which are the most influential branch offices of jehovah's witnesses around the world?.
for some time i have been wondering whether there are tendencies toward either greater liberalism or greater conservatism among various branch committees, and whether any of this could have an impact on brooklyn's policies.. here are my guesses in order (although i can't claim any insider knowledge):.
1) united states (they've just set up their own branch committee, although presumably it will be in lockstep with...well, either the governing body or the legal department?).
Your general point is well-taken, Ozzie. Yes, it's primarily "top-down." But some of the branch commmittees are undoubtedly in more frequent contact with/more "respected by" the GB in terms of their observations/reports from the field being taken into consideration when new policies are being formulated. That's all I meant.
comment
which are the most influential branch offices of jehovah's witnesses around the world?.
for some time i have been wondering whether there are tendencies toward either greater liberalism or greater conservatism among various branch committees, and whether any of this could have an impact on brooklyn's policies.. here are my guesses in order (although i can't claim any insider knowledge):.
1) united states (they've just set up their own branch committee, although presumably it will be in lockstep with...well, either the governing body or the legal department?).
Which are the most influential branch offices of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world?
For some time I have been wondering whether there are tendencies toward either greater liberalism or greater conservatism among various branch committees, and whether any of this could have an impact on Brooklyn's policies.
Here are my guesses in order (although I can't claim any insider knowledge):
1) United States (they've just set up their own branch committee, although presumably it will be in lockstep with...well, either the Governing Body or the Legal Department?)
2) Canada (because of the geographical proximity and the history of tying in the Canadian Bethel family electronically for special talks and announcements and so forth)
3) Britain (like Canada, there's a cultural connection and there have been several British members of the GB; also, the Society incorporated a corporation in Britain early in its history)
4) Australia (similar to Britain, though more distant)
5) Germany (due to the impact the Selters printing operation has on the work in Europe)
You'd also have to say these "Top Five" countries have been pretty well-represented in Brooklyn over the years. (i.e. Western=good, Anglo-Saxon=better, American=best)
After that, who knows? But I would guess Finland (heavily involved with the Baltic states and Russia since the fall of Communism), France, and maybe Japan.
Of course, there are branch offices in lands where there are more Witnesses than those latter three. But somehow, from what I've read and heard from both sanctioned and unsanctioned sources, I doubt many branch offices in non-Western or Third World countries are "taken seriously" in terms of having any bearing on the overall course the organization takes.
Thoughts?
comment
i just realized i was baptized eight years ago on this date.. does that ever hit you when it rolls around?.
i've been out for the last two years and can't say i thought about it much on the previous anniversaries--or even when i was active.. not that i'm choked up about it or anything.
it's just interesting to think back.
I just realized I was baptized eight years ago on this date.
Does that ever hit you when it rolls around?
I've been out for the last two years and can't say I thought about it much on the previous anniversaries--or even when I was active.
Not that I'm choked up about it or anything. It's just interesting to think back. I would say I had 4 "strong years" as a Witness (although on closer examination, the first two were when I was the most comfortable with the teachings and the second two were marked by more unthinking acceptance, while superficially all 4 years were very active for me), 1 "weak one" (when I started to think about things more critically and reassess my priorities in life) and, as I said, 2 out.
Now, living in a manner that only requires contact with other people when I desire, it's hard for me to tell how much I've changed as a person in those eight years. I think I've mellowed in terms of my treatment of other people and become less guilt-ridden and hard on myself. For instance, I remember a time when I would have advocated that all drug users face the death penalty, regardless of what drug, how much or the consequences to others. Today, while I don't use drugs personally and have no plans to start, I think of drug use (in most cases) as more of a medical problem and an emotional coping mechanism that is easy to fall into.
I guess the feelings I had while listening to my baptism talk were similar to those you have when you're getting married. I was nervous and couldn't concentrate on what the speaker was saying--then again, I'd heard essentially the same talk dozens of times before. I remember his first name was Bruce, and when they tried to dunk me, they had to do it twice because my toes came out of the water the first time.
