Posts by drew sagan

27

Forget what they say, most JWs do not believe the end is near...

by drew sagan in

i was a baptized jw for 7 years.

during that time i repeatedly vocalized my belief that "the end is near.

" however, what did this cost me?

drew sagan

JWs always believe that the end is "about 3 years away".

I suppose the folks I knew were a bit more conservative. They always would say 10 years.

27

Forget what they say, most JWs do not believe the end is near...

by drew sagan in

i was a baptized jw for 7 years.

during that time i repeatedly vocalized my belief that "the end is near.

" however, what did this cost me?

I was a baptized JW for 7 years. During that time I repeatedly vocalized my belief that "the end is near." However, what did this cost me? What was I putting on the line for this belief? Did I really think the end was right around the corner?

The most ardent supporters of millennial belief systems don't just say they think the end is near, they construct their entire lives around their belief that this indeed is going to occur. They sell their homes, live out of trailers, wear that wacky sandwich sign and count down the days.

This isn't to say that belief that the end is near doesn't manifest itself within the organization. However, the degree to which contemporary JWs actually believe that the end is near, to the point of making life altering changes, has been greatly diminished.

As former JWs, I think most of us tend to mix up the B.S. that comes out of a JWs mouth as what they really believe. Sure, JWs will state till they are blue in the face that the end is near. But what is this belief costing them?

The truth is that belief in the "end times" comes cheap these days. Without putting anything of substance on the line, "end times" proclamations are nothing more than talk.

Now JWs back in 20s, 30s, 40s, etc., that's a different story. Those JWs believed crazy stuff with integrity, which strangley means they were a tad bit more respectable.

65

Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan in

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.

drew sagan

cc: Facts are overrated for sure.

Here is the link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/private/194466/5/Ted-Jaracz-passed-away-this-morning

nej: As content within the organizations publications have simplified the scope of approved has definitely narrowed. The newer Watchtower publications essentially set approved boundaries for discussion. Study and talk outside those boundaries and you are stepping into unapproved territory.

As a newer convert I found myself wishing that the movement would embrace the "deeper" materials of previous years. I remember my interest in reading copies of older Watchtower books from the 70s that I found in the Kingdom Hall basement, specifically The Nations Shall Know that I am Jehovah (1971). I joined the movement primarily because I wanted to study and learn the deeper things, and increasingly became disappointed the more I heard generic information repeated over and over. Of course, this was a personal experience that occurred outside of the organizations development. I never was active during the years when the group engaged in deeper study, and only pined for it personally.

Another point of conjecture:

Will the GB 2.0 wait another 20-30 years before appointing new members to the GB? Or will they instead appoint new members as it becomes necessary? While it appears that the GB 1.0, which was established in the 70s, waited until after the failure of the generation doctrine to make changes (probably because they never thought new leaders would be needed), the actions of GB 2.0 may be more routine. There is no longer a doctrinal reason for resisting new appointments. To the contrary, they now have a framework that allows them a never ending supply of newly anointed candidates for the job.

65

Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan in

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.

drew sagan

You mention that the Bible Teach book does not include references to the F&D slave, but overall references to the Slave have gone up. I have noticed a strong upwards trend to mentioning that the Slave is guided and must not be questioned. This is an important point IMO, similar to there being a Private and Public Watchtower.

I do wonder, however, if there has simply been a shift towards using F&DS directly rather than through more subtle forms of rhetoric. The Revelation book (1988) only uses the phrase 8 times, while the phrase "John class" (an alternative phrase for F&DS) appears 119 times. Also keep in mind that the number of references to the F&DS grew only slightly from the 90s to 00s. The 1980s seems to be lower, but my analysis is for the Watchtower publication only. Without a comprehensive analysis of say, all Watchtower study articles from the 80s through 00s, its hard to say exactly what has been changing. Real research can be pain in the...

