Is it a Congregation or a tricky corporation

by jst2laws 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jst2laws

  I have been trying to make points with some in my congregation by dropping neutral hints, such as: “Did you know since 1985 we (they) do not baptize in the name of the ‘father, the son, and the holy spirit’ but we have taken holy spirit out of the process and placed the ‘spirit directed organization’ into the picture?”
  
  I told several on their way to the convention to look for this as well as the emphasis in the drama on loyalty to the organization. I haven’t been to the convention this year but may have to persevere through one more because two folks came back telling me they did not hear any emphasis on “organization”. Now, I know there is some liberty taken by the speakers at each convention, but not pushing loyalty to the borg is not a liberty the average convention speaking will get away with.

  You who have some knowledge on this matter may be able to clarify this for me. I anticipate the approach to this issue has become a more artful deception. In the fall the GB separated itself from all legal entities and stuffed it's new toolbox with a total of 7 corporations in this country. If I remember correctly the main corp over the rank and file is the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc. Is this new game being played the discontinuation of the terms “organization” and “Society” now replaced with the innocuous phrase the “Christian Congregation”. If this is what has happened, it has worked, because these semi astute ‘doubters’ are coming back thinking the talks simply encouraged loyalty to the local Christian Congregation and the lead of the elders, while the borg is really talking about their legal entity the “Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc”. Any thoughts??
  Jst2laws
• 

  truman

  I looked over my conv. notes, and it seems to me that there may not have been much use of the term 'organization' as such. Other euphemisms, like 'those appointed by Jehovah', 'God's appointed servants', the faithful and discreet slave', and so on are being used instead. And as you said, with the new designation of Christian Cong. of Jehovah's witnesses, we will likely not hear too much more mention of WTBTS or 'the society'.

  It seems to me as you said, to be a ploy; it must be 'new light'. But at the convention, even though not necessarily the word organization, certainly the concept was definitely stressed, particularly on Sunday with the drama and its follow-up talk. Over and over the point was made that one must have primary loyalty to those whom Jehovah has appointed over family and friends. " Loyalty to those appointed by Jehovah is loyalty to Jehovah!" That is almost a direct quote from the conv. I attended.
• 

  Maximus

  Take a look at the thread started by comment
  on GB and anointed members.

  Most who use the term "the Society" have reference to the official and definitive leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses. A letter of policy or an answer to a scriptural question came rubber stamped with Watch Tower B & T Society of Pennsylvania, or Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.

  Whether the letter originated with Writing, Service or other departments it was from "the Society." When we wanted direction, we would say, "What does the Society think about this issue?" Obviously we were not referring to a corporation that meets annually, but the decision-makers at the top or their delegates. "They" have tried to "adjust" such terminology and usage, but old habits die hard.

  The old Qualified to Be Ministers book advanced the notion that the governing body was "closely associated with the board of directors of the Pennsylvania corporation." Indeed they had all the power. Finally a GB was formally named, which consequently reduced the power of N.H. Knorr.

  But for years they have been dying off, and we got that sappy article on the nethinim, "given ones," assistants. Many of these assistants had been running departments quietly for years and far more qualified and experienced than, say, a circuit overseer brought in essentially because he partook of the emblems. These individuals are now recognized by their being in corporate positions.

  The letter from the entity the "Christian Congregation" was a letter of policy. Was it cleared by Legal? By the GB? How does Service now fit in? Has the effective/actual power of the GB been diminished?

  You're starting to see the first signs of various entities exerting themselves. I'm trying to provoke thought--and the personal input of others.

  Maximus
  PS It would be MOST unusual to find deviation from the material provided, as all talks are carefully monitored.
• 

  patio34

  Hi Just2Laws!

  You've been gone for a while, haven't you? Good to hear from you again. Your posts are top-rate!

  It was maybe about 2-3 years ago, that a big point was made in the WT about not referring to WTBS anymore as the 'Society,' but to use the term FDS. Remember?

