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

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:
 

Quote

In fact, the history of the Governing Body as the Faithful Slave, according to our CURRENT view, now goes back to 1919.

Yes, but until very recently that was not the case. Note:

<< How did this governing body make its appearance in recent times? Evidently under the direction of Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ. According to the facts available, the governing body became associated with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. C. T. Russell was patently of that governing body back there in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. >> The Watchtower, Dec. 15, 1971, p. 760, written by Fred Franz, Vice President and chief theologian of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

Quote

They removed Russell from his membership in the exclusive committee, so I'll agree that discussing Russell's failings is not so relevant,

It is entirely relevant, since the Society has long claimed continuity of "the faithful slave and its governing body" from apostolic times. That this claim is manifestly false is irrelevant; the claim itself is the important thing. The GB's recent divorcing itself from Russell is a self-serving political move.

Quote

even if it is important to show how easy it is for men to follow men. The last thing I'll say on that score (about Russell) is that the Watchtower NOW says that about 5,000 International Bible Students were active in 1914, and about 4,000 were active in 1919. In late 1916, it was admitted that THOUSANDS of Bible Students considered him to be, as a single individual, the entire "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This included Joseph Rutherford himself, and according to A H MacMillan, all the rest of the 'governing body' of that time, too.

Exactly.

Quote

Rutherford even complained that Russell was being WORSHIPED, even though he was just another human, another creature. The Faith on the March book, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose book, and the  Proclaimers book admits that there was a CULT of WORSHIP around Russell.

Quite so. Just as there is today around the current Governing Body -- all instigated by years of promotion by Watchtower publications.

[Anna]

12 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Cult worship - Just as there is today around the current Governing Body -- all instigated by years of promotion by Watchtower publications.

You might be right to a certain extent, this may even have been created inadvertently. However now, I see a distinct move away from that. JWs are now going to have to assimilate that the GB (by their own admission) produces imperfect spiritual food.

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley said:
     

Quote

 

    15 hours ago, AlanF said:

    I asked him point blank: “In one sentence, is it or is it not true that elders are *directly* appointed by holy spirit?” He hesitated, hung his head, and answered, “No.”

If he hung his head, it was not in shame. It was in dismay at the literalism.

 

Wrong as usual. You didn't see his face as he hung his head for ten seconds.

You're projecting. And rationalizing your own worship of the GB.

Quote

I have never had this problem at all of demanding just HOW elders are appointed by holy spirit. . .

That's because you don't think clearly and deeply.

No sense commenting further on junk that Wolfgang Pauli would have said is "not even wrong".

[TrueTomHarley]

42 minutes ago, Anna said:

You might be right to a certain extent, this may even have been created inadvertently.

The thing to focus on is, not that Rutherford thought it existed, (a “cult” around Russell) but that the FDS freely admits it 50 years (or whatever) later.

It is as when Rutherford says “I made as ass of myself,” and AlanF uses to fact to insist that he could not have been “inspired.” What he should focus on is that he said it in the first place. I mean, not in my wildest ramblings can I envision Alan saying publicly the same. You cannot go wrong when you have persons who, as individuals, do not take themselves too seriously.

This is the same Rutherford who says: “Well, Carl talks a lot and he says things he doesn’t mean.” Can you imagine Alan letting anyone off the hook so easily? He rages on about the technicalities of words and totally ignores the human component that makes them work in actual life.

Of course, the “Carl” whom Rutherford spoke of was Carl Klein, a one-time GB member whose life-experience was published in 1984. (“Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me.”) Notable among the lessons he reports as contributing to a happy life is: “Since then, I have observed many similar tests of loyalty. When mistakes are made, those not wholly loyal at heart seem to pounce upon them as an excuse for quitting.”—Compare Psalm 119:165.

This, too, is good to reflect on. Klein’s reminisces are a favorite with the friends—it is not just me. One brother stated just the same when commenting on a WT paragraph about a month ago that referenced him.

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

     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 ?

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though.

 

The GB has most of the blame, because elders and other JWs are supposed to listen to them as to the voice of God.

Local culture in society at large, and the evolution of a micro-culture in a congregation, have created such environments. Thus, some congregations and elder bodies have a reputation for being lenient or harsh.

Quote

In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with.

Sure, but actions speak louder than words. The Society is an expert at being double-tongued.

Quote

Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own,

Your personal experiences are limited. And keep firmly in mind that, as a woman, you're usually not taken seriously.

Quote

but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it.

True, but men supposedly appointed by holy spirit ought to have thick enough skin to see underneath expressed irritation or anger. Need I remind you what "love" entails?

