Noble Berean

The February 2017 WT had this to say about the GB: Compare this to the November 2016 WT which had this to say about the GB's authority: The GB wants the unquestioned control and the credit for leading God's organization, but they also wants total freedom from accountability when they are wrong. The existence of the org is based around everyone accepting this premise. But how is this premise not 100% illogical and absurd? The GB is presenting itself in 2 completely conflicting ways: The GB is uninspired, fallible, and errs, so they should not be blamed for incorrect direction. The GB should not be questioned by JWs, and there is no place for independent thinking. The GB cannot state they make errors in their direction and simultaneously demand unquestioned obedience to their direction. That doesn't make any sense. If anything, JWs should be skeptical of the GB's directions because of their history of incorrect direction. However, critical thinking is discouraged as a negative trait in organization literature--even when that thinking is based on the Bible. If there is a God, then surely he is just, and I cannot imagine he would structure an organization on such an illogical premise. Think of how this premise negatively affects JWs. Adherents are essentially commanded to follow direction that may be 100% wrong. They are told to "wait on Jehovah" if they have doubts. This also means that a JW could be punished for having a correct idea that is currently not in harmony with the GB. I'm sure this has happened with JWs over its history. Also, isn't it disturbing that the GB have set things up so that they have maximum control and minimum accountability? It's the definition of plausible deniability. Everyone here is well aware of the legal issues with blood transfusion rejection and the sex abuse. In these legal matters, it is pretty clear that the organization is distancing themselves from any accountability and is instead placing the burden on the individual JW. This flies in the face of the culture of the religion where everything a JW does revolves around supporting the organization. There is no room for personal opinion. To suggest otherwise in legal cases is very dishonest and shady. Moreover, it goes against the idea that their is an equal relationship--we're supposed to die over organizational doctrines but the GB won't even acknowledge their role in court proceedings? The very fact the organization uses plausible deniability in their literature is highly suspect. The fact that they can force JWs to follow their direction, but when it's wrong they can point to a WT and say, "See! We said we were fallible and uninspired!" It all smells dishonest and shady.

Imagine trying to plug a critically flawed dam with your fingers. That's what the WT is doing. It's going after these leakers to no avail. There are obviously many JWs at the source ("mother") that have lost their faith in the GB--that is why they leak to the public. The sources of the leaks are internal. They desire to see the house of cards fall. A big media storm is incoming, and the GB will be powerless against it when it starts. Just as they have been powerless to stop the Bethel leaks. They are so thoroughly incompetent that they can't even keep their own ones loyal. I can only imagine the atmosphere at Bethel now. It will be witchhunt-level paranoia. Instead of focusing on the leaks, those taking the lead should be turning inward and acknowledging the severe problems they have promoted. The problems that are causing earnest-hearted JWs to become whistle-blowers on the organization they once staunchly protected. But the GB is too prideful to take accountability for their mistakes. They constantly twist the narrative to make the questioning of abuse as attacks by apostates. So, it will all fall down. Pride is before a crash. The GB has demonstrated its true colors...they would rather legally fight victims of abuse to protect their image than make reforms for the better.

Can they copyright the Bible? No. But connect the dots...claims of copyright ownership + their view as the sole channel of spiritual food. It is clear that they feel they own Biblical interpretation and Biblical discussion in a "legal" way, and feel they have the right to police how this "food" is used. Maybe it's not legally enforceable, but in the hearts of JWs it is. And that's what matters. "Funny. People can discuss whatever they like, as long as they don't misquote the org. But there is such a thing as "fair use" as well." Maybe legally that's true, but is that how the org feels? Or didn't the article say JWs who discuss on websites with comments disrespect God's name? And doesn't the org's direction matter more than just man-made law? We're supposed to believe there is a higher law controlling all of this. "Surely not people in general?" Of course. That's why I said in the "eye of JWs." Who cares what the audience is? There aren't differen't shades of the truth. The org purports itself in different ways to different people, but it's most upfront about its views to its adherents.

