Posts by neverendingjourney

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.

neverendingjourney

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.

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.

65

Have your views on gays changed over the years?

by laverite in

jw
friends

some questions....feel free to answer any or all of these.

have your views of gay people changed over the years?

do you have or have you ever had gay friends?

neverendingjourney

I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes; just don't force me to "accept" it, call it "normal", "natural," or anything else.

Must You Rub My Nose In Your Heterosexuality? Posted by BarryBaxter at 6/10/2010 6:25 AM CDT

Hey Mr. and Ms. Straight America, there you go again! I mean, every time I leave my house or log on to the web or turn on my TV I’m slapped in the face by your lifestyle. Walking down the street holding hands like you haven’t a care in the world. Sharing that quick peck on the lips when you say hello or goodbye to your special someone. Welcoming your family and friends to your joyful weddings and posting the pictures everywhere. Really? Must you? The fact is, Mr. and Ms. Straight America, I’m yanking your chain. I actually think your love and shows of affection and weddings are awesome. What could ever be wrong with love? Why would anyone chastise anyone else for showing and acting upon their commitment to another person? Oh yeah. Sorry. Temporary amnesia. Some people would do that. Say, if they saw two men or two women walking down the street hand in hand, or grabbing that quick goodbye kiss, or planning a wedding, they might just wonder indignantly why the gays have to be so overt and rub it in everyone’s noses. In my family, we’re big on the goodbye kiss, especially at the airport. No way any of us are going to hurtle through the sky at 500 mph in a metal tube without a proper goodbye. As for holding hands, our son always positions himself to walk between us and grabs both of our hands so I’m guessing it’s pretty apparent that we’re a family. Simple, loving and pure exchanges of closeness and affection. Nothing more. So right on, Mr. and Ms. Straight America, give and receive love! Show a little respect to others who do the same. And let’s all just keep our noses out of it Source: http://www.chron.com/channel/momhouston/commons/twodadsoneson.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253ac42b0c21-9ea5-4329-8cc1-5fdc0a943b6aPost%253ab24ad4e9-239d-4ee8-bfac-11c297337ed1

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.

neverendingjourney

Interesting comments, TD.

I was not around in the 60s, but I imagine it as you describe. Freddy was in his prime at the time, churning out prophetic commentary after prophetic commentary. My earliest childhood memories start in the mid 80s. I think that was the tail end of period of time when it was permitted to inquire into "deep spiritual matters." Fred's authority had been severely hampered post 1975 and he was beginning to grow too old and tired to have the same kind of pull as before.

I can't imagine the WT issuing an interlinear bible and concordance today or even attempting to tackle evolution again by updating the Creation book. I think those days are behind us, largely because the men in charge neither have the capacity nor the interest in following Fred's footsteps.

65

Have your views on gays changed over the years?

by laverite in

jw
friends

some questions....feel free to answer any or all of these.

have your views of gay people changed over the years?

do you have or have you ever had gay friends?

neverendingjourney

I found myself having the cruelest thoughts about gay people when I was a JW, specifically gay men.

Things have changed BIG time. I'm now as liberal as they come with respect to gay marriage. It didnt happen overnight, but making friends with gay people helped change my perception.

47

The no beard or facial hair rule

by Soldier77 in

okay, something that has always been a side point but still a rather ridiculous rule is that brothers cannot "serve" if they have a beard/goatee/anything more than just a moustache.

at least in the states, i've heard of some congregations in some countries allow this, but they are the exception?

your experience?.

neverendingjourney

This rule goes back to the very early days of this religion. CT Russell had a beard, as we all know. Joseph Rutherford did not. Many of CT Russell's disciples wore beards, perhaps as a matter of personal choice or perhaps as a way to emulate their pastor. After Pastor Russell died, Rutherford managed to gain control of the legal institutions of the Bible Students group. A significant schism ensued resulting in most of Russell's followers either leaving the Rutherford-led Bible Student group and/or forming their own splinter group.

