New Governing Body Member: Hugo Riemer - More WT Revisionist History

by 00DAD 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kepler

  King Solomon,

  Not to split hairs on this forever,I'll just leave the Olin Moyle business as is.

  But my intent is to call attention to issues, not to give the org alibis. If Ray Franz was not DF-ed for anything related to his conduct on the GB (i.e., explicit charges), then I would presume he was just as much the FDS as anyone else who was serving during that period - according to this idea. Since the concept has been corraled into the board members following 1919 - for the framers, here's an inconvenient consequence: Ray Franz was the FDS. CT Russell was not.
• 

  Quendi

  Nobody has yet addressed the references processor supplied in which the point is made that there was a Governing Body among Jehovah’s Witnesses prior to 1971, so I thought I would examine that claim. One might believe prima facie that this is true by reading the provided excerpts. However, a closer examination shows that none of these references are dated prior to 1971. So what 00DAD has said remains true: there was no Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses prior to 1971. The cited references are examples of revisionist backdating. In other words, the WTS is promoting the fiction that there was a Governing Body in existence prior to 1971, but cannot produce a single document proving this. What processor has shared was written in 1971 and the years which followed when the WTS tried to make it appear a functioning Governing Body oversaw the worldwide work going back to 1944.

  The board of directors was required by the laws of the states of Pennsylvania and New York for the WTS to exist as a legal corporation. That is a separate and distinct issue from having a “Governing Body” which would oversee any preaching activity. Indeed, a real “Governing Body” would have come into existence first, well before a board of directors would if the religious activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses was really being directed by God as is claimed.

  If anyone can produce a single document containing the words “Governing Body” which was published before 1971, then we could accept its existence before that year. But nobody will do so because there are no such documents, letters, files or other writings demonstrating this. What we have here is yet another mirage in the desert landscape that is this cult’s true state.

  Quendi
• 

  King Solomon

  No one is doubting that there's revisionist efforts going on, just that it's basically arguing a distinction without a difference, differentiating between a formally-named GB vs a de-facto GB, which did the same task of "providing meat in due season" before there WAS a formal GB (and that's what I was suggesting when I said, "a rose by any other name....").

  Clearly, SOMEONE wrote the publications before the formal GB, right? They didn't write themselves.

  Point is, it's a line of reasoning that isn't necessary: there's plenty of other more compelling approaches on which to challenge the "New Light".
• 

  00DAD

  King Solomon, what you're missing is the historical FACT that there is a hugely significant difference in WT/JW history between the informal "a governing body" that existed in the past as part of the WT board of directors and "The Govering Body" that was formally established in 1971.

  It reminds me of the conversations we as JWs had using John 1:1 to refute the Trinity by focusing on the difference between the way the NWTtext refers to Jesus as "a god" in comparison to the way virtually every other translation's rendering of the verse as "the God."

  The whole JW argument hinged on the capitalization which in turn was justified by the use of an indefinite pronoun "a" as opposed to the definite pronoun "the" when the Greek is translated into English. (Think of sophisticated "pseudo-theological" sounding arguments discussing " singular anarthrous predicate nouns ...")

  There are a multiplicity of threads here on JWN discussing the significance of the change from "a governing body" prior to 1971 and later to "The Governing Body" in 1971. Also both wikipedia and JWSurvey have articles on this too as referenced in my OP.

  There is much more than a grammar and capitalization lesson going on here. The implications are profound for those that seek to understand the power structure of the organization behind the name.

  I would respectfully suggest you read up on the importance of this transitional period in the authority structure of the WTBTS and then come back and comment.

  00DAD

  BTW, and thanks for the Happy Days reference: IMHO, These guys jumped the shark a long time ago!
• 

  00DAD

  DNCall: this is the mishegoss that allows Hugo Riemer to be viewed as a member of the Governing Body.

  For those of us a little rusty on our Yiddish:

  Noun

  1.

  mishegoss - (Yiddish) craziness; senseless behavior or activity meshugaas, mishegaas foolery, tomfoolery, lunacy, craziness, folly, indulgence - foolish or senseless behavior
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Quendi,

  I thought I gave enough evidence to demonstate what you asked for in the second part of my answer.

  Greetings,

  J.C. MacHislopp
• 

  King Solomon

  00Dad said:

  "King Solomon, what you're missing is the historical FACT that there is a hugely significant difference in WT/JW history between the informal "a governing body" that existed in the past as part of the WT board of directors and "The Govering Body" that was formally established in 1971."

  I think you're missing the significance of their claiming this as "New Light" from YHWH: by saying that they've received new information, that gives them carte blanche, even the Divine command to clarify what they got wrong in the past! So no kidding, they're changing history, but THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT "NEW LIGHT" requires!

  So what you've uncovered is not evidence of inconsistency, but a manifestation, a correction to the past that IS covered under "New Light".

  That's why the approach of focusing on the illogical elements of the parable which CANNOT BE EXCUSED or managed with rewritten histories (those mentioned by Leo etc) are more beneficial; while they can change the status of dead people posthumously until the cows come home, they cannot easily repair broken time-lines or change interpretations that conflict with God's claimed traits (omniscience), etc.
• 

  00DAD

  King Solomon: I think you are missing the significance of their claiming this as "New Light" from YHWH

  No. There was no such claim. Read the WT article. It is just a seemingly insignificant comment in the article on 31 of the 8/15/2012 WT.

  As OnTheWayOut commented on page 1 of this thread, " I doubt too many will notice that. It's actually huge. They continue to re-write their own history. Probably a preemptive strike to build up their FDS-is-only-the-Governing-Body nonsense. They need there to alway have been a GB. "
• 

  rather be in hades

  men such as Judge Rutherford, whom I had the privilege to meet in his home in San Diego, California.

  lol, his home? or the home he was keeping warm for the resurrected minions? that wasn't intellecetually dishonest at all...

  as far as chitty...well the holy spirit has already been proven to pick child molestors to be on the body of elders...what's a gb/fds member or two?
• 

  jwfacts

  Good thread 00DAD.

  You are correct that it is a lie. By capitalising it, thay are taking it from a function to a title, which did not occur until 1971. Most JW's do not even realise that the term Governing Body (or governing body) never appears in the Bible. With this subtle dishonesty, they are misleading members to assume that there was a first century Governing Body and a Governing Body during the "time of the end."

  The issue of the evil slave is important. There has been a lot written in the Watchtower about the evil slave in the early 1900's leaving and beating the brothers, referring to the anointed that split from Rutherford. Now it can only be those that left the Governing Body at that time which could be referred to as those doing the beating. So who were part of the slave that did the beating? In fact, who was the Governing Body at that time? Just Rutherford, or the editorial committee? Will they be stating that the evil slave was the editorial committee that contested Russell's will.

  I am not sure if those questions have been discussed in much detail on another thread, but how do you think they will get around that?