In terms of what the group presents to new converts I do believe there has been a shift. I was a JW from 99 to 06. During those years I noticed a growing emphasis in the number of suggestions aimed at rebranding the JWs image. As a new JW I openly welcomed the suggestions, believing that they could possibly help break down stereotypes people in the field had regarding the movement. For example, here is a gem I remember from 2001:

*** km 12/01 p. 1 par. 3 Handle God’s Word Aright ***

3 Read Directly From the Bible: You might try going to the door without a book bag. You could put the featured literature that you wish to offer in a slim portfolio and carry the Bible in your hand or pocket. Then, when you engage someone in conversation, you can bring out the Bible without causing the person to feel that you are trying to preach a sermon. Position yourself in such a way that your listener can follow along in your Bible. Perhaps ask him to read a verse aloud. A deeper impression is made when he can see what the Bible says rather than just hear it from you. Of course, to help him understand the point of the text, stress the thought-conveying words.

In regards to your other point:

New recruits do not have the importance of the hierarchy highlighted to them. This does not become introduced until the recruit is already somewhat entrenched with the Organization.

I believe that in the era of GB 2.0 Watchtower teachings have essentially bifurcated. Essentially, there is an increasing separation between doctrines regarding the nature of God and his works from the narrative of the organization. In the days of Franz, Knorr, and especially Rutherford, the organizational narrative was at the center of the groups experience. Even the "Live Forever" book (1989) had an entire chapter about "Gods visible organization." I believe that growing anxiety about the nearness of armageddon is weakening the power of this narrative within the group, while shifts in societal norms render the story as less appealing to outsiders. Specifically, people today are less anxious about the perils of modernity (nuclear war, famine, destruction of the earth, etc.). Concepts linking mankind's salvation from these problems through a definable earthly organization may have less of an appeal. Of course, this is just a guess. There may be others reasons for why the two components of belief are splitting within the organization.

The response, however, has been clear. The organization has pulled back from incorporating the narrative of God's organization into its public message. And, as we have already noted, Watchtower publications have increasingly been focusing on generic discussions regarding the nature of God and morality. I am skeptical regarding the assertion that the Watchtower is simply playing a "bait and switch" on new converts. While this may be what functionally occurs, the true intentions of leaders within the sect may not be as clear. It's just as possible that they simply believe in a change of focus for the message, something that inadvertently creates gaps in what new converts learn about the movement. That's the problem with trying to judge the actions of GB 2.0, the are a secretive group of individuals that only insiders can provide the details on.

I also wanted to make a point about the growth of Jehovah's Witnesses in non-western countries. While the growth of western religion in non-western countries is often attributed to impoverished people grasping onto a fresh message of hope, there are multiple factors to consider. One factor I have though about is the Witnesses extremely Western image. Some of the appeal JWs have abroad may stem from new converts desire to become modernized westerners. This is just speculation, I have not data to back it up. A literature review on the growth of Christianity in the third world probably would reveal what really is going on.

65

Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan in

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.

drew sagan

Thanks for the clarification neverendingjourney, I see where you are coming from now. I actually agree to a certain extent. Detailed explanations of prophecy and dogma were much more popular in decades past. I remember that my mother-in-law, who converted to the JWs in the 1980s, would sometimes impress younger jws at book studies because she would explain in detail things from Ezekiel. Truth be told, there are some Bible books the Watchtower has not even bothered to explain to the most recent generation of JWs.

I can also understand the general narrative you are presenting because I also joined the group in the 1990s, albeit the late 1990s (started attending in 97). However, I wonder what you mean when you say:

"The religion changed from being one that welcomed and nurtured intellectual curiosity regarding its doctrine to one that simply demanded obedience without proof."

When an individual first comes in contact with the movement intellectual curiosity is always encouraged by JWs as long as it falls within proper bounds. It is undeniable that in years past (I'm especially thinking back to publications of the 1960s and 70s) content provided by the WTS was much more dense, thus providing some intellectual breathing room so to speak. However, from the writings of Raymond Franz, Jim Penton, and others I think it's safe to say that the organization's demands for obedience have been around quite a long time as well.

