how have the publications changed over the years, in your opinion?
do you feel that they are more "politically correct" now than in the past?
what about writing style?
How have the publications changed over the years, in your opinion? Do you feel that they are more "politically correct" now than in the past? What about writing style? Do you think that it is more "cult-like" and intellectually dishonest than in the past? Illustrations -- more destruction pictured or less? Are there more pictures in general (translation: less substance)?
I guess I'm just fascinated by the sociological phenomen of the WT and how it has evolved.
Bradley
in all my years of being a jw i have been, as everyone else, bombarded by the amount of times the society pays homage to it's own legal department and their successes (the latest one involving the us supremem court case in their favor even prompted an awake!
cover article, blagh!).
never, though, have i heard of them actually losing a decision, be it great or small.
In all my years of being a JW I have been, as everyone else, bombarded by the amount of times the Society pays homage to it's own legal department and their successes (the latest one involving the US Supremem court case in their favor even prompted an Awake! cover article, blagh!). Never, though, have I heard of them actually losing a decision, be it great or small. This is translated as the legal department having God Almighty's blessing and direction, which is, of coure, total nonsense; it just means they have good lawyers.
So, does anyone know of a time (besides the famed 1918 case and the ones that were later overruled) in which the Society lost? Just curious.
Bradley
ever wonder why more members of the gb don't wise up and make waves like ray franz did?
sure, most probably know that there are serious deficiencies with the society, but why did ray franz in particular go the extra mile of leaving the organization altogether and writing against it?
i have a pet theory i will relate: .
Ever wonder why more members of the GB don't wise up and make waves like Ray Franz did? Sure, most probably know that there are serious deficiencies with the Society, but why did Ray Franz in particular go the extra mile of leaving the organization altogether and writing against it? I have a pet theory I will relate:
The GB operates in a way in which the status quo is preserved. Only people who will assuredly "toe the company line" are ever going to make it to the top. Ray Franz even relates this in CoC (in fact, it is primarily the more prominant voices on the GB that get "their man" into the supreme council). With a situation like that, it is little wonder that most GB members will have nothing to do with prompting sweeping changes or wising up and exiting such a ridiculous group. But, Ray Franz was different. Here is where my hypothesis comes in.
What if Ray Franz was elected to the GB based on his name more than his personality and devotion to the status quo? What if being the nephew of the most respected JW on the planet was the primary reason, even if unconsciously so, for his being nominated to the Body? This would mean that he was the only one who would have become a GB member in this fashion...meaning : he didn't have to be the "company man" to get in. If he got in through nepotism (to no fault of his own) he wouldn't necessarily have gone through the winnowing process like everybody else. He might have been of completely different mindset (obviously so) and, hence, saw through it all and eventually left.
I just find all of this rather ironic. I could be dead wrong, of course, but it's fun to speculate (god, I am getting over my JW mindset!).
Bradley
.
.
what posters do you like the most on this forum and why?.
Well, if that is the actual picture of a forum member at bottom right...wow. She sure makes an impact!
Seriously, though, I enjoy AlanF's posts above all others. He, along with Gamaliel, seem to be quite balanced, very knowledgeable about the Society, the Bible and Science and are very comprehensible in their writing style. I've learned a lot from them in my brief time here. Thanks!
Bradley
adam lived 930 years.
(genesis 5:5) .
seth lived 912 years.
Francois,
Thank you very much for your insightful reply; dare I say it was almost comforting to see such honesty and humility from a theist. Science, specifically evolutionary biology and geology, was the foremost reason why I left the JWs and the Christian faith. Oh, perhaps the cruelties of Yahweh and the apocalyptic scare tactics of the Revelator were a more forceful reason for my disenchantment and rejection of the Bible. I do agree, though, that many of the sayings of Jesus are endearing (although not all; the whole thought of leaving everything behind for the kingdom seems fanatical, etc...).
I have come to the point where there is an either/or decision to be made, as Kierkegard put it. Either there is a God or there is not. I personally see no absolute proof for God's existence, yet I would love to think so. I've read a lot of Martin Gardner, someone who was a mathematician, writer debunking pseudoscience, and philisophical theist. He rejects Christianity and all forms of the paranormal, yet claims to be a philisophical theist; a deist of sorts. It's a quixotic leap of faith. I would hope to make it, but I cannot -- cannot -- give up my reasoning skills or scientific realism (I'm about to major in biology).
Ah, well. It's nice to be able to hear stories like yours. I hope to get further insight from you and your philisophical / scientific path.
All best,
Bradley
adam lived 930 years.
(genesis 5:5) .
seth lived 912 years.
Francois,
A comment and a question....
First, I always enjoy your posts; they are very insightful and your humor sometimes cracks me up. I appreciate the fact that you are not a Bible-thumping fundamentalist zombie and promote a worship of a God that is more a dreadful monster than a deity of love and forgiveness. All the same, I do notice that you seem to take a very novel view of "spirituality" and God. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to take bits and pieces of the Bible, such as most of the sayings of Jesus, parts of Paul (although you deny the ransom, I think), and some tales from the OT. My question is this: how did you possibly come to these, at first glance, labrynthine notions? How do you know any of this to be true? By what means do you accept certain scriptures and reject others? Where is the logical cohesion?
I hope I'm not coming across offensive, but I must say I find your beliefs a little confusing. Would you care to try and fill in the gaps in my knowledge of your thoughts? Once again, thanks
J. Bradley
let me start off by saying that i am fully and utterly through with the jws from both a logical and emotional point of view.
i'm happy and content in my decision to leave.
but one thing that i find very curious is the personalities of the gb members themselves.
