Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Pudgy]

11 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?

What is the litmus test today?

Reality checks are best done by comparing theory with reality.

Were the Jehovah’s Witnesses marched out of Nazi concentration camps to cargo ships to be sunk and drowned rescued by God, or the American and Allied forces?

The “litmus test” is actually DOING the testing.

[George88]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?

What is the litmus test today?

Was Paul driven by a personal political agenda when he wrote to the Galatians in Galatians 1:8? Should we not be concerned with such assumptions in modern times? What conclusions have been drawn about the GB that contradict scripture? It is important to distinguish between following Christ's teachings like Paul did and entertaining independent thoughts that do not align with scripture. This issue seems to be appearing more and more often.

NAS  Galatians 1:8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8 NAS)

NLT  Galatians 1:8 Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. (Gal. 1:8 NLT)

In Galatians 1:8, Paul expresses his concern about false teachings being propagated among the Galatians. He vehemently affirms that anyone who preaches a different gospel should be accursed. It is evident that Paul was motivated by a desire to protect the purity of the gospel message rather than any personal political agenda. 

Should we hold Paul's words to the same level of critical examination as we do with the GB?
 

[Pudgy]

no.

[George88]

The answer is satisfactory for both Paul and the GB. We cannot separate one from the other.

[Pudgy]

Sure you can .….

….. and should!

Paul wasn’t dragging around 15 billion dollars in Real Estate.

The GB cannot do “magic tricks”.

 

[Pudgy]

OK  OK OK …..

So it doesn’t take much to get me started.

Let’s compare the Apostle Paul to the very earliest  Governing Body ….

 

[George88]

Did Jesus ever tell the Jews not to contribute to God's house while the Romans were persecuting Christians? I wonder how much it cost back then, in terms of gold and silver, for the temple of God in today's market and the sacrifice a little old lady with just two cents that she gave to the temple that put the wealthy Jews to shame. I hope this truth doesn't upset you. However, I recall that the investment portfolio belongs to the Watchtower corporation and not to the GB themselves.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Governing Body owns the Watchtower?

[Pudgy]

They control it.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Governing Body owns the Watchtower?

 

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

They control it.

My amateur opinion is that things are intertwined here and they are moving in some kind of change of supremacy in opinion between the groups that are the current rulers in WTJWorg. As in any Corporation that has a business/monetary aspect and a real estate business, the survival of Organized Religion in its current form depends solely on money and business moves. How much control GB can have in this, and how much other players are unknown to most of us.

Regarding GB's theological control over religion, I think they have it to the greatest extent.

[Pudgy]

Actual Control Hierarchy :

1.) Accountants  ⬇️

2.) Lawyers  ⬇️

3.) Governing Body  ⬇️

4.) Helpers  ⬇️

5.) WTB&TS  ⬇️

6.) Branch Offices  ⬇️

7.) Elders  ⬇️

8.) Ministerial Servants  ⬇️

9. Congregants-at-Large

 

 

[Many Miles]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

...

Should we hold Paul's words to the same level of critical examination as we do with the GB?
 

Paul (and presumably his cohorts agreed) told Christians the point at which they should not obey (follow, accept, chose your verb) what he was telling them. He put it in writing.

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?

Where has today's governing body put in writing the point at which we should not obey something they tell us, that they should be accursed? In the super abundance of written words they have published have they provided this litmus test of themselves? I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Also, given their penchant for "organization", in all of their layers upon layers of organizational policies have they clarified how to employ that litmus test of themselves?

To me this is a conspicuous absence of something fundamental about what leaders think of themselves, and how they would expect to be treated by those who look to them as teachers.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.

Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.

One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.

Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

I somewhat agree. The fear of a different (doctrinal) opinion, regardless of the degree of importance of the topic in question (the issue at hand), I think is built into the caution that elders should have while leading the congregation. This is the task given to them by GB through manuals and courses.

Because of the desire to achieve the unity of uniformity to the greatest extent, globally, and small permissible deviations that the GB must be aware of, having different personal views is a slippery slope for members of the JW community.

Elders will always want to know, from that person or those who heard what that person said, whether the expressed opinion remained in the mind of the person who is the source, or was said in front of others, how many, whether the person in question defended his position or even convinced others that what he/she was saying was "better" than the official version. Or is he "promoting" an opinion about something on which "Society" has not expressed a clear opinion, yet.

The tool called conformism arose from the Society's desire for uniform unity, and as a consequence of the fear of schism, as you have described well.
This part of your comment does an excellent job of how the "doctrine", the doctrine of how to "spiritually govern" the congregation, both individual and global, beautifully captures the inner influences and reasons that have shaped the past, and continue to shape the appearance and purpose today.  First of all, in the field of doctrine and instructions (theocracy) on how to live before God and people as a JW.

What regulations can be used to achieve "unity of faith"? To separate "brothers and sisters" from secular society in such a way that the world is marked/declared a hostile environment ruled by Satan. Then to separate them from the content that is opposed to the teachings and patterns of behavior promoted by the Society. Ask followers to completely avoid all written and spoken content coming from former members, and not to associate with them even at the lowest level of social behavior, which is not to say hello to them. 

These described "theocratic" means/tools, I think, slowly lose their power.