There was a tremendous amount of pressure at the time to demonstrate your loyalty. You were either with Rutherford or you were against him. Russell's followers who broke away mostly continued to wear beards. Since Rutherford was clean-shaven, one way to demonstrate your loyalty to Rutherford was to be clean-shaven. Wearing a beard became associated with Russell's followers who broke off. Being clean-shaven was a way to demonstrate loyalty to Rutherford's Bible Student group. From that point forward, wearing a beard was discouraged, if not banned outright.

Once the beatnik movement of the 1950s and the Hippie movement of the 1960s came around, beards became associated with counter-culture movements, and the rule became further cemented into the JW canon of unwritten law. The JWs are about rules, laws and traditions, so a rule that was unofficially set in place nearly 100 years ago continues to be enforced to this very day.

For more information on this topic see Crisis of Conscience and Apocalypse Delayed

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.

neverendingjourney

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?

It's really impossible to answer this question without insight into the politics behind GB 2.0. Due to Ray Franz's revelations, we knew the personalities and tendencies of GB 1.0, but we're virtually in the dark about these new fellows.

Back in my zealous JW days I used to have contact with Bethelites and COs who would occasionally drop bits and pieces of information that shed light on the politics and personalities of the upper crust of the JW hierarchy, but those contacts have long since vanished. I know Loesch is a tyrant just by seeing him at two assemblies, but I know next to nothing about the rest other than what I read on this board.

I guess it depends on how authoritarian this new bunch is. If they're locked in a power struggle and new appointments might disrupt the balance of power, my guess is they'll hold off on new appointments for the time being. If they're pretty much lockstep right now and adding new members will not disrupt the center of power, then I suspect they'll add a few new members for consistency's sake. Time will tell.

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.

neverendingjourney

Software generally follows a naming convention whereby the initial version is a 1.0. It's upgraded to version 2.0, then 3.0, and so forth.

The point Drew was making is that since the GB's formation in the 70s, newer members were not added until the 90s. All but one of the "original" GB members on the board as of the 1970s are dead. Therefore, it's this new batch of GB who now run the show. Hence, GB 2.0, GB 1.0 being the GB in place during the early 70s.

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.

neverendingjourney

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."

I was going to type out a response to your question, but sir82 indirectly answered it better than I could in his post above, particularly where he says:

It's getting progressively harder to talk about anything to any level of depth at the meetings. All meetings (except the WT study) have been shortened substantially, meeting parts are all shortened (service meeting parts are rarely more than 10 minutes, compared to 20 or 25 in the past), and even the WT itself has been dumbed down to a 4th grade or so reading level.

At private gatherings, any talk of "deeper" things is met with suspicion, unease, and silence.

Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the best. I'm not sure the WT ever truly "nurtured" intellectual curiosity, but it was not discouraged. So long as you stayed within the confines of WT literature, it was okay. In the mid 90s I used to meet with other bright young Witnesses to study various doctrinal themes using WT materials, of course. I never felt that this was inappropriate in any way. At the time, the Society was not that far removed from Fred Franz, so there was still a semblance of an effort to maintain doctrinal consistency and to keep the teachings up to date. Since no one could fill his void, the teachings became more and more stale with time. By 2005, the year I stopped going to meetings, attempts at "deep study" became increasingly uncomfortable because the doctrinal flaws became more easily apparent. Instead of "fixing" it by updating the doctrines, the GB decided to clamp down on this type of research instead.

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.

neverendingjourney

Thanks for the book recommendation, Drew. I'll certainly add it to my to-read list.

I understand where you are coming from with your "simple minds" idea neverendingjourney, however, I typically don't like to overgeneralize these things.

I don't mean to imply that JWs somehow are on average dumber than everybody else. In fact, I would be quite surprised if the average IQ among JWs deviates much from the median. I don't think my IQ now is any higher or lower than it was when I was a zealous teenage pioneer.

What I am saying is that there has been a marked change in the level of fascination with doctrinal flights of fancy and even doctrinal consistency. I remember when I was a child in the early 80s. Each of the elders in my congregation was quite knowledgeable about JW doctrine. Elders were viewed as teachers and were prepared to answer even the most demanding doctrinal questions. In the mid 90s when I became personally invested in the group, JW doctrine was still a popular topic of conversation, but things were changing.