Since I've been in the mood for recommending books, I might suggest people here check out Andrew Holden's "Jehovah's Witnesses, Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement". I've been reading it the past few weeks and have found it rather good. He is a sociologist by trade, and quite a good one. (psst... don't let anybody know I gave you this link: http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/theology_occultism/west_religion/0415266092.html )

65

Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan in

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.

drew sagan

Nobody on the GB appears to be capable of inheriting Freddy's mantle as chief theologian, so they're not bothering with that anymore. Why should they? Their membership doesn't require it of them.

You are correct. GB 2.0 is primarily interested in maintaining the status quo and is not interested in significant changes or major organizational shifts. Instead they continue to maintain what they have inherited. I would imagine that each of them feels a strong responsibility to those larger figures in the organization's past (Franz and Knorr especially).

I do find it interesting that the Governing Body established in the 1970s waited until the mid 1990s before it started to appoint new members. In fact, it may be worth noting that new Governing Body members began to be appointed only after the generation doctrine began to be dismantled. It seems as though GB 1.0 was holding out all those years, actually believing that a new era of leadership was not going to be necessary. Then comes the 1990s, the generation doctrine is gone, and new members to the body begin to be appointed.

I understand where you are coming from with your "simple minds" idea neverendingjourney, however, I typically don't like to overgeneralize these things. I do agree that the organization appeals to individuals who have a tendency to want concise and simple answers about how the world functions (most proponents of millennialism typically do). However, I think the reasons for people's involvement with groups like the JWs tend to stem from a variety of factors instead of just one (family influences, history, personal choice, peer pressure, hope, fear, ect).

A good (and free) book that breaks down some of these factors can be found at: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

2

Debator, or any JW apologists, please give me your oppinion re: mind control

by teel in

i happened to surf on the "cult checklist" page on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cult_checklist where i found the well-known robert lifton's list, with small explanations in parenthesis.

please explain what do you think which of these doesn't apply to jw's and why.

or alternatively, if it all fits, why do you think it's still fine?

drew sagan

I'm not a JW apologist, however, I have in recent years come to question the concept of "mind control".

The question is, is mind control a definable phenomena that can be tested and proven to exist? When looking at most "brainwashing" theories, there tends to be a general theme regarding the overall helplessness of the victim (the controlled subject). As some sociologists have noted (Bryan Wilson, among others), the idea of mind control allows a former member of a group to detach any personal responsibility for decisions that led to the individuals participation with the group.

Without question there are a number of high pressure tactics that some groups use in order to persuade an individual to join a religious (or even secular) movement. However, what is the difference between this and high pressure commercial advertising and sales in commercial and retail industry? In some respects, what society sees as proper in one area of life (commerce) may be judged as unacceptable in other areas of life (religion). But even then the lines get blurred. I would agree that most of the practices described in the provided list are used by the Watchtower Society to some degree. But is this mind control? Could it simply be an extreme form of extreme peer pressure?

Another question. Are all Jehovah's Witnesses under some form of "mind control"? Or have they instead made their decision to be (and stay) a Jehovah's Witness due to a variety of influences and factors (e.g. family relations and history, friendships, personal choice, peer pressure, norms, fear, hope, etc.).

And what about personal choice? Just because an individual chooses to believe in a poorly constructed argument does not mean that they haven't chosen to believe it. I think that even when it comes to groups that exert higher forms of pressure on people the element of personal choice cannot completely be ruled out.

65

Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan in

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.

drew sagan

lepermessiah,

You are correct in your belief that emphasis on the Faithful and Discreet Slave has grown over the years. The Watchtower CD-ROM gives some insight into this. Running a generic search on the phrase "Faithful and Discrete Slave" in the program reveals that use of the phrase has been increasing each decade since 1970. Here are some averages:

Year Range / Average

00-09 / 27
90-99 / 25.7 80-89 / 17.3 70-79 / 11.4 60-69 / 20.5 50-59 / 18.7

Notice that from 50-69 the numbers were significantly higher than those taken from the 1970s. While I have no theory as to why this occured, trends since 1970 are fairly clear. The gap between the 90s is rather small, while both are more significant than usage in the 1980s.