Gamaliel,
Very interesting. Thank you for your assesment and information. What years were you at Bethel, by the way?
Thanks,
Bradley
let me start off by saying that i am fully and utterly through with the jws from both a logical and emotional point of view.
i'm happy and content in my decision to leave.
but one thing that i find very curious is the personalities of the gb members themselves.
Nathan,
My experiences with the JWs was far from "idyllic." I too was raised a JW, have lost all my family (save my JW mother) and friends except for one. My sister thinks I am brain-washed and I probably will never see my grandparents (in their 90's) in good standing again. I wen't through a tremendous depression both as a JW (for many reasons) and in leaving. I have felt the sting of a judicial committee as well as the pain in having to restart my life in my mid-twenties, starting off in college when I should be done with my Master's degree. The JWs have caused much harm in my life mentally, emotionally and even financially.
At the same time, I must be reasonable in my viewpoint of the Society and individuals in it. I stand by my statement in another post that to compare the WTS to Hitler's Nazis is profoundly ridiculous. Both groups are quite mistaken and have caused harm, but there is a continuum of evil and the Nazis are on one end and the JWs plotted far, far from them (although, in their own way, they are both evil). I will not take the black/white, either/or mentality with me as an ex-JW that I had as a JW. Henschel was a sadly mistaken person who was duped into believing a system of worship that has good aspects as well as bad aspects. He might have concentrated on the more noble traits of JWs (I think that I tried to be loving as a JW) while gulping down the foul parts. Or, maybe he should have known better. I don't know.
What I do know is that when I was researching the JWs in the early stages of my doubts, sites like this scared the hell out of me. I thought that "apostates" have a good point about some things, but seem so perverse and tactless about other things. Could they truly be misled by Satan? I pondered this and I think I did for good reason (of course, I don't even believe in a Devil anymore). I think that a reasoned, balanced approach to the Society, recognizing their good qualities while criticizing their more perverse and illogical ways, will save more people from this sometimes destructive sect. Logic and clear thinking got me out of the WTS, not degrading "shock-jock-like" antics.
Of course, in private I think some of this is humerous. But proclaiming that someone will urinate and deficate on a man's dead face is not funny -- it shows a lack of restraint from our more perverse tendencies. (This is nothing against you or anybody, just an honest observation)
Bradley
this morning they announce to the bethel family that brother milton
henschel passed away on
in the full time service for 69 years and was the 5th president.
I have to agree with amac on this one. It is ridiculous to compare anyone in the WTBTS to Nazi anti-semite butcherer's.
About a year ago, just before my exit from the Society, there was a teenage sister who made the comment that the Nazi's "probably killed more JWs than they did Jews." I was sickened. Just goes to show the WT-centric view that JWs have.
B
let me start off by saying that i am fully and utterly through with the jws from both a logical and emotional point of view.
i'm happy and content in my decision to leave.
but one thing that i find very curious is the personalities of the gb members themselves.
Let me start off by saying that I am fully and utterly through with the JWs from both a logical and emotional point of view. I'm happy and content in my decision to leave. But one thing that I find very curious is the personalities of the GB members themselves. It seems as if most of the members here view all of the GB as being these vicious, money-grubbing, conceited, pedophile protecting, vile creatures interested in nothing but their own power. Just look at the thread about Milton Henshcel's death (sorry people, some of the comments were of horrendous taste and utterly immature).
Funny thing is, I don't see that. I have had almost no personal experiences with any GB members, but I have read CoC, heard stories (some believable, some not), been at assemblies where I've heard them first-hand. It seems that most of them are genuine people who actually believe they are doing the right thing. Cruzanheart (I believe) said they had personal experiences with Henschel and T. Jaracz as a child and wholeheartedly like the former and did not like the latter.
In my limited experience it seems that Jaracz is the only one that I have serious reservations about in terms of his personality. He was the guest speaker for a few assemblies we had (we always had him for some reason) and I have heard reports from very reliable people. I'm not saying he is a Stalin or anything, but the unanimous and striking opinion seems to be that the guy just isn't very nice -- at all.
In his talks he seemed stern, condescending and heavy-handed (in contrast to someone like Dan Sydlik who everybody liked). Unlike other special speakers, he was nowhere to be found after the day's talks. He didn't talk to a soul. I found this very disturbing. My brother-in-law, former Bethelite and current super-elder, gave a couple experiences about TJ that I viewed with great suspicion. One was a morning worship in which he meant to say "seminaries" but, perhaps through a Freudian slip, said "cemetaries." He smiled and quipped, "Well, I guess they will be cemetaries pretty soon!" this to a barrage of laughter. After breakfast my brother-in-law was talking to a long-time Bethelite about how "funny" this was. The Bethelite (who evidently had served there for years) said that this was "the first time I've ever seen Bro. Jaracz laugh." Seriously. Wow. That's a small thing, but I think it kind of shows how serious (twisted, perhaps?) this man is.
So my question is to all of you former Bethelites and others who have had personal contact with the GB: what are your stories? Who seemed pleasant and genuine? Who didn't? I've noticed that CO's and especially DO's gravitate to a little "click" of long-time "heavies" -- brothers with much experience who are "above" the rest of the r and f. Did you also notice this about the GB? Please, no humerous bashing or sensational stories that are probably not true.
Thanks,
Bradley
