Has the Governing Body Become More or Less Authoritarian in Recent Years?

by cofty 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Syme

  I really agree with Borges!

  As a child, in the late 80s and early 90s, I clearly remember a far more conservative JW church, in every way. Conservative elders, conservative R&F. And the GB was indeed authoritarian (in the conservative way); just read Ray Franz's account in CoC.

  But, there was a difference. The local elders had more real authority. When I was a secretary I used to read old correspondence and files of the congs I served: there it was apparent that the elders did a lot of actual handling by themselves. They had *actual* opinion, and their opinion weighed heavily.

  Now this has vanished. The current GB has taken the handling of each and every congregation as personally as ever. In this aspect, yes, it has become much more authoritarian. The GB now is de facto the BOE of every congregation. The local elders just carry out the endless inflow of ridiculously specific written instructions by the GB. The talks in meetings and conventions/assemblies are also more specifically layed out by the GB. (if you've taken a look at new talk layouts you know what I mean)

  As a prime example: think of the recently leaked JC video that was shown in the Kingdom Ministry school. Would you imagine a 70s, 80s, or even 90s GB sending a video showing how exactly the elders should do every little detail of their job? This example I think illustrates how much more the GB is trying to handle all matters by themselves. Now, why is that? Don't they trust the BOEs anymore? Are they scared? These are good questions for another thread.

  So, my opinion is: the GB is more authoritarian in organizational matters, but not behavioural ones. They succeed in being organizationally authoritarian because of the very structure and hierarchy of the religion. But, they don't succeed in being authoritarian with regards to the JWs way of living, because the world changes (to the more liberal), and so does every human on this planet, even JWs. For instance, they tried to be authoritarian with the Internet: they failed. Now they embrace the net. They tried to be authoritarian with porn: they failed (they still try hard with that; good luck). They tried to be authoritarian with studies: I don't think they succeeded; most jw youths in my area see studying in college as something really natural. They tried to make every jw spend all their time in field service: instead, they had to lower *their* standards in order to keep their numbers of auxiliary and regular pioneers.
• 

  Phizzy

  Definition from Wiki. Authoritarianism: It is characterised by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom, and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.
• 

  Oubliette

  WT Study Edition, November 15, 2014, p. 20, paragraph 17:

  • At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.

  Here's the same point from the "simplified" edition:

  • "At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives."
• 

  flipper

  A LOT more authoritative today than in the past. Too many rules and restrictions and snooping in on JW's personal lives and the giving of personal opinions as counsel from elders and GB members. This was one of the main reasons I exited the Witnesses at first over 10 years ago. Then I learned many more reasons on why my decision to leave was the best decision and correct
• 

  metatron

  It might be more accurate to say that the organization is more centralized - or that it is attempting to do so.

  Actually, that 'attempting' is a key point, IMHO. The Organization is getting hit with much the same problem as governments in the world. People are mostly passive-aggressive - most of them won't openly risk rebellion but they won't cooperate, either - if they feel 'no one is watching'.

  As to fanaticism, things have changed. Contrast the weak defensive response of most Witnesses today with the more 'in-your-face' sort of reaction that they used to show when confronted with opposition or even persecution. Rutherford and his tactics are long past.

  The Organization is flaccid, boring and anachronistic. It didn't used to be this way. I can recall old timers saying that every meeting used to be exciting because of legal actions, persecution, and a sense of imminent events.

  Good Luck to the Governing Body! They are stuck with the thankless job of facade maintenance! Every time they suffer a defeat, they must still appear invincible.

  metatron
• 

  Londo111

  In regard Rutherford's days...that was before the disfellowshipping arrangement. Even in the late 40's, excommunication was "pagan". Up until 1980, a person could simply DA if they wanted to.
• 

  Rattigan350

  Back prior to the 1990s it was an Us vs Them mentality. JWs vs the Catholic church or other Christendom.

  Now it is an Us vs those not 100% US.

  Prior to the deaths of John Barr and Dan Sydlik, they were more loving and caring (as long as people appeared to bow to them).
• 

  adamah

  Phizzy said- Definition from Wiki. Authoritarianism: It is characterised by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom, and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.

  Thanks for posting the definition of "authoritarianism", Phizzy, since the question is about which decisions members are permitted to make on their own (using their "Bible-trained conscience") vs being told by GB what God wants them to do or else risk facing DF.Official doctrines and policies obviously change over time, which implies the level of authoritarian control exercised over members changes, as well.

  Symes said- The current GB has taken the handling of each and every congregation as personally as ever. In this aspect, yes, it has become much more authoritarian. The GB now is de facto the BOE of every congregation.

  Interesting, as at the same time the WTBTS has taken steps via policy letters to distance themselves from the actions and decisions made in the local BOEs, esp in light of the Conti case, seemingly in an attempt to protect the mother ship from appearing to micro-manage the actions of elders in the local KHs. There's that policy letter advising BOEs to call WT Legal to make sure they comply with the mandatory reporting laws of their State, but aside from that, I'd say the attempt is primarily to ISOLATE the mother ship, AKA exercising less authoritarian control....

  You brought up an interesting point:

  Symes said- But, they don't succeed in being authoritarian with regards to the JWs way of living, because the world changes (to the more liberal), and so does every human on this planet, even JWs.

  No religion has the luxury of operating in a vacuum, but has to change with the social mores of the secular community or face consequences (if only to attract new members). Hence why many of the 'more liberal' flavors of Xianity had to adapt to recent changes in public opinion towards homosexuality to maintain their relevancy. JWs, although being fundamentalists, are not immune from such pressures since as you say, the move is towards more liberal from conservative.

  The WT recently loosened their authoritarian dogmatic stance against the WWW and iPads/iPhones, allowing members to openly use mobile devices (even in service) without suffering the critical disapproving stares of elders.
• 

  cofty

  the question is about which decisions members are permitted to make on their own (using their "Bible-trained conscience") vs being told by GB what God wants them to do or else risk facing DF

  No its not. Its about how much the GB demands unquestioning obedience in whatever areas they decide to interfere in their followers lives.

  You were never a JW so your opinion about the personal experience of JWs decades ago compared to now is not very interesting.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Adam: since the question is about which decisions members are permitted to make on their own (using their "Bible-trained conscience")

  -

  If JWs are "permitted" by an outside force (the GB) to make a personal choice, and only as long as that choice fits within the narrow parameters the GB has set, then it's not really a free use of their conscience, is it?

  .

  Definition from Wiki. Authoritarianism: It is characterised by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom, and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.

  .

  Argue it all you want, Adam, the reality is a JWs "conscience" is whatever the GB tells them it is. Individual choice based on 'Bible training'* has nothing to do with how a JW arrives at a decision. It is based solely on what the GB decides for them. The proof of this is clearly shown in the fact that a JWs "conscience" shifts in lockstep with the GB's current mindset.

  .

  [edit] * incidentally, a JWs "Bible training" is derived solely from Watchtower literature, as any extra-Organizational research/study is strongly discouraged, if not outrightly banned. To reiterate, the result is a JWs "conscience" is a direct product of the exclusive opinions/doctrines the GB expresses in WT literature, NOT the result of an informed choice based on independent research, thoughtful consideration and freedom.