  But a rose is a rose is a rose, no matter what the name.

  I agree with you, of course, that the concept is exactly the same, just a 'new light' label for politic reasons.

  Pat
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Truman,
  Thanks for your diligent note taking. I notice just a few threads down another of your references to the DC. Yet you sounded sad, or disillusioned. Perhaps you are where I was last year. I can picture you there listening diligently and note taking loyally. Anyway I appreciate your observations. Take care.
  Jst2laws
• 

  Farkel

  jst2laws,

  : Now, I know there is some liberty taken by the speakers at each convention,

  As I understand it (I've been out nearly thirty years, but I do my best to keep on top of things) the speakers at conventions must now follow a written script. Furthermore, as I also understand, someone near the dais has a copy of that same script and is charged with making sure the speaker does not deviate from it. If the speaker DOES deviate from it, he might loose his Watchtower Weenie, and no male likes that kind of punishment.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this new policy was put in place so that the WTS could make sure that EVERY DA had the same information exactly the way the Society wanted it.

  patio34,

  : It was maybe about 2-3 years ago, that a big point was made in the WT about not referring to WTBS anymore as the 'Society,' but to use the term FDS. Remember?

  That issue was about telling dumb and Society-Worshipping(tm) dubs to say "the Bible says this about that...," instead of saying the "Society says this about that..."

  Of course the whole issue is bulldust. What the Society says about what the Bible says is actually what the Society will SAY what the Bible says. It doesn't matter what the Bible actually says. Only those mystics in WatchtowerLand who are in charge or selling WatchtowerWares(tm) know this stuff.

  What the Bible actually says doesn't meant squat. What means squat is what the Society says the Bible says when it said what is said. And often the Bible didn't actually mean what it said. That's where the "Society" comes in handy. They tell fools that it really didn't mean what it said but it really meant what THEY said it meant. This all makes perfect sense to me.

  Take notes. WatchtowerWorld is a VERY complicated world to live within. To add to the complication of living in WatchTowerWorld, even when THEY say stuff, THEY didn't really mean what they actually said to any average moron who read what they said and thought they meant what they said.

  This problem is not to hard to deal with in WatchtowerWorld(tm): it is called stuff that is "spiritually deep." In otherwords, it is horseshit to the average person with a single shred of common sense.

  Farkel
• 

  noidea

  When our PO read a letter the other week he started off by saying the "WBTS" then chuckled and said no they changed it to "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses".
  I was not surprised because of some info I had just read on the net.
  Absolutely no one caught it.
  Maybe the're leaving the name "organization" out because it is not as descriptive as 'those appointed by Jehovah', 'God's appointed servants', the faithful and discreet slave', The other titles re-direct our thinking that they are the direct link from Jehovah, and not a generic man-made imperfect org.
• 

  jst2laws

  Maximus,
  Thanks for the response, and the personal encouragement by e-mail last week.

  Quote: “the governing body was "closely associated with the board of directors of the Pennsylvania corporation." Indeed they had all the power. Finally a GB was formally named, which consequently reduced the power of N.H. Knorr.”

  Brings back moments of history in my memory. During that not so smooth transition Freddie Franz told a friend of mine “all the power of this organization has been invested in the President”. (Dan K., if you recognize that quote, get in touch with me).

  Maximus, are you suggesting that the GB may not be in complete control?

  Quote “These individuals are now recognized by their being in corporate positions. The letter from the entity the "Christian Congregation" was a letter of policy. Was it cleared by Legal? By the GB? How does Service now fit in? Has the effective/actual power of the GB been diminished? You're starting to see the first signs of various entities exerting themselves.”

  I would love to see them exert themselves. But Bethel loyalty is self preservation. These guys cant jeopardize their personal carriers in a power struggle. But if your saying departments may be struggling to stay on top, there might be a measure of security in such a struggle.
  You said “I'm trying to provoke thought--and the personal input of others.” You got me going.

  Jst2laws