There are, however, problems with a general analysis like this. While it is eaisly confirmed that the F&DS phrase is being used more often, other phrases and terms may have been more popular in decades past. There also is the problem of bias. Those of us who left the Watchtower were probably more likely to believe that the group was continuously becoming more authoritarian because we personally began to notice those tendencies. However, the organization may have been just as bad at other times, but because we were more committed to the group such problems escaped our attention.

29

Name Things JWs Make Issues Over They Have No Right To Do

by minimus in

jw
friends

the witnesses are worse than the pharisees ever were!.

if you don't turn in a time slip and record your "ministerial" activities, you are no good.. if you wanted to smoke, you would be kicked out, even though the bible says nothing about smoking (and j.f.

rutherford, the society's president regularly smoked).. you cannot go to a "quick build" project and give of your free services if you are wearing a tee shirt with a logo on it!.

drew sagan

The have the "right" to do whatever they want to do.

65

Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan in

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.

drew sagan

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. A majority of members on the GB were appointed between 1999 and 2005. The only member left from the 70's is John Barr. Gerrit Losch was a rare mid-90s appointment.

- There must have been a consensus within the GB 2.0 that saw the level of activity demanded by the Watchtower in years past as excessive (or at least not consistent with the times). They cut the in home book study, shortened the public talk, and cut back on supplied reading material. While many here speculated that some of this was do to costs (which is a real possibility), the fact that meetings were included in the cut backs reveals that one motive was to demand less of the membership.

- The change in tone and substance within the publications, especially since the 1990s, reveals a move towards truncation of argumentation regarding complex doctrinal matters. Just compare the Knowledge book with the You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth book (you could also add the Truth book to the mix). While What Does the Bible Really Teach? did eventually reintroduce some of the doctrine that was lacking in the Knowledge book, it completely excluded any mention of the faithful and discrete slave. In short, information regarding doctrine has become simplified in recent years. It appears that every new book released by the Watchtower focuses less and less on doctrines. This may not be apparent when comparing books year to year, but when compared over the course of decades the trend becomes obvious.

- The role of prophecy is diminishing, with more of a focus on lifestyle. The latest book on Jeremiah as well as the one on the minor prophets released a few years ago show a significant shift away from understanding prophecy in terms of having fulfillment in modern times. Rather than using these prophetic books as a way to expand on the end times narrative, they instead focusing on coping with what seems to be an extended period of waiting for the end. In this way the books reveal that the current leadership definitely sees signs of "armageddon anxiety" among the membership. While the organization used to reinvigorate its members with exciting new explantations of prophetic fulfillment, the current brand of rhetoric sees no role for such speculations. Instead they focus on qualities such as "endurance" and "patience". The role of end times still is important, but not in the sense of a being a dominating narrative.

Some may disagree with my final conclusion, but to me it appears that the organization is actually becoming less confrontational in its style and approach. While the new leadership continues to declare an "us verses them" narrative built around claims of exclusivity, it has come to emphasize other aspects that tend to be more mainstream. I believe the organization is trending towards emphasis of morality and lifestyle choices, which subsequently means a de-emphasizing of prophetic interpretations and doctrinal discourse. This is not an absolute trend, and there is some overlap in terms of experience. Some of the older members may still value prophecy more, but the younger members are likely to adopt the newer "lifestyle" as presented by the organization.

I also tend to think that major changes will not take place. The current leadership tends to view the model established by the followers of Knorr and Franz as a sound one that will only need tweaked as time progresses (think changes to theocratic ministry school, meetings, magazines, ect.). Without a dominant eccentric to lead the pack, I think the organization is likely to continue on a path towards adopting moderate changes that do not substantially change the organization.

Your thoughts?