Quote

Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own.

Only up to a point.

Quote

I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later.

How do elders judge motives? In many cases, the very expression of a differing opinion makes them cry "apostate!" and then they refuse to listen further, and often disfellowship the one expressing the opinion.

Quote

Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with.

You're obviously in a lenient micro-culture.

Quote

In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it.

I'm glad you were not ostracised. But you have to remember that in JW culture women are usually not taken seriously. People not taken seriously are not viewed as a threat. A man expressing similar views would be far more likely to suffer ostracism.

Quote

So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.

A pollyanna view. The reality is that it is basic Watchtower policy that anyone expressing opinions at odds with Watchtower doctrine, policy or tradition will be up for disfellowshipping for apostasty.

Note what is said and not said in the following expression of policy, which 33 years later, is still current. From the April 1, 1986 Watchtower (p. 31):

<<
Questions From Readers

▪ Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?

Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.

But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to “watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.” Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.

Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (New International Version) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be “earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons.”

Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity—oneness in teaching and activity—could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.

Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.

Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: “Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God’s Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed “antichrist.” John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 7, 10, 11.

Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: “Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire.” (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God’s Word.
>>

One of the key points is "teaching dissident or divergent views". Dissident or divergent from what? Obviously the writer means from Watchtower views. But then we have the question of whether these teachings are wrong. If a Watchtower teaching is clearly at odds with the Bible--and there are many--is teaching what the Bible says a "dissident or divergent view"? Certainly not from the Bible, but from Watchtower teaching. Which should take precedent in the mind of a Christian loyal to God and Christ? The Bible? Or the Watchtower Society?

Then there is the matter of "teaching". There are many stories on the Net of a JW man voicing an opinion, often in private to a relative, who later finds himself before a judicial committee on a charge of apostasy. He says, "But I only mentioned this to my relative as an opinion. I never taught this to anyone." The elders say, "You're teaching us!" when all the guy did was explain his reasoning behind his opinion. How do you explain that, Anna?

[Srecko Sostar]

53 minutes ago, Anna said:

creating a "certain" environment

Of course that all people in one group contributing how that environment will look like. Article made point, with given example about individual who are in position of authority, how people with authority are very important in this and how develop of many things is based on platform that people in authority creating (or has been creating). They are some sort of pillars and members will look on them and how they respond on various stimuli inside and from outside congregation.  I think how this is message in article how main responsibility, what sort of environment took place, is on elders. 

Congregation is not understand as private place for games, but serious place for service .... and sometimes for cowboy dancing or musical show too. But that is rare. What is we talking about is, how much you can go with your different idea, view, opinion and when they will and how stop you in your open voice. Your different idea about and rejecting "overlapping generation", even without your active promoting that on others, can be viewed as your weak faith, law spirituality because of "worldly pressure" you going through, negative thoughts, the appearance of doubt ...etc. In their's "arsenal", elders can find reason to put increased attention to you, or even to silently warn others about your weakness. Of course you know your elders better than me, but they are "shepherds" and have to keep you inside "flock". :)) 

[Anna]

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can picture 99 persons in the audience—who had said they felt holy spirit in the hallways—smiling at themselves that they ever thought they could literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, and AlanF stomping out of the building now that they have admitted to LYING to him for all these years.

To be fair to AlanF, I can understand how people can misinterpret (and feel duped, in AlanF's case) regarding how the holy spirit actually operates. There have been various insinuations in publications throughout the years, (mainly early years) and personal speculation to boot. There are still some friends who believe holy spirit went out and found them a mate.

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    19 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Cult worship - Just as there is today around the current Governing Body -- all instigated by years of promotion by Watchtower publications.

You might be right to a certain extent, this may even have been created inadvertently.

 

No, it's deliberate. Need I quote some Watchtower publications to prove it?

Quote

However now, I see a distinct move away from that.

How so? And how do you reconcile that opinion with very recent Watchtower statements that call for blind loyalty to the Governing Body, to view their teachings as directly from God?

Again we see the Society talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Quote

JWs are now going to have to assimilate that the GB (by their own admission) produces imperfect spiritual food.

I really doubt that they will. That is entirely at odds with decades of Watchtower doctrine.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

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. "

@JW Insider  But WE don't ignore ...   Is JW Insider actually admitting to be an Elder here ? 

And @The Librarian  whom Mr Harley refers to as 'she' and 'the old hen', has actually admitted to being a Man, I believe. So probably another Elder.

