The LEGAL mindset of Jehovah's Governing authority (Plenary Power)

by Terry 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  A lot of the glaring distortions of common sense inherent in Jehovah's Witness mainstream thought flowed from the erratic Legalist mindset of

  Judge Joe Rutherford .

  Rutherford served for awhile as a Prosecutor in a District Attorney's office.

  His view of "getting the job done" consisted of hammering away at an "enemy" with a litany of bullet points.

  His theological mindset was hardly any different!

  Look at the legal terms that seeped in to JW everyday parlance.

  In Law there are Circuit courts and District courts.

  In Watchtower religion there are Circuit assemblies and District assemblies.

  In law courts there are summoned " witnesses " to provide testimony either to vindicate or rebutt claims.

  In Watchtower religion Jehovah has " witnesses " who vindicate His holy name and go door to door to rebutt Christendom's "lies".

  This legalist interpretive function was absorbed by the " Governing Body ".

  Interestingly, the Governing Body did to Nathan Knorr what Rutherford did to Russell's Board of Directors and completely shut off Plenary Power.

  In recent decades this Governing Body has done the same thing to rank and file members by pulling the plug on them as well.

  The Governing Body has Plenary Power over other anointed and have defined themselves into an elite.

  The Covenant Promises of the bible have been self-allocated leaving the rank and file to beg outside their gate, as it were, with obeisance and petitions for leniency.

  This was done with such insidiously subtle finesse few are aware of the coup or when it took place. Guess when it happened?

  WHILE ALL THE WITNESSES IN THE WORLD WERE LOOKING THE OTHER WAY AT 1975!

  1975 was the perfect diversionary tactic to wrest power away from the Director of the Society, the President, and vest it in the hands of

  a committee. Fred Franz was taken by surprise and fought this transition inasmuch as he was in the catbird seat beside Knorr.

  In an emotional speech given by Franz he proceeded to argue that there WAS NO GOVERNING BODY of plenary authority in Jerusalem!

  Was a deal cut with Franz to keep quiet and ruffle no feathers?

  Judge for yourselves the logic of elevating the man who engineered the most embarassing public failure since 1925 to the Presidency. Certainly since the publication of Fred Franz's so-called chronology chart he had been rigging a matchstick Rube Goldberg contraption to predict Armageddon.

  I'm tossing this "out there" to see what your opinions might be.
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Hi Terry,

  That chart link didn't show anything for me. Is this what you wanted? Len.

  
• 

  james_woods

  Just for the record - the Dunlap brothers both thought that the governing body was specifically designed to prevent a Freddy Franz dictatorship after the death of Knorr. Franz himself hated the governing body and continually complained that it was unscriptural - famously with his little group of hot-tub boys - up until death, apparantly. He did not explain how having a dictator/pope/president was "scriptural".

  There were a substantial number of influential society people who strongly suspected that there was something wrong with 1975 several years before 1975. And yet - still Franz was given the symbolic title of "president".

  Note that Terry's excellent point of the LEGAL MINDSET extends to the JW view of Jehovah himself. They have always been quite fond of pointing out that Jehovah is a stickler for legal detail - and it is a legal issue that made the ransom sacrifice necessary to Jehovah. He could not just forgive mankind - there had to be the legal sacrifice! So Jehovah was himself limited by his own legality!!!
• 

  sabastious

  Facinating! So the Watchtower looks at existence like a courtroom where God is on trial and they testify to his innocence! When I was in it seemed like EVERY prayer had something to do with "proving Satan the liar he is." What a wacky outlook on God and the great beyond. Very legalistic. Thank you for this thread Terry.

  -Sab
• 

  Terry

  Thanks, Fatfreak. I could "see" that when I created it....then..it disappeared!

  The ideas J.F.Rutherford had about the MEANING of Jehovah's "Purpose" was stolen as a concept

  from the mystical prophetess of Adventists, Ellen G. White in her book THE GREAT CONTROVERSY.

  What Rutherford did was use LEGAL TERMINOLOGY and reasoning to dress up White's ideas.

  In 1858 White wrote her book. Compare below to JW theology

  Great Controversy:All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary. He led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated.
• 

  james_woods

  You don't think Russell had a good measure of this legalistic philosophy as well, Terry?
• 

  Terry

  You don't think Russell had a good measure of this legalistic philosophy as well, Terry?

  Russell was heavily influenced by the thinking of White as well. What Russell taught was not so much Philosophy as it was

  Dogma. Judaism was not so much given RELIGION as it was LAW. Proper religious practice was not so much worship as it was OBEDIENCE TO LAW.

  The punishments under the LAW were tit for tat, quid-pro-quo , this for that.

  It has been said that the basis for modern Juris Prudence originates in Old Testament LAW.

  So, it is, perhaps unavoidable that J.F.Rutheford would be strongly attracted to this religious-legalistic mindset while

  mainstream christendom went the way of GRACE which is a fundamental annhilation of JUSTICE.
• 

  sabastious

  It has been said that the basis for modern Juris Prudence originates in Old Testament LAW.

  The Jesus narrative shows him tearing down the religious law and replacing it with religious principle. So using the Bible as a lawbook and calling yourself a Christian is an epic fail, I would imagine, in the eyes of Christ.

  -Sab
• 

  bioflex

  This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity

  Hmm what can i say, if man exhibiting the image of God meant moral qualities then i suppose there is no significant importance in the natural design of man, something which totally goes again what the bible teaches.
• 

  james_woods

  So, it is, perhaps unavoidable that J.F.Rutheford would be strongly attracted to this religious-legalistic mindset while

  mainstream christendom went the way of GRACE which is a fundamental annhilation of JUSTICE.

  Yes, that is the way I have come to view it. I really never saw Rutherford has having much of an original religious mind; I think his stuff was basically derivative from Russell, who derived his own stuff from the Adventists.

  Both of them were good at CLAIMING they thought all of it up by themselves, though.

  Your thread reminds me of the famous quote from Albert Shroeder at the time they ousted Ray Franz - somebody said that Ray was actually correct on the Bible. Shroeder is supposed to have said - "Yes, but brothers - we have developed this vast system of WATCHTOWER LAW! What about THAT???" He was suggesting that Ray had broken "Watchtower Law". I specifically remember Shroeder as being far more apt at quoting from past issues of the Watchtower than he was at coming up with Bible verses when he was the instructor in an overseer's school I attended in 1970.