TheListener

Joined

• started 210 topics
• posted 3,839 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by TheListener

• 
  7

  Could Facebook Defeat The Watchtower?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you've been on boards such as this one for a long time, you may have noticed a profound change in what's posted.

  on the old h2o board, you commonly had long, detailed debates concerning every aspect of watchtower doctrine and history.

  while i thought i was very well informed in this area, i was often amazed at the stuff that came up that i'd never heard about.. and the discussions about 607 chronology were mind-numbingly extensive......... ...........but all that's over now!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  Metatron,

  You're Hari Seldon reference is spot on. Since I stopped being a witness I have thought that the Foundation series does have some parallels to the dubs and their theology.
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  Flipper is right, and AuldSoul years ago, when they say not to expect a softening with new GB members.

  -my initial thoughts were that with one less meeting, shorter Sunday talk and a few other changes that a softening was on the horizon. Now I see that in reality the mental control is tighter. The WTS controls less physical time of the dubs but more mental control.

  The newer members that make up GB2.0 were COs and DOs. Who controlled that department? Jaracz.
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  Thank you for that link Betsy,

  I didn't want to cut/paste Barbara's article (or even portions thereof), however, Barbara's footnote #17 sums up my feelings about the Nethinim. It is/was used as a proving ground for new GB members.

  Instead of helping the GB grow and expand mentally it has actually made them more insular. Only those individuals who fit the already created GB mold get sifted through and eventually join the GB. The rest are consigned to OS prospects and Nethinim status forever...
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  Neverendingjourney,

  I'm not sure I agree with you on this point for two reasons.

  1. The Nethinim article essentially created a third class of non-anointed Christians who would assist the governing body but who would not formally be a part of the body. It did not, contrary to the impression that many Witnesses and former Witnesses hold, pave the way for non-anointed to sit on the governing body.

  2. The article was essentially ignored after its publication. I read somewhere (perhaps from Barbara Anderson?) that this particular article was an embarrassment to the governing body due to the strained parallel used, which only served the purpose of giving a few Bethel-heavies bragging rights. If I'm not mistaken, the concept as laid out in the Nethinim article has never resurfaced.

  I think the real catalyst for adding members on the GB, as mentioned above, was the generation change and a realization that more members needed to be added to the body simply because the original members were getting too old and feeble. The old timers probably realized it was better for them to add new members and leave their mark on the direction of the organization for years to come.

  I believe, as you, that the catalyst for adding more members was the realization that the end wasn't as near as it was once thought. I just think that the GB1.0 was too nervous to add a bunch of new guys to the GB without "introducing" them first. The Nethinim article served as the introduction. Who knows, maybe the GB1.0 wasn't sure which of the butt-kissers to actually appoint so the Nethinim position allowed them to openly test the candidates.

  I also agree that the Nethinim parallel has not been reiterated or discussed since its inception. But, I think it served its purpose. It allowed the GB time to select specific members for addition to the GB and it did so without upsetting the JW applecart.

  I believe the doctrinal changes show us one thing for sure. The GB1.0 truly believed that the end was near until the mid-90s; and once it dawned on them that it wasn't they put doctrines in place that allowed for date pushing and body enlargement. They still seem to be in that same mode. Which means the GB2.0 may not feel the end is imminent either.
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  1994	Losch added to GB
  1995	Generation change (WT 11/1/1995)
  1997	Nethinim program officially instituted (WT 5/15/1997)
  2000	Herd,Lett,Pierce,Splane added to GB
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  As far as the GB2.0 is concerned. I never thought about the enlargement of the body not occurring until the mid-90s and beyond. It does seem that the GB1.0 felt that they could man the helm until the system finally ended. It must have made for some interesting discussions once they started to see themselves physically and mentally deteriorate and knew something had to be done before too long.

  As I recall the first step in the process for creating the GB2.0 was the Nethinim article (WT 5/15/1997 p.15-20). Others may be able to correct me.

  What would be interesting to see in a timeline is the GB appointments, generation changes, and doctrinal shifts like the Nethinim. It may show an interesting pattern...
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  TD, after reading your post I must say I agree completely. Overall I like the direction of this thread.

  In the "old days" the congregation bookstudies didn't have specific numbers of paragraphs to cover and much was left up to the individual study conductor. In the "old days" the "friends" would discuss deep prophecies and in general felt superior to other christians because they had such meat provided to them for study.

  I remember being in field service car groups and playing bible stump games. The one who could come up with some obscure fact which was usually based on some deep prophecy would win.

  It seemed that there was a time when open discussion occurred about the doctrines and the understandings. Make no mistake, you did have to tow the line; outright disagreement wasn't acceptable.

  Nowadays the witnesses seem to be slowly losing end times urgency. I know we've discussed it on the boards a million times, but it's true. The old timers feel the younger ones aren't spiritual enough to survive the persecution that they feel is sure to come. The young ones don't know the deep spiritual prophecies and truths because they aren't really discussed much. There is a real (to borrow a term used by someone earlier) bifurcation of the membership.

  One possibility is that a new visionary will emerge and either reinvigorate the entire membership or cause a schism.

  The more I watch my witness family members and their friends the more I see them seem tired and unenergetic. The average witness seems very much to just be going through the motions without giving much thought to anything except the end coming so they will be vindicated and not stricken with odd illnesses any longer.

  Actually, that last sentence made a thought pop into my head. It seems we've discussed many times the odd illnesses that witnesses have. The witnesses of the 30s-70s weren't afflicted with so many maladies. I believe it is all part of the wearing out of the message, machinery and membership.
• 
  65

  Governing Body 2.0

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i borrow the phrase gb 2.0 from alltimejeff, who used it yesterday in the post about theodore jaracz's death.. i was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the wts, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so.

  while few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style.

  it also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.. from what i can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.. - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of gb appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener
• 
  18

  The effect of this religion on my children & the action I had to take - Part I

  by jambon1 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i have been meaning to tell this story for some time now.

  i feel that i would like to share it so that it may serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that the jw religion does not have a negative effect on children.. i have been out of the religion for 4 years now.

  i wasn't brought up in the organisation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  I hear you man. You, me, Billzfan and others must be in the same boat.

  How much do we say to the kids? If our household has some peace how much do we rock the boat? Do we put our foot down and risk divorce to keep the kids free? Would that just push the kids further in?

  It's like trying to get a sliver. You're never positive of the right tool (needle or tweezers) and if you use the wrong one you could push it further in. Plus, sometimes getting the sliver out leaves a lot of raw flesh around the wound because it was in so deep. (((sigh)))
• 
  11

  There can be a paradise earth WITHOUT an earthly resurrection

  by Mad Sweeney in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i get tired of hearing the faulty reasoning that there has to be an earthly resurrection because the bible promises a paradise earth.. those are two completely different things.. the bible only mentions a heavenly resurrection and resurrection is never mentioned in conjunction with paradise earth.

  "how then could there be a paradise earth if everyone goes to heaven?

  the earth would be empty, dummy!".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  TheListener

  Leo,

  Where did you get that number?