Fallout From GB Anti-College Letter – This Will Cause Problems!

by Seeker4 179 Replies latest members private

• 

  White Dove

  Actually, high school is not required by law. Kids get busted for truancy only if they are enrolled in school. The government only requires attendance through the eighth grade. After that, it's college prep in hs.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Thanks for verifying this rumor, Seeker.

  My first reaction to the news is that it serves as further proof that the Governing Body is a complete disorganized and fragmented mess with no real vision or sense of direction. Why? Because of all of the mixed messages they are sending out. A few months ago they did away with the congregation book study, suggesting that the GB was conscious of the pressure placed on the rank and file, and now they lay down a ultra-hard-line edict against higher education.

  In my mind, this reflects a complete split among leadership. It seems to me that the GB has fragmented into a moderate wing and conservative-orthodox wing with perhaps one or two swing voters who end up making the difference (think the U.S. Supreme Court). One day the conservative wing gathers together enough votes to pass hard-line reforms and another day the more moderate wing gathers together enough votes to loosen the burden on the rank and file.

  This would be comical if millions of people didn't have thier lives completely dictated by these guys. Truly sad.
• 

  Seeker4

  Some great posts here.

  GrassyKnoll: Thanks for your input. Your CO is the first one I've heard about that dared to go so far beyond what the GB letter said in giving all those examples. His examples add fuel to what I see as one of the most slippery aspects of this - how much it depends on the subjective view of the local BOE.

  As Besty wrote: "How many janitor elders do you know that derive every last drop of significance they have from the fact they can counsel another brother about something that bugs them personally? Its their one and only route to being in charge, of something, anything, anybody, so long as they are in charge. So from a WTS perspective demonizing an unattainable objective is a classic cult technique as it creates a shared enemy ..."

  Oh, there are some elders really bugged by college who are going to have a field day with this - and nothing to fall back on except the collective memory of a letter read to them that no one has a copy of. You know all these brothers are going to hear what they want to hear - hardline or liberal. There are going to be more than a few bros banging heads over this.

  And look at the lunacy these elders are told to base their decisions on: If someone goes to college and speaks highly of it. (So you gotta go around, "Man, this getting an education really sucks! I hate learning all this stuff so that I can go out and have a career doing something exciting that I love. Education is a bummer!") If other people go to college and use you or your family as an example of why, and maybe you haven't said a goddamn word about it!! The insanity of this approach by the GB flabbergasts me. These have to be men so out of touch with what is happening in the real world and in the congregations.

  And my take on why just the elders and MS? Well, they are the ones with privileges that can be taken away. I would imagine it will eventually apply to Pioneers as well. But you can't take a position away from someone who doesn't have one! Pretty simple.

  And thanks for the BeliefNet link. Actually, it's obvious there are some pretty pissed off posters there as well. Among the JW defenders there, I found it so typical of one who told another, "you sound like an ubnhappy sheep and you can't blame the shepherd"! God, the old blame the sheep approach is alive and well in JW land!

  S4
• 

  Farkel

  neverendingjourney,

  It seems to me that the GB has fragmented into a moderate wing and conservative-orthodox wing with perhaps one or two swing voters who end up making the difference (think the U.S. Supreme Court). One day the conservative wing gathers together enough votes to pass hard-line reforms and another day the more moderate wing gathers together enough votes to loosen the burden on the rank and file.

  I've been informed that ultra-conservative (he sees demons around every corner) Ted Jackass pretty much runs the show. The new, younger GB members were groomed at hatchet men for Jaracz and were hand-picked by him. The other old farts almost always go along with whatever Jaracz wants, and some of them are probably senile and don't know what they are doing, anyway.

  If the GB softens up on anything it will be for the sake of pure survival, not because they want to. For years, the GB could get away with impunity, lose hundreds of thousands of members (like over 1975) and not worry about it. "There are always new ones coming in," they would say.

  It's not like that anymore.

