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

Something I would like to add. I think that some may be confusing what constitutes a religion going "mainstream".

However, far too many people attach the label of cult to something that the do not like, a factor that diminishes the usefulness of the term

James Penton uses the terms "sect" to describe religious movements that are insular and not integrated into society at large. That term still carries with it negative connotations, but not nearly to the degree that the term "cult" does. Cult is a pejorative that is not very useful to throw around, in my opinion. No one would admit to being an "idiot" more than anyone would admit to being a member of a cult.

What's interesting, as Penton points out, is how long the JWs have resisted integration into society at large. If you look at the LDS, which started more or less around the same time as the JWs, they are far more integrated at this point in their history. They sponsor hospitals and universities. They have governors, senators, and even presidential candidates among their members. By contrast, the JWs still largely operate outside of society. Few Witnesses leave a lasting imprint on society at large. Very few lawyers, doctors, artists, public figures, etc. among their members. The revolving-door nature of JWs whereby its membership is almost completely renewed every few decades is probably behind this.

16

miller and russell... the best laugh i've had for a while

by Aussie Oz in

i just can't contain my mirth (and disgust ) about the the history of the wt soc any more!.

the history of miller and his teachings, barbour being a millerite and a guide to the then young russell cemented the truth of the modern day wt organizations history as opposed to its own whitewashed version of history.. for 37 years i saw them as the one true religion.

now i just see them as total frauds.

neverendingjourney

I should add that the chart above actually "proves" 1843. Miller, like Russell after him, forgot there was no year zero and later had to add a year arrive at 1844.

16

miller and russell... the best laugh i've had for a while

by Aussie Oz in

i just can't contain my mirth (and disgust ) about the the history of the wt soc any more!.

the history of miller and his teachings, barbour being a millerite and a guide to the then young russell cemented the truth of the modern day wt organizations history as opposed to its own whitewashed version of history.. for 37 years i saw them as the one true religion.

now i just see them as total frauds.

neverendingjourney

It really puts things in perspective to realize JW eschatology failed in 1844, 35 years before the first Watchtower was ever published. Russell took Miller's teachings and adjusted a few things here and there to arrive at 1914 as the end of the world. Russell took a prophetic framework that had already failed and tweaked it. That framework still forms the core of JW eschatology to this day.

It's impossible to look at the following chart used by Miller to "prove" 1844 and not see Witness chronology all over it.

81

Ted Jaracz - the Cardinal Ratzinger of Jehovah's Witnesses

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

theodore ("ted") jaracz1925-2010.

about 7:30, june 9, 2010, theodore ("ted") jaracz, one of the members of the governing body ruling over jehovah's witnesses, died.

previously, on may 19, 2009, he had had a serious stroke, but recently seemed to have made a big recovery, giving some assembly talks.

neverendingjourney

There's a nice spot reserved in hell for Ratzinger and Jaracz alike.

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.