Legally, the WT has a basis to protect their literature from the few embittered ones who manipulate it to mislead others. But most anti-JW websites I see are pretty focused on referencing WT literature exactly as it is...they have no desire to twist it. They completely disagree with the core views of JWs, so cheap tactics like manipulation/photoshoppery aren't necessary. And to falsify content would discredit their own cause. I'm not arguing against the validity of copyright law, but copyright doesn't come from the Bible. It's a man-made law. The Bible doesn't come with copyrights. It was offered free to all by God, and no one can say "I own this book so don't use it in a way I don't like." The org has made 2 statements that when combined are concerning: 1. It is the exclusive source of true spiritual food. 2. Its content is copyrighted. If the org truly believes both of these things, then they must believe they legally own true Bible discussion and interpretation. But they're actually blending the Bible and man-made laws to achieve this control. It feels icky. And they also feel they can police organic discussions on the internet. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as a control grab.

That's pretty interesting, and it sounds convincing, but do you have any proof of it?

This most significant, concerning point for me from this article is the emphasis on copyright. Yes, the org has the right to claim legal ownership over its literature, but all JW literature is supposed to be Bible-based. The Bible was given freely to mankind and no one can say "I own it, so don't use it in a way I don't like." For nonJWs, the org's stance makes sense from a secular standpoint--guarding your properties. But as an active JW, I understand that the org teaches the only sources of spiritual food are in approved literature and websites. People won't look to other sources. So, basically, the organization has claimed legal ownership of all Bible discussion and Bible interpretation. That's very concerning to me. Copyright is a man-made law, and when the org emphasizes it it makes the JW org feel like a company rather than a religion.

I get what you're saying, but that nuance is not included in the article. I think many would take away that they shouldn't share JW content at all...even quoting it. Apostate websites "use our publications" in what way? Usually, they're quoting and crediting the WT. To dismiss the credibility of any websites that isn't approved...that's a control measure in the uncontrollable world of the internet. And this additional point 'Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”' Sounds like another control grab. They don't want people having online discussions independent of the org, and that's sad.

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian So many concerning takeaways from this article. 1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh? 2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure). 4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

Can't you see the double standard?

The article does not mince words when it says JWs who engage in online debate are besmirching God's name.

It's interesting that the org uses man-made laws when it supports their control, but when those same laws hurt them it's either Satanic or the work of opposers.

I'm a simple man. I see a dog...I upvote.

There have been quite a few videos, talks, and WT lessons talking directly to parents about protecting children from sexual predators. A lot of it is available on JW.org. Is this what you're referring to?

Sorry for the delay in response. You're using the actions of millions to give evidence to the divine support of a small group of men. Do they deserve that credit? Couldn't it be easily argued that Jehovah God is blessing the entire group's actions? The worldwide preaching work, the racial unity, the technological advancement--is that all the product of the GB? In fact, the GB committees are made of many JW "helpers" that produce content--the GB puts a stamp of approval and may offer revisions or additional input. For human purposes, a centralized GB is advantageous, but from a spiritual perspective Jehovah God can impart his spirit to whoever he pleases (and he certainly does). As I've said before a GB makes sense from a human perspective, but where is the scriptural basis for unquestioned authority? The type-antitype thinking has been thrown out the window in recent years, so why hasn't the FDS parable also been thrown out as non-prophetic? Are we not supposed to notice that a parable that remains prophetic deals with the GB/FDS? Does the GB even believe it is the FDS? Think about it! Have they are come out and said it? They imply it, but they never state it outright. If the GB themselves can't say outright that they are FDS, then why should all JWs believe they are? And their public relations/legalese speak with governments and courts--doesn't it sound dishonest? When you hear the org say that JWs are never forced to refuse blood and that it would be presumptuous of the GB to claim to be sole representatives of God...these statements just don't ring true! Imagine saying these things at a KH or assembly! You would have a stern talking-to by the elders. Why can't the GB just be upfront with the media/governments/courts on the organization they lead? Is it because they are ashamed or feel they have something to hide? If Jehovah God the Almighty is using the GB to achieve his purpose, why do they need to constantly rely on plausible deniability and general shadiness? When the GB is under fire, why they are so quick to remove accountability from themselves? Look at how they deal with the sex abuse. That's suddenly not on the elders or the org, but it's on the parents. The GB can't claim credit for all the good things and remove credit from all the bad! You can only pick one. That's a kind of self-preserving, shady attitude that I don't like. It's not Christian--it's businesslike.

