"Let's accept that the organization is imperfect because it is made up of imperfect humans."
But let's analyse why that statement is made. I have heard it used when I made points like: "how can it the organization be spirit directed if it makes mistakes and chanages its doctrines?" The brunt of my raising points like that is obvious....if the holy spirit is running the show then they would be accurate and not need to change. The same goes for the "spirit appointed elders".
Then I am handed the standard retort: "the organization is imperfect because it is made up of imperfect humans".
So now we have on record how we get to that point. But I still have a problem here though. When I make a mistake...I say sorry (its the humble thing to do and its the right thing to do) especially if my mistake has made an impact on someone else and affected them adversely. Aplogising for mistakes is the the course of decency and shows accountability on behalf of the party making the mistake.
I challenge any visiting JW or anyone else lurking to take out your WT CD and try and find any instance where the society has apologised for their actions or the effect of views they held which were out dated.
Instead they have used rephrasing and coined the term "new light". they quote scriptures like Proverbs 4:18 to support this. Unfortunately, when they make changes to doctrines like the blood policy or neutrality there are people left behind who have suffered and in many cases vicitms who have died because they followed the society's rulings and teachings. If they had not followed the society they would have been disfellowshipped and regarded as "spiritually dead" by Jehovah. This would be true even if there individual course turned out to be the same as the course advocated by "new light" and adopted by the society (for more on this I encourage you to read the transcripts of the Douglas Walsh trial - perhaps others will post some links to it).
So we have "new light". What does this accomplish? Firstly, it tries to remove accountability from the organization. Those people who would have lived if they had been allowed to accept blood fractions but instead out of fear of "spiritual death" chose to follow the "old light" (interesting if there is new light then there is logically "old light" - but have you ever seen that term used?) and as a result died a physical death. Is the society recused of its responsibilty for the death of the followers of the old light?
Or those people who spent time in prison because they chose neutrality but were denied alternate service under the "old light" - is the society recused of the suffering and anguish of the victims?
"New Light" is a "clintonesque" piece of linguistic genius. It means the society never has to say SORRY or issue apologies. It allows them to be slippery. They are smart enough to realize that if they did apologise they become legally liable because an admition of guilt carries kegal responsibility.
Look for "new light" on the child abuse issue. We know why that will happen. Look how much money the Catholic Church is shelling out for similar problems. Brooklyn looks at that and shivers in fear.
Another effect of "new light" is that it can be spun easily into a positive instead of a negative. Ever heard this term "the organization is progressive"? See another bolt-on piece of linguistic genius. You as the hearer or reader reframe that to reflect on the positive and not focus on the negative.
What is the real implication of "new light" though?
quite simply they have removed responsibility from themselves and they hence indict "the holy spirit". If the spirit is leading them then it must be accountable to the victims - surely.
Draw your own conclusions. It's obvious when you know what you are looking at. The linguistics create different imagery. The accountability is gone. The victims are either dead or left feeling guilty by themselves.