All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[AlanF]

4Jah2me said:

Quote

 

@Arauna  But your quote, which I highlighted in red, proves that the earlier, Bible Students / Russell, were not guided by Almighty God's holy spirit, AND also proves that your GB / JW Org are not guided by Almighty God's holy spirit.

As for sports clubs / organisations closing down due to heavy fines or loss of membership, due to CSA within them. I don't care. I am no part of this world, so why would I care ?

Quote "But as usual - the press will only single us out even though the injustice was not "planned" or tolerated."

You know that isn't true. The ARC wasn't set up to deal with JW CSA was it ?   Earthwide governments / official bodies etc are being set up to look into most religions, and all other places where children are possibly being abused.  It is not just the JW Org.

JW Org is singled out on here for the obvious reason that this is a JW org forum.

 

My, my. Such inconvenient facts you've pointed out.

Quote

 

Quote "There is nothing wrong with not having the full picture or making a mistake "   

BUT, it would be so nice, so honest in fact, IF the GB would say that they DON'T KNOW' rather that 'making a mistake' / telling lies..

Sometimes, when my children would ask me a question, I would have to answer that I didn't know.  My children looked to me for answers. Some questions I could not answer. But I had the honesty to tell them 'I don't know'.

Now if the GB were only humble enough to say 'I don't know'  when they were asked some important questions. If the GB and their Writing Dept' were only honest enough not to make up things when they 'do not know'.   The GB make themselves as bait for criticism due to 'mistakes' and dishonesty.

 

The problem with their honestly admitting that they don't know is that it is a matter of serious doctrine that they appear to themselves and their followers to be speaking with authority, the authority of God and Christ. Admitting they don't know has always been equated with admitting they don't have that authority. But we all know that they neither represent God nor speak for him.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

Actually I do. I get most of my news from comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, The Tonight Show with Steven Colbert, etc. Far more reliable than plain old cable TV news.

Political talk rarely gets anywhere here, and that's understandable. But I just wanted to say that it bothers me that people still think that "news" from Saturday Night Live or Steven Colbert is any better than cable or network news. It's entertaining and funny, but it's still fed from the same commercial news sources. I've come to learn that even the so-called PBS, NPR non-commercial news sources are also strongly influenced by the same sources that are so easily influenced by the standard sources that push the "State" agenda, through Military Intelligence sources, State Department, Administration, and whichever side of the partisan line the collators and editors work from.

A case in point is the contradictory stance that news organizations take from administration to administration on Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Chile, Ecuador, etc.

These shows are a lot of fun, and they are especially fun when they represent the side the audience is already agrees with (usually progressive left), but the underlying "foundations" show that they just are just as duped as any cable TV network.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

So, Mr Harley and JW Insider, if you need to think I am John Butler, then to you I am John Butler

My detective skills are being criticized and some unkind ones are doing the same with my writing skills. One unkind person even said, “Don’t quit your day job.”

Just to be on the safe side, I have resolved to keep my position as head of the glass department for Tesla Motors.

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    Now if the GB were only humble enough to say 'I don't know'

Isn’t saying that you can err the same as saying you don’t know?

 

Not when a rank and file JW points out a specific error and is then subject to disfellowshipping or other ostracism.

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    On 11/21/2019 at 7:47 AM, AlanF said:

          Quote

        if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically.
    Read more   

Then you said:

    On 11/21/2019 at 7:47 AM, AlanF said:

    In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. . . . Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.

    The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.
    Read more   

Unless I'm missing something, this includes contradictory logic.

 

Not at all.

Quote

You said that if the WTS stopped DFing for apostasy the numbers would go down. But then your "evidence" is that the numbers go down when there is resentment when they continue to show authoritarianism by DFing for apostasy.

I see no contradictions there, so let me try to clarify.
Getting rid of the DF'ing policy would allow many JWs to leave and not lose their family members. Very many JWs make a pretense of being JWs simply to avoid being shunned by family members.
     