Oh well, just reminiscing. Carry on if you like.
comment
excerpt from the watchtower, october 15, 2006: "disfellowshipping--the christian view".
12. likewise in modern times, the christian congregation is compelled to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers.
but what of those who sincerely regret the reproach they have brought upon jehovah's name, organization and people?
Thanks for the compliments on the writing...lol. I was never involved in writing articles for the magazines, but it was suggested a few times that I should look into it.
As you look over the publications, you can see how the Watchtower style has evolved over the years. Overall, the quality of the writing *has* improved somewhat over the years. Not to say it isn't pompous and verbose nowadays--it is--but Watchtowers from the mid-to-late 1980's are more readable than they were in the 1960's and 1970's. Fred Franz had an absolutely awful style. I've excerpted a paragraph from page 114 of the 1971 book The Nations Shall Have to Know I Am Jehovah--How? to illustrate this:
"The Creator does not enjoy seeing this earth defiled, polluted. It is his creation and was meant to be a credit to him. It was his original purpose that this earth, as a home for mankind, should be everywhere a paradise such as would make this terrestrial globe a decoration in the gorgeous celestial Milky Way of which it is a tiny part."
How convoluted can you get?
So if you wanted to parody the Fred Franz era, you'd write something like:
"Would the daily reading of the Bible, attendance at Christian meetings and even participation in the angelic-directed field ministry be sufficient to mark suchlike ones as true, undoubted members of the new covenant of which Jesus Christ spoke when he foretold that heavenly governing arrangement that is operational in our day? Not necessarily so!"
Actually, I just noticed one small stylistic error in my "article": the Society would use the construction "Rather than CLING to past views" instead of "Rather than CLINGING to past views." No biggie, really. ;)
comment
excerpt from the watchtower, october 15, 2006: "disfellowshipping--the christian view".
12. likewise in modern times, the christian congregation is compelled to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers.
but what of those who sincerely regret the reproach they have brought upon jehovah's name, organization and people?
Joanne: believe me, I'd be happy to write the whole article if they'd let me! lol...I agree, I don't see this change coming up around the corner, but you never know, maybe at some point, due to legal or financial pressures or a decision that they're losing more members than they're retaining with the disfellowshipping policy as it stands...
comment
i was just looking at this quote from another thread:.
"of what significance is this today?
it means that by the fall of 1963 mankind has dwelt upon this earth 5,988 years.
Thanks for pointing out those additional quotes, Tom. Of course, the funny thing is that they are speculative ("need not," "could have been," "would have been"), when that was precisely what the All Scripture Inspired quote was cautioning against.
comment
i don't know about the rest of you but i was one of the stupid ones lugging bricks around and cleaning them up for the jw's shortly before i left.. how many others here have done the same???.
how many of us have at one time been construction workers for the borg???.
esther...you set my brain working on this one with your thread .
For me, it was kind of fun, if boring...lol, does that make sense? Anyway, I came away with the sense that I'd never want to be a full-time construction worker (I was just a grunt), but the sisters made some great food. So I can't say I had a big problem with it, for what it was.
comment
i was just looking at this quote from another thread:.
"of what significance is this today?
it means that by the fall of 1963 mankind has dwelt upon this earth 5,988 years.
I was just looking at this quote from another thread:
1963
"Of what significance is this today? It means that by the fall of 1963 mankind has dwelt upon this earth 5,988 years. Does this mean, then, that by 1963 we had progressed 5,988 years into the 'day' on which Jehovah 'has been resting from all his work'? (Gen. 2:3) No, for the creation of Adam does not correspond with the beginning of Jehovah's rest day. Following Adam's creation, and still within the sixth creative day, Jehovah appears to have been forming further animal and bird creations. Also, he had Adam name the animals, which would take some time, and he proceeded to create Eve. (Gen. 2:18-22; see also NW, 1953 Ed., footnote on Vs. 19) Whatever time elapsed between Adam's creation and the end of the 'sixth day' must be subtracted from the 5,988 years in order to give the actual length of time from the beginning of the 'seventh day' until now. It does no good to use Bible chronology for speculating on dates that are still future in the stream of time."
