I don’t think Armstrongism is a good analogy for Watchtower in the current situation. It was basically a family run business that got into trouble, and a few in the leadership who were converted by Evangelicals as a group. They did this while attending an outside biblical studies course. None of these conditions apply to JWs and the chances of the GB doing the same are near zero. The reforms the GB are enacting are practical and policy level. There is no indication they intend to alter their core beliefs in a Protestant evangelical direction as the Worldwide Church of God did. Most people have only read about the Worldwide Church of God and its fallout. I’ve attended services of the continuing body Grace Communion International and some of the splinter groups. I’ve talked to the people - quite an interesting experience as some of them are not totally on board with the evangelical reforms in the continuing body, especially over the Trinity. They were different than JWs in significant respects, and what happened is not a guide to what will happen at Watchtower.
GB Update #2, March 2024: Women allowed to wear pants, no ties/coats required if not giving a talk, & now able to greet DF ones in the KH!
by WingCommander 194 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I think they are making it easier to be a JW and this is a serious attempt at keeping the younger generations from leaving. The only ones angered by this are the boomer generation and older who lived their entire lives under these rules. They are not the future and the GB finally realised this.
Only thing I am certain of is why TMIII was removed. Mr Tight Pants himself would have never approved this and likely was the huge hold-out in all these GB votes. Probably was actively campaigning behind the scenes and was causing division in the GB ranks.
Looks like the modernisers have taken the victory. Unclear as to how far they will take this. 1914 is a huge inconvenience right now and I think they might wait until more of the older ones die off before repealing it.
-
LongHairGal
LAS MALVINAS..:
You’re probably right that this is a serious attempt to keep the younger generations from leaving.
You are also probably right that Boomers and older would be angry because they lived their entire lives under these rules. I ‘Faded’ in 2001 and kept my job until retirement. When I heard they dropped the reporting of time at the 2023 annual meeting, I felt justified and relieved that I never quit my job to be in the ministry!!! …I can only imagine how angry and betrayed any other Boomers must feel if they DID do this.
How must they feel about all these other changes and whatever else may be coming? They must think their precious religion sold out and I’ll bet it doesn’t give a sh#t about them.. While I can imagine how they must feel, you have to remember these people criticized me for working - so there isn’t much sympathy on my part.
-
FFGhost
I admit I have not read every comment on this thread, so if someone commented on it and I missed it, apologies.
Did you catch the point slipped into the new S-395 form, paragraph 15?
If someone ends up being DF’ed despite all the lax new rules, elders will meet with him/her after only three months, unless he is “apostate or actively promoting wrongdoing”. It then says “in some cases” the DF’ed person could be reinstated after just those 3 months.
This is an aftershock of gigantic proportions. Only 3 months? I can think of dozens, if not hundreds, of elders I have personally known who wouldn’t even consider a request for reinstatement in less than a year, maybe longer, and just dismiss such a request out of hand. Now, the DF’ed person doesn’t even need to submit a written request - the elders chase after him/her after only 3 months and, it sounds like, in only the rarest of occasions would extend the DF period for longer.
I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts: this is the kind of thing that leads to schisms. It’s going to give the hardliner elders, easily more than 50% of the total out there, absolute screaming hissy fits.
If this really is, as some are intimating, just the “tip of the iceberg”, there will be groups splitting off the JWs before the decade is out.
There are many many MANY elders out there who get their “jollies” from being the “tough guys”, who view themselves as champions, protectors, guardians of moral sanctity and the chaste pureness of “Jehovah’s congregation”. Now they’re going to be chasing after DF’ed people after a few months and begging them to return? Nope I can’t see it.
A LOT of these guys just simply won’t be able to do it. But rather than resign and lose power, I think they’ll start splitting off.
Don’t laugh - it happened in Romania in the 50s, it happened several times 1916 - 1930, it can definitely happen again.
-
jehovaxx
One thing is for sure, the JW world has become a lot more interesting even exciting place for everyone. Those physically out are wishing they were back in to be a part of it all😭
there is a lot of speculation about future things being permitted but really these latest changes kind of permit everything with only a worst case scenario a 90 ban (rest) and you are begged to come back.but most times it won’t even come to that if you say you are sorry
Smoking, drugs rock and roll. Yes sex, partying watching unsuitable entertainment it’s all gone into light touch category.
Light touch means maybe warning and maybe a visit if young person then parents just have to say they have it in hand. (Exact words in the new direction)
Imagine Elder 1 “so they slept together at the party?”
Parents “well they were drunk and high and apparently it was only a blow job but they can’t really remember, maybe a hand job”
Elder 1 “oh that reminds me I have to ask you have you got it in hand” if so nothing will happen
🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
Ron.W.
FFGhost
There are many many MANY elders out there who get their “jollies” from being the “tough guys”, who view themselves as champions, protectors, guardians of moral sanctity and the chaste pureness of “Jehovah’s congregation”. Now they’re going to be chasing after DF’ed people after a few months and begging them to return? Nope I can’t see it.Great point FFGhost.
One elder I have known for years said his congregation is totally made up of hardliners with himself getting bullied/shouted down at every single elders meeting.
-
notsurewheretogo
The new change isn't that big...JW's can talk (say hello only) to those at the KH if DF'd and can also talk to their families if DF's only to invite them back to meetings.
JW's still can't talk to these ones at any other time or situation.
The change simply means from a legal perspective they are not 100% shunning people and if ever another "Norway" situation appears the JW's can cite the changes and legally it will be fine.
If these new changes were in place for the Norway trial the JW's would have won. I expect an appeal on this basis.
-
jehovaxx
Notsure so strongly disagree with you saying not that big
Everyone was directed to actually go and contact DFed ones. This is absolutely huge. It may have been decades since they last spoke. Of course they will ask how they are doing and about the family ect.
there is a lot of speculation about future things being permitted but really these latest changes kind of permit everything with only a worst case scenario a 90 ban (rest) and you are begged to come back.but most times it won’t even come to that if you say you are sorry
Smoking, drugs rock and roll. Yes sex, partying watching unsuitable entertainment it’s all gone into light touch category.
Light touch means maybe warning and maybe a visit if young person then parents just have to say they have it in hand. (Exact words in the new direction)
-
notsurewheretogo
I meant "big" as in a huge change to the DF policy...at the moment you can't 100% talk to a DF person but the new change simply allows you to say "hello" at the KH or to say "please come to the meeting" and nothing else.
The fact they are changing is significant yes but the actual changes to a DF person is small. A DF person still loses all meaningful contact with family and friends.
-
slimboyfat
The sticking point in the Norway case was apparently the shunning of children. The new policy still allows for the shunning of children, albeit after some extra effort to avoid that outcome, and with the concession of greetings at the meetings. If that is the new position and it is properly explained then I doubt that is enough of a change to reverse the decision in Norway.