Quote

 

    On 11/21/2019 at 7:47 AM, AlanF said:

    the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove.

Perhaps you've spent many years on forums where such persons tell their stories, and the cumulative effect makes you think this is very common.

 

Whatever the general statistics are, ex-JWs courageous enough to tell their experiences are a statistic of their own. And it's born out by my family experiences, where several have contacted me and expressed fear about getting shunned even if they quietly leave.

Quote

Pew Research provides some indication to me that most JWs who no longer believe strongly enough in the value of the Watchtower organization simply drift away. Most are not disfellowshipped at all. Even those who would have been disfellowshipped have apparently (mostly) realized that one need only drift away.

True, but that's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned with the deliberate destruction of family relationships by the shunning policy, period. A JW might have quietly left, but experience shows that a goodly fraction have been later DF'd for a any number of things they did after leaving. There is no excuse for that policy.

Quote

Ones that want to make a statement may write a letter or make a scene somewhere (such as an online site or at a Kingdom Hall or Convention). These would be a small minority.

Perhaps, but most would be DF'd or DA'd anyway, resulting in shunning.

Quote

Technically if one isn't out to make a scene it's probably easy enough to answer the elders questions honestly and not be in any trouble.

But if the honest answer is "No, I don't believe the GB speaks for God", disfellowshipping immediately follows.

Quote

If I were asked "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Faithful and Discreet Slave?" The answer would be an easy and straightforward "Yes!" Technically the same goes for the Governing Body, just as Jehovah is able to use any group of elders, or publishers for that matter. Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in Jesus' name, there he is in their midst.

All of which is irrelevant to my point.

Quote

And of course anyone who has doubts about a doctrine should be able to humbly admit that it is a matter of not being able to understand the current doctrine in question, but make it clear that you don't want to make an issue or cause contention inside the congregation. I'm guessing that a humble attitude would solve 90 percent of these problems that might otherwise lead to DFing.

Perhaps, but what about the GB and its minions being humble enough to admit in specific cases that a teaching is wrong? Remember what happened with Carl Olof Jonsson and James Penton. Remember my experience with Albert Schroeder.
     

Quote

 

    On 11/21/2019 at 7:47 AM, AlanF said:

    That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.

For me, the acceptable replacement is a humble admission that after getting things wrong over and over again on chronology, that we simply follow Jesus' advice to give up on chronology. At least the kind of chronology that is used to try to predict the time period for the generation that will see the end-times scenario.

 

I agree, but you'll never convince JW leaders.
     

Quote

 

    On 11/21/2019 at 7:47 AM, AlanF said:

    The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.

I agree that there should be a way to provide constructive criticism that isn't immediately seen as a kind of "running ahead" of the organization. Of course, if you look at all the ideas people get, you can understand that the Governing Body are afraid of the chaos it could unleash if everybody started writing about their own opinions.

 

True. The Douglas Walsh trial made it abundantly clear that, because of that and other considerations, the Society would not tolerate any questioning of its claimed spiritual authority.

And that's rub! JW leaders are convinced that they speak for God, and you dasn't question God!

They have a correspondence department of sorts, but experience shows that most of the time a letter writer gets no response, or the letter is forwarded to local elders, often with a note of "watch out for a potential apostate". This behavior creates much resentment.

Quote

There are a few who have dropped by this forum with ideas that would make everyone cringe as they go off the deep end of mysticism, gnosticism, chronology, numerology, etc.

But these ideas are fairly easy to deal with. There are plenty of online forums that can be referred to that debunk such nonsense. But again that's very much against the Society's claim to speak for God.

Quote

I hate to admit that I had absolutely no idea who Jay Hess was until I just now looked him up. I probably saw the name before, but I typically tune out those who spend so much time on Trinity, worship vs obeisance, etc.