Wish I knew of this mild organization that doesn't pressure anyone to reject a transfusion. I'd like to join it. Why not just come out and say the truth if you stand behind it? Why the legal safe-speak? It seems two-faced. The org detests blood transfusions and will totally shun an adherent who breaks from this direction. This comes in addition to the threat of extermination at Armageddon and eternal death. That's the truth.

I don't think we are in disagreement that the murmuring and revolting of the Hebrews was ridiculous. But you seem to indicate in your post that the murmuring could have been the result of God's wonders being questioned as valid. That's preposterous. The Hebrews had unquestionable, miraculous evidence that supported Moses' divine backing. To compare their murmuring to questioning today is a stretch, because it's not nearly as black-and-white.

I don't even think you really believe what you're saying.

So this is going to a higher court?

This says it's dated November 11...everyone was saying it was still up in the air? Was a decision made a month ago?

Adjusted ?

I didn't create the new topic, but is there a way to change titles?

I'm confused by this comparison. Moses didn't intentionally wander for 40 years. Jehovah God sent them on that path so that the older generation would die off. It was a punishment for their lack of faith in God's power to protect them against the Canaanites.

I know you think that my complaints are fault-finding, but I'm seeking truth just like anyone else on here. And things just don't always add up to me. I've given a lot of my time and energy to this organization, and I need to know that my decisions are right. Comparing the GB to Moses? Moses was a prophet of God. He performed miracles. Murmuring against him was inexcusable. The GB has made missteps in direction that have negatively affected people. Again and again we must give the GB free passes for their errors in direction and continue giving them unquestioned loyalty. Do other JWs have that luxury? If we're all "equal" then why is their a double-standard? I think a spirit of working together is important, but it's so difficult to work together with this organization when there's basically no room for personal conscience. We've all worked with someone that is dogmatic and micromanaging. It is frustrating. Personal research has taught me that many matters are gray rather than black-and-white. Accepting the GB as the group taking the lead is not my issue. I understand that for an organization to function there has to be a person or group taking the lead. I just can't shake my belief that the GB has gone too far in its control. I would praise the GB if they allowed for more areas of personal conscience. That would show a trust in their fellow Christians to follow God to the best of their ability...according to their own Bible-based conscience. Instead, we have a system in place that shows a mistrust of Christians, because we all need to live on a short-leash. We are punished if we question the status quo. Are JWs genuinely motivated to find spiritual truth or stay in line with a human organization? These are concerns I have. Working together as a body implies collaboration...does one organ have absolute authority over the entire body? The way the human organization is now...one group directs and the 7+ million other members obey. Does that sound like a body working together? The GB's attitude toward its role in the congregation is frustrating. They feel that they are the definitive authority on doctrinal understanding, but where does it say that in the Bible? I need a little more than just trust us. The FDS parable has always been a claim of authority, but now the organization states that most of Jesus parables are not prophetic. So, why would the FDS parable be any different? This new thinking weakens the GB's authority.

This is veering off the 1975 discussion, but I never suggested God places higher value on certain individuals because of status. That's contrary to everything he stands for. I am suggesting that humans have placed higher importance on themselves. You said that there isn't a hierarchy in the organization, and that's not true. The R&F phrase is used by the organization to describe publishers at the bottom of the organizational pyramid. It isn't used to describe those at the top. And JWs at the bottom of the pyramid have no right to question the direction of those at the top, because they do not have the special capacity to interpret the Bible for themselves. JWs rely on the GB to get a proper understanding of the Bible. They have definitive authority on Bible understanding. So, there is a disparity between R&F JWs and the specially chosen ones. If everyone was truly equal, wouldn't we all be able to interpret the Bible for ourselves? That idea is actually discouraged in the organization.

 hi·er·ar·chy noun noun: hierarchy; plural noun: hierarchies a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. Edit: Â