Elders who lacked even a cursory knowledge of your "deep doctrines" began to be appointed. The dumbed-down Knowledge book was released, as you describe above. By the early Aughts, conversations regarding "deep doctrinal matters" began to be viewed suspiciously. The Society enacted policies to ensure that no outside sources were quoted in their Watchtower studies by the conductors, and so on. The religion changed from being one that welcomed and nurtured intellectual curiosity regarding its doctrine to one that simply demanded obedience without proof.

This shift has resulted in what I refer to as "simple minds." The intellectually-curious have either gotten in line or left. The religion is now focusing on recruiting those who don't question doctrine, even more so than before. By and large, this shift has been embraced by JWs, as I tried to explain with my anecdote. If you asked a JW 30 years ago why he was sure Armageddon was just around the corner, he'd quote you some explanation thought up by Fred Franz and spelled out in the WT publications. If you as a JW the same question today, you're likely to get a blank stare, a shrug of the shoulders and a response that conveys the following thought: "Because the Society says so."

Moreover, this shift has resulted from the type of men who currently populate the GB, yes-men selected based on loyalty and not talent.

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.

neverendingjourney

In short, information regarding doctrine has become simplified in recent years

Simple doctrine for simple minds.

I'll address your larger point shortly, but I want to throw in an anecdote to illustrate my simple-minds point.

The other night I had dinner with a JW. I was waiting for her inside the restaurant at the bar. She called for me to go meet her outside. When I saw her she was looking ridiculous "smoking" a black and mild cigarette. It was obvious she wasn't inhaling it. I grabbed the cigarette from her, took a deep breath, and puffed it out. She understood what I was getting at, put the cigarette out and went inside.

We discussed a variety of topics over dinner. It was clear that, in addition to her "smoking" habit, she was leading a double life in other ways. She then got on the topic of religion and asked me if I missed the meetings. I told her I've never been happier in my life. She replied that she still "loved Jehovah" but had done too many bad things in her life to deserve his love. I told her that her depression was caused by the guilt she was carrying around. She then proceeded to attack me along the lines of "how could you forget everything you learned about Jehovah?" I told her Jehovah was a fairy tale, like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

My response clearly upset her. The following is a paraphrase of what followed:

"What about everything that's going on? The world is getting worse."

"No it's not. It's getting better. People are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. One-hundred years ago the average life span was much shorter."

"That's not true. People lived an average of 120 years back then. Life spans are getting shorter."

[Confused look on my face] "Stop being so negative. Think of how lucky you are. You were born in the richest country in the world [United States]. You could have just as easily been born in sub-Saharan Africa and starved to death as a toddler."

"You're wrong. The richest country in the world is Mexico. You don't know what you're talking about."

[Stunned expression on my face again] "Okay. I spent eight years in college and I somehow missed the fact that Mexico is the richest country in the world. That must explain why so many illegal immigrants leave the richest country in the world to come to our country every year. I'm sorry."

"Now you're just mocking me. I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You don't listen and you have no idea what you're talking about."

[Change of subject]

I wish I could say she's somehow an exception, but most of my conversations with JWs have revealed a shocking ignorance of the world in which they live. Critical thinking is pushed aside. Many of them just make up facts that support the Society's position. Granted, she is an example of a JW more on the ignorant side of the spectrum, but her example is typical, unfortunately.

Back to your larger point. The "simplification" of doctrine, if you will, follows the change in leaderships. Fred Franz filled in as the primary theologian for the religion for 30+ years. He had a high IQ with an equally vibrant imagination. After the GB coup of the early 70s, men were chosen for top leadership based on loyalty, not capacity, as confirmed by Ray Franz in COC. What has resulted in GB 2.0 is a bunch of brainwashed yes-men with an extreme loyalty to the core of JW doctrine, but who are not necessarily the most qualified to lead such a large religion.

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. Those intelligent enough to see the doctrinal flaws have already left or have been purged. So long as they continue to recruit from the third world, they will post insignificant increases year after year to cover up the steady exit of your more independent-minded JWs.