I haven't talked to him in a long time, but he was at one time a fiery defender of the Watchtower. In the late 1980s he wrote a treatise explaining why JWs are not false prophets. But the Society didn't like him writing such things, viewing it as a usurpation of its authority. Based on trumped up charges, Hess was DF'd. He told me that right up to the instant that the elders DF'd him around 1990 he was convinced that the GB was legitimate. In 1993 the Awake! writers used his treatise as a basis for a big spread on why JW are not false prophets.
     

Quote

 

    On 11/21/2019 at 7:47 AM, AlanF said:

    But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own.

Disagree. We were talking about DFing for various forms of disagreement that the Society has traditionally treated as apostasy. I believe the Bible supports some of this DFing, as you seem to admit, too.

 

Yes, I probably went too far in making such a blanket statement.

Quote

We would also be individually responsible for our own "marking" and choice of "fellowshipping" avoiding "bad associations" even among those who call themselves a brother.

Nothing wrong with that. It's what people do in everyday life. Exercising a conscience.

Quote

But we don't IGNORE most forms of bad conduct. The elders are to watch over the flock, and give good counsel when they learn of bad forms of conduct.

Which they certainly can do. And the internal congregational 'party line' would certainly spread around who was an undesirable.

Quote

We shouldn't make up rules about six months of shunning, or one year of shunning. And no one should enforce shunning for another person.

Exactly. The latter is just plain blackmail.

Quote

You make a good point that the right way to train a good conscience is to be allowed the responsibility of using that individual conscience -- but this does not mean that strong counsel and guidance should not be in order for those whose spirituality is drifting due to their conduct or their associations.

As I said above.

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, The Librarian said:

but my tolerance with Allen Smith is very thin... he "rubs me the wrong way" every time. 

When Bill Ford fired Lee Iacocca, he said: “Sometimes, you just don’t like a guy.”

Fortunately, I do not have that problem.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Well, many times you've deliberately misquoted or distorted my words, or claimed I said something or have views that have nothing to with reality. Why should this time be different?

Look, you windbag. Nobody else has this problem of producing lengthy texts that appear to be expounding upon your previous remarks and then blaming Admin for his inadequate software! Everyone else can figure out how to use the stuff. The trick is to not think yourself so important that you must, not only talk ad nauseam yourself, but quote others ad nauseam so you can argue with their every syllable! 

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Obviously this is a rhetorical question 

Same thing, the GB are. Everything passes through the GB. That is not to say they ignore input from each other, and others in the various departments at Bethel.

 

Third person writing style is more objective. Sometimes they, the GB get more personal and say "we, the GB have decided.....etc"  But when it comes to publications, read by millions, they think it's more appropriate to use the third person so it's, like I said, more objective. Plus, the publications are not an autobiography. It wasn't that long ago when most JWS didn't even know who the members of the GB were. Or only had very slight knowledge. But there are autobiographical articles (life stories) about members of the GB in the publications written in the first person.

(Call it theatrics, false modesty or whatever, but you can't please everyone. Now, opposers are complaining that the GB are in the limelight TOO much).

 

 

 

oooh...now his quote disappeared...

No Anna, in this issue not. In Department (Writing Dep. i assume) i guess there is a people who doing writings for commissioned articles about this and that, or have some list of topics to cover. And then some overseer of department splits the tasks to best writer for particular theme. 

Is there any committee or individuals that oversee or monitor the work of the GB? My guess is it doesn't exist. So there is no objective, more real picture of the true state of GB.  The conversations conducted here show that there are many valid reasons for correcting GB.

If someone inside Betel writes an article about GB, his writing is influenced by his employer, which is GB. Writing in the first or third person loses all meaning if we have a text that is not objective about those who are being written.

 

You said:  Sometimes they, the GB get more personal and say "we, the GB have decided.....etc"  I can't recall something was written this way. It reminds very strong on Bile report: WE and HOLY SPIRIT..... DECIDED to.....:))))) but because GB are not inspired, decision is only from them NOT with/under HS cooperation/influence.

