GB Split Over Bible vs. Policy

by Maximus 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  waiting

  Howdy,

  Fark said: Are there other possibilities I haven't considered? I'm sure their are. Let's hear them!

  Another possibilty - already touched upon:

  When people are held captive (no matter mentally, physically, emotionally) they tend to want to speak out, somehow. To say:

  "I'm still alive."
  "They'll never break me."
  "Do you outsiders understand what's happening in here?"
  "I refused to be silenced."
  "Look at what's happening here!"

  Perhaps when one lives with words, one can plant messages in the words - if for no other reason than to be heard or to reaffirm the worth of one's trueness to self?

  waiting
• 

  Maximus

  All of the above. Right on, waiting!

  Max
• 

  slipnslidemaster

  Ok, Maximus maybe YOU will answer this:

  To finger good guys would be the kiss of death, of course.

  Eusebius Hieronymus:

  Both you and Maximus have made statements to this effect. Why are you worried about that? Get rid of the "good" guys and let the power hungry assholes run the organization into the ground. Don't the "good" guys need a wakeup call in your opinion anyway? What good does staying in the borg do them?

  I don't understand.

  Slipnslidemaster: "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. "
  - Martin Luther King Jr.
• 

  sf

  Eusebius said:

  "The GB Service Committee featured one really tough, hardliner in the person of Ted Jaracz. Remains to be seen how boxed in he is."

  Indeed! His remains WILL be "boxed" in. hahahaha

  sKally, "VERY APOSTATE" klass
• 

  Maximus

  :: Don't the "good" guys need a wakeup call in your opinion anyway? What good does staying in the borg do them?

  Hey, you've got a valid point. The real "good guys" need no wakeup call IMNSHO. Can't speak for all, of course, but here's how one expressed it when I asked a similar question: "It's not what good it does me, it's what good I can do for the organization." That's more noble than most, I am sure, but I know some very fine men whose patience and compassion seem to be limitless. I admire them for that. I have no way of telling how many, but my instincts and communications lead me to believe that there is a tremendous number of persons who are terribly disillusioned, and that's only going to get larger. All the leading indicators scream that out.

  I know some reasonably "good" guys who are just very comfortable and who find it very easy to look the other way at what's going on. I have no patience for them whatever. And then there are the followers of followers of followers.

  Here's another thought: Just maybe some of the good guys ARE standing by while the bad guys are driving the org into the ground, hoping to pick up the pieces and rebuild it. You know, give them enough rope to hang themselves .... Whatever progress does occur, it likely will be slow, over a period of time.

  Maximus
• 

  Eusebius Hieronymus

  Just for Carlo, whose site is just for laughs.

  Until you think about persons like "troubled."

  "Are YOU one of the happy people in this picture?"

  "Why NOT?"

  No vomit bag big enough.
• 

  Had Enough

  Hi all:

  I'm just getting to this thread now and find it fascinating to think of the Writing Dept. writing things possibly to make a subtle point to observant ones, or as Copernicus suggested that perhaps

  occasionally a few honest folks (in a position to do something about it) get a twinge of conscience and they express some real feelings.

  And when Farkel said:

  AGuest (Shelby J.) was quite correct when she stated that the GB has not had anything to do with what goes in the rags since the early 1970's. She told me that in her meeting with Lloyd Barry, he said exactly that. I didn't believe her at first, but I had it confirmed from those who know.

  ...this made me wonder if anyone here knows if the general r&f knows that the GB no longer writes the stuff they read. Whatever happened to "the GB/FDS feeds the sheep at the due time under the direction of God...only they have God's spirit directing the teachings to be passed on to the sheep"? How can they be "directing the org" if they don't even know themselves what is going to be in the next issue?

  I didn't know that the GB no longer writes, and I've only been inactive a couple of years but still have had access to the pubs and an occasional CA and DA.

  Had Enough
• 

  Farkel

  Good comments and observations from all of you.

  Copernicus and Maximus,

  Your brains are working just fine these days. Thank you.

  Had Enough:

  : I didn't know that the GB no longer writes, and I've only been inactive a couple of years but still have had access to the pubs and an occasional CA and DA.

  From what I've been told, it's only when they make decisions on doctrinal matters are the articles written about what they say and think. Everything else is left to others: re-cycle that same old stuff. When they DO make new doctrinal decisions, one or some of them must review the stuff before it goes into print. (At least I would HOPE this is true.) It must be a sad plight to be a ninety plus-year-old geezer having to review and proof-read shit that was just dictated by one's ninety plus peers who are worn out and most likely want to retire to Patterson. Even being on the GB (the seat of God's Visible Organization) must get tiring after many decades. Decent people just retire when they are in their nineties. GB members don't retire. Therefore GB members are not decent people. It's possible or maybe even likely they are Prima Donnas.

  I could be wrong about them, though. I DO know they dispense shit as "Truth(tm)." I can prove this part.

  Farkel
• 

  Anchor

  Up to the top.

  Anchor
• 

  voltaire

  Does anyone remember a WT study article around '90 that said it would be unreasonable to DF a newly baptized person for breaking down and taking a puff or two on a cigarette, especially if that person had been a heavy smoker for years? It amazed me because I expected that sort of info would be sent to the body in a letter or be relayed by the CO/DO at one of those elder's meetings. I never saw another word of it again.(In fact, several publishers got into trouble for just such a thing. Some were smoking, some were thought to have taken a puff. We were left trying to sort out who did and didn't take a single puff.) I presume that must have represented a minority view somewhere in the society.