(All Scripture is inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963, page 286)
My question is this: did the Society not use the All Scripture book during the Theocratic Ministry School (or any other meetings) during the period of 1966 to 1975, when the hopes regarding 1975 were being built up?
As long as I can remember, the All Scripture book was a "constant."
It seems really weird that if they WERE using this book, the congregations were still able to overlook a basically irrefutable line of reasoning to kibosh 1975 (not knowing the gap between Adam's creation and the end of the sixth day, which, even using a 7,000 years interpretation, could be a LONG time), PLUS the statement that "It does no good to speculate..."
(Btw, I always loved the phrase "the stream of time" when I was a Witness. It sorta gave me the chills to think that we were at the End of Time, so to speak, in our "generation." Oh well.)
comment
excerpt from the watchtower, october 15, 2006: "disfellowshipping--the christian view".
12. likewise in modern times, the christian congregation is compelled to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers.
but what of those who sincerely regret the reproach they have brought upon jehovah's name, organization and people?
So? How do you think they might do it, if they do it?
excerpt from the watchtower, october 15, 2006: "disfellowshipping--the christian view".
12. likewise in modern times, the christian congregation is compelled to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers.
but what of those who sincerely regret the reproach they have brought upon jehovah's name, organization and people?
Excerpt from The Watchtower, October 15, 2006: "Disfellowshipping--The Christian View"
12. Likewise in modern times, the Christian congregation is compelled to disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers. But what of those who sincerely regret the reproach they have brought upon Jehovah's name, organization and people? Such ones may be restored to spiritual health. If so, they would not be expelled from the congregation.
13. The question then arises: "How should we treat disfellowshipped persons?" In the past, some Christians may have reasoned that a wholehearted application of such scriptures as 1 Corinthians 9:11 and 2 John 11 required them to avoid any contact whatsoever with such individuals. They acted on the basis of their consciences and should not be criticized for the stand they took. However, as we saw earlier, the inspired Bible writers clearly applied their prohibitions on association to unusual or exceptional cases, such as an active member of the congregation who openly espoused fornication, or a Christian elder who publicly denied the value of the ransom sacrifice.
14. The account of the prodigal son deeply moves us and causes us to reflect on Jehovah's boundless love and compassion, does it not? (Luke 15:11-32) Would we not wish to experience similar compassion from the congregation, even if we had fallen into a course of life not in harmony with the Scriptures? Surely the answer is yes! Therefore, today mature Christians do not view themselves as superior to those who have been disfellowshipped, refusing to speak with them or acknowledge their presence. Rather, they may choose to associate with disfellowshipped ones no more than they do with worldlings, always bearing in mind that the best and most upbuilding association can be found in God's clean organization. By setting a fine example and using words "seasoned with salt," Christians attract both newly interested ones and disfellowshipped ones to take the path of righteousness. (Col. 4:6)
15. What of those who voluntarily withdraw from being Jehovah's Witnesses, stating that they wish to dissociate themselves? That is their choice. Each must render his own account to our Creator. Jehovah's Witnesses are known as champions of religious freedom worldwide. While it is deeply regretted that a few who used to be zealous Kingdom proclaimers no longer take their Christian dedication to heart, we are not empowered to "separate the sheep from the goats," as Jesus Christ will during God's great war of Armageddon. (Matt. 25:32,33) There is no need to make a point of never speaking to those who disassociate themselves. We follow the words of Philippians 4:5: "Let your reasonableness become known to all men." Rather than clinging to past views, we humbly make adjustments. Let us be determined to keep in step with Jehovah's progressive organization as the light grows brighter! (Prov. 4:18)