It wasn't that long ago when most JWS didn't even know who the members of the GB were. Or only had very slight knowledge. But there are autobiographical articles (life stories) about members of the GB in the publications written in the first person. That is true. And this PR about GB members not going to be blessing for JW's, as i see. Because, while readers looking on text they are/been limited on letters and words and on own understanding and reasoning. Now, when you can see person who speaking those words, his look and gestures and mimics, his tone of voice...picture getting to be clearer, bigger and stronger. Viewer of JWTV program now have better chance to reject preaching of such religious leaders, than he/she got while reading paper only.  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

One thing I really enjoy from the Governing Body is their new series of Animations, similar to the Caleb and Sophia animated cartoons, about how in the New System, all animals will be at peace with each other, play together, and be happy.

I have six dogs, and it's important to me that they have happy lives.  I enjoy watching them play and frolic, and just peacefully sleep in their doghouses, or on the sofa, in the living room.  I even buy them treats, and dog toys to play with.

Without further ado, here is a clip from the Writing Department's latest animated cartoon, of how the animals will all live in peace and harmony, in the Paradise earth ....  It's called "Wild Alex in the Paradise Regained".

Enjoy!

Wild Alex in the Paradise Regained. .mp4

 

I guess we will all have to wait until there is some "new light" ,,, to see how it turns out !

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

¹¹ Do you have a position of authority? If so, ask yourself: ‘What kind of environment do I create at work or at home? Do I promote peace? Do I encourage others to ask questions? And am I willing to hear their opinions?’ Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34. - WT study article September 2019, page 23 par 11

"What kind of environment" do GB create inside JW Organization aka congregations ?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"What kind of environment" do GB create inside JW Organization aka congregations ?

About nine years ago (?) I had three elders, like circling sharks in the water, surround me at the Kingdom Hall after the Watchtower Study, as I was standing in an aisle talking to someone, and without any foreplay, one asked me , while the others stared at me, "What do you think about the Governing Body?".

I blurted out the first thing that came to my mind, "I do not think about them at all."

They left me alone for several years after that.

Landshark - SNL.mp4

[Srecko Sostar]

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is there any committee or individuals that oversee or monitor the work of the GB?

 

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

You seem to forget, there is, God does.

 

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

smart people easily see but a regular Joe might not.

Me, "as regular Joe", have to be sad and have amusement in the same time  about your  idea how God "oversee and monitor the work of the GB".  If He doing this monitoring, that is in a manner how he view many other human activities - to allows them but not to approved them.

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

JWinsider used this as a sarcastic way of saying, yeah CC you should talk since the Watchtower itself speaks of Jehovah witnesses as being part of the Bible Students when they weren’t JWs before 1931.

What is real point in this? How WT lying about own history and their position before God? In informal way, Bible students (in Russell time) were been (and are under different names today) witnesses for JHVH. WT have logic how all people from past until today who worship JHVH, ARE Jehovah's Witnesses. :))

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Actually I do. I get most of my news from comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, The Tonight Show with Steven Colbert, etc. Far more reliable than plain old cable TV news.

Political talk rarely gets anywhere here, and that's understandable.

 

Obviously I was being facetious. I get most of my news from The Watchtower, Awake! and JW.org.

Quote

But I just wanted to say that it bothers me that people still think that "news" from Saturday Night Live or Steven Colbert is any better than cable or network news.

I doubt that many do.

Quote

It's entertaining and funny, but it's still fed from the same commercial news sources. I've come to learn that even the so-called PBS, NPR non-commercial news sources are also strongly influenced by the same sources that are so easily influenced by the standard sources that push the "State" agenda, through Military Intelligence sources, State Department, Administration, and whichever side of the partisan line the collators and editors work from.

Of course. Hard not to notice, if one actually pays attention.

Quote

 

A case in point is the contradictory stance that news organizations take from administration to administration on Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Chile, Ecuador, etc.

These shows are a lot of fun, and they are especially fun when they represent the side the audience is already agrees with (usually progressive left), but the underlying "foundations" show that they just are just as duped as any cable TV network.

 

Agreed.