  Farkel
• 

  Seeker4

  Neverendingjourney:

  I had a thread on this some time back that you might find of interest, here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/127875/1.ashx

  I've got it from some pretty good sources that there is a definite schism among the headquarters staff along this liberal/hardline conservative divide. I had a DO friend, Paul Illingworth, who worked in writing at Bethel for a time, who left Bethel for the traveling work because he couldn't stand the politics there. There has long been talk of the constant tension between the Writing and the Service departments at Bethel. I had pretty good friends in both, and they were pretty clear that there were often clashes there.

  My feeling is that the hardline group is winning out at the moment. If Jaracz is at least in part responsible for the new, young GB members, then the future for the conservative bros looks dim. The hardliners will cut the WTS down a lot faster than the conservative group, but I feel sorry for the rank and file dealing with this shit day to day.

  Farkel, I've been meaning to tell you it's good to have you back, bro!

  S4
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Farkel,

  Thanks for your comment. I've also heard from several sources that Jaracz pretty much runs the show. If so, I wonder if the situation has become anything like it was at my old Hall. There, a type A elder ran the show. With his strong personality and sheer bullheadedness, he simply plowed over anyone who got in his way. Over the course of 5 or 10 years, the elder body came to be dominated by men that he took under his wing. These guys were completely loyal to him and deferred to him whenever tough decisions needed to be made. Elders at this Hall often were heard saying, "Well, I have to run that by Bro. So and So and see what he says" whenever brothers approached them with questions or problems that needed attention.

  However, with time, this began to change. Slowly these men began to shed their loyalty to Bro. So and So. After a few years of eldership under their belts, they began to feel emboldened and even began to challenge him once in a while. After more than a decade, Bro. So and So's absolute grip on power has been essentially broken. These men eventually began to express their own points of view and moved out from under Bro. So and So's wing.

  What I'm trying to say is: perhaps all of Jaracz's yes men (if memory serves me, most were appointed some 5 to 10 years ago) have moved out from under his wing and have begun to express their own points of view. I just don't see how, if Jaracz does indeed run the whole show, an ultra hardliner such as he would have allowed the elimination of the book study. The old-school attitude is that, come hell or high water, we should all be present at all three weekly meetings regardless of what may get in the way (e.g., the brothers in Africa walk 50 miles to the meeting stories). I also don't see how he would have allowed the rank and file to have any choice as to whether or not to accept blood fractions. Ray Franz describes Jaracz as a guy who always worried that the rank and file would get out of hand if they were given too much free will.

  From my perspective, the JW religion exhibits the classic signs of being run by an unharmonious, out-of-synch committee. The reforms and changes they are implementing do not appear to directed towards advancing any singular, discrete vision for the religion's future. Instead, it appears that there are competing and conflicting factions on the GB and that once in a while certain proposals gather enough votes to pass. I don't think the there is a consensus among the GB as to which direction to take the religion because if there were, we would be seeing a series of hardline or mainstream changes being implemented, not a mixed bag of mainstream and hardline changes within months of each other.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Thanks for the link.
• 

  done4good

  I've got it from some pretty good sources that there is a definite schism among the headquarters staff along this liberal/hardline conservative divide. I had a DO friend, Paul Illingworth, who worked in writing at Bethel for a time, who left Bethel for the traveling work because he couldn't stand the politics there. There has long been talk of the constant tension between the Writing and the Service departments at Bethel. I had pretty good friends in both, and they were pretty clear that there were often clashes there

  S4, of course it is indeed possible that the elimination of the CBS along with this current information does in fact indicate some sort of mixed signals we could be seeing from a divided leadership. It just seems like too much too fast, though, for these to be unrelated. Way too many, (almost radical), changes and comminiques have been comming from HQ these days. It really does seem like there is some master plan here...

  OTOH...you never never know with these nutjobs...

  j
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Seeker,

  What Grassyknoll observed is a CO reading examples from the WTS' manuscript letter for elders' meetings. Every CO who sticks to the manuscript letter will share the same examples.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  treadnh2o

  My sense is that if this is directed at the elders with a "freeness of speech" reference, that it is just a matter of time before the issue of freeness of speech is needed. Possibly a new policy directed at the R&F