB 'decrimininalizing' certain decisions as 'conscience matters' in the recent past (vs in the 1960's, when a JW could be DFed for accepting blood). Although accepting whole blood is still potentially a DFing offense (if unrepentent), circa 2000 the GB changed the policy to allow a MAJOR loop-hole by making acceptance of blood fractions (or technically, accepting fractions of the major fractions) acceptable, redefining it as a 'conscience matter'. Nowadays, a saavy JW CAN for all intents and purposes accept whole blood, just as long as they accept fractions (of the major fractions) of whole blood.
Hopefully that's not news to anyone (and if it IS, check out JWFacts.com, since Paul wrote an article on the topic, and you're 14 yrs behind the times if you don't know). So that's a HUGE policy change which represents a MAJOR loosening of authority, since the GB seems to be slowly back-peddling away from a strict "no blood" policy that some allege began as an attempt by a past totalitarian monarch to grab some attention in headlines (AKA a publicity stunt). It doesn't matter WHY the change happened (they tell r&f it's "new light" given by God), but the EFFECT the policy has, which tangibly effects the ability of a member to decide for themselves.
This graphic says it all:
Note the trend in this graphic, showing a loosening of blood policy with minor fractions allowed, post 2000:
The same could be said for policy changes re: organ transplants and vaccinations: what in the past was once deemed unacceptable is NOW acceptable, under the current GB: they essentially delegated some of their authority to members, allowing them to use their "Bible-trained" consciences to decide.