One more point though. Some of you guys tell stories of working with members of the GB and in the Writing Dept etc... . So you are not just ordinary 'run of the mill' JW's. A person doesn't go from being a 'member of a congregation' to being assistant to the GB.  And it had me thinking that if you've worked at the HQ in America, then maybe some of you know each other personally way before ever joining this forum.  Some of you, if you are to be believed, have such deep information that could only come from first hand experience at HQ Bethel USA, so I would presume some of you that defend the GB and the Org, know far more than you will ever make known on here. 

 

 

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    46 minutes ago, Anna said:

    You might be right to a certain extent, this may even have been created inadvertently.

The thing to focus on is, not that Rutherford thought it existed, (a “cult” around Russell) but that the FDS freely admits it 50 years (or whatever) later.

 

Sure, because a hundred years of pointed criticism of its continued failures leaves it no choice.

And of course, "the thing to focus on" is just an excuse not to think about all the failures of these self-appointed "spirit-directed" charlatans.

Quote

It is as when Rutherford says “I made as ass of myself,” and AlanF uses to fact to insist that he could not have been “inspired.”

Isn't that obvious even to you?

Quote

What he should focus on is that he said it in the first place.

Well let's see: Rutherford began all this with a talk in 1917 called "Millions Now Living May Never Die". He soon changed the title to "Millions Now Living Will Never Die". In 1920 he published the infamous booklet with that name. A couple of years later he started the preaching campaign he called by the same name. The basic reason for the claim was that Armageddon was to come in 1925, leaving many people to live forever. Rutherford said essentially that all this nonsense was from God.

So when 1925 came and went, and nothing happened, it was obvious to everyone that Rutherford had made a huge ass of himself. His admission was much like Bill Clinton's forced admission that he had sex with "that woman"--everyone already knew it.

Quote

I mean, not in my wildest ramblings can I envision Alan saying publicly the same. You cannot go wrong when you have persons who, as individuals, do not take themselves too seriously.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Quote

This is the same Rutherford who says: “Well, Carl talks a lot and he says things he doesn’t mean.”

You apparently don't understand: Karl Klein hated Rutherford for all that humiliation. His story in The Watchtower was not only a whitewash, but the statement about Rutherford's making an ass of himself was an obvious swipe at Rutherford, expressed in terms that didn't get him in trouble with the rest of the GB.

Quote

Can you imagine Alan letting anyone off the hook so easily? He rages on about the technicalities of words and totally ignores the human component that makes them work in actual life.

LOL! Totally clueless. And as usual, attributing to me attitudes and views that are products of TTH's warped imagination.

Quote

Of course, the “Carl” whom Rutherford spoke of was Carl Klein,

It was "Karl", dummy. Try doing a little research.

Quote

 

a one-time GB member whose life-experience was published in 1984. (“Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me.”) Notable among the lessons he reports as contributing to a happy life is: “Since then, I have observed many similar tests of loyalty. When mistakes are made, those not wholly loyal at heart seem to pounce upon them as an excuse for quitting.”—Compare Psalm 119:165.

This, too, is good to reflect on. Klein’s reminisces are a favorite with the friends—it is not just me. One brother stated just the same when commenting on a WT paragraph about a month ago that referenced him.

 

And of course, none of them know how much Klein hated Rutherford.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No, it's deliberate. Need I quote some Watchtower publications to prove it?

I think it's a bit strong to claim you can prove someone's motive. There might be "evidence," but "proof"? I doubt it!

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That is entirely at odds with decades of Watchtower doctrine.

Many changes made have been entirely at odds with decades of WT doctrine, and this has more often than not been a good thing, both on doctrinal issues and in practices and procedures. There is a bit less focus on chronology, much less focus on classes and types and antitypes, and I think that some of this interpretation of the GB's motive comes from the fact that they are true believers in the end-time scenario they have been recently depicting. Therefore they can become a bit paternalistic and protective, which comes across as "list and obey." I don't think it's quite as "ulterior" as you keep saying.

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I can picture 99 persons in the audience—who had said they felt holy spirit in the hallways—smiling at themselves that they ever thought they could literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, and AlanF stomping out of the building now that they have admitted to LYING to him for all these years.

To be fair to AlanF, I can understand how people can misinterpret (and feel duped, in AlanF's case) regarding how the holy spirit actually operates. There have been various insinuations in publications and throughout the years, (mainly early years) and personal speculation to boot. There are still some friends who believe holy spirit went out and found them a mate.

 

JWs who believe that the holy spirit actively finds mates and appoints elders are not misinterpreting anything. They're thoroughly duped by dishonest statements given in Watchtower publications and in various public talks. I proved that with my audience with Wesley Benner some 42 years ago.