Who knows GB Member Gerrit Lösch?
by GermanXJW 34 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Ranchette
SYN,
In answer to your question, this is WT's explanation.*** w92 4/15 13 Jehovah's Provision, the "Given Ones" ***
Non-Israelites Also Return
8 When the call went out for lovers of Jehovah in Babylon to return to the Promised Land, thousands of non-Israelites responded. In the lists provided by Ezra and Nehemiah, we read of the “Nethinim” (meaning, “Given Ones”) and “the sons of the servants of Solomon,” whose combined number was 392. The accounts mention also more than 7,500 others: ‘men slaves and slave girls,’ as well as non-Levite “male singers and female singers.” (Ezra 2:43-58, 65; Nehemiah 7:46-60, 67) What moved so many non-Israelites to return?Ranchette
-
GermanXJW
The Watchtower 1st January, 2000 said in a a box "New Members of the Governing Body" on p. 29(I am translating from the German Edition):
"The names of the new members - who are all annointed Christians - are Samuel F. Herd, M. Stephen Lett, Guy H. Pierce and David H. Splane."
Gerrit Lösch was introduced in 1994.
[edited for spelling]
-
Moxy
if you cant keep straight what the WT teaches, you have little credibility when you posit criticisms.
-
belbab
I believe all the governing body are so-called anointed . I knew David Splane thirty years ago. He was one of the circuit servants that had a hunting license to hunt down apostates in Quebec, and I was one of them.
Last August I posted some information about him on this board:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10619&site=3
Reading this thread about Nethinim seems to indicate that the governing body are all anointed ones. In addition to them are others, the helpers, who are assigned to different committees. Given the number of committees it seems the number of helpers must be greater than that of the gov body. Now, somewhere I read that David Splane was assigned as helper to the writing committee. Perhaps the new ones are considered helpers.
I too would like to know what two names are supposedly not of the anointed and are memberrs of the governing body.
belbab
-
belbab
Regarding Albert Shroeder,
I went to Gilead School at South Lansing, in the winter of 59-60. Albert Shroeder was registrar and instructor. It was reported by some of the farm staff there that at one point Shroeder had stopped taking the emblems. Now somewhere along the line he must have started again.
So now we have off again on again members of the anointed.
Jesus Christ never went around saying he was the Anointed (The Christ). In fact he told his apostles not to tell any one who he was at one point. If you proclaim yourself as one of the special anointed, then you are not. If you do not proclaim it you may be. IMO.
belbab
-
GermanXJW
The Watchtower 1st January, 2000 (referred to above) states that David Splane was appointed a helper of the writing committee in 1998. In 1999 he became a member of the GB.
All new GB members announced in this Watchtower were helpers of a committee before.
But the announcement emphasized that they are all anointed Christians.
-
jst2laws
sf,
Gerritt Losch professes to be 'anointed'. He is the youngest member of the GB to do so (being born in the 1940's; '45, I believe) and an EXCEPTION has been made for his 'youth' due to his extenstive time in Bethel.
Was this a discussion that took place before the four new members were addid in 1999. I believe Steve Lett was born in 1948. I don't know the ages of the other new ones but I doubt Losch is the youngest at 57 or older.
Jst2laws
-
AlanF
The claim that two current GB members are not "anointed" is flat-out wrong. We all know that up to the point that Gerrit Loesch was appointed, the older GB members were all "of the anointed". Loesch was certainly "anointed" at the time of his appointment. Whether Loesch was an Assistant to the Governing Body before being appointed to the GB is neither here nor there, because various men, "anointed" or not, have held all sorts of jobs in Bethel. Being "anointed", Loesch could not have been one of the "Nethinim" because that nonsensical "class" by the Society's definition is limited to non-"anointed". Various people connected with Bethel who knew the four latest appointees before their appointment have told me that they professed "anointing" long before being appointed. Finally, there is no evidence in Watchtower literature or through leaked oral communications that the Society has changed its policy that all GB members must be "anointed".
It would be helpful if Richie and AGuest would tell us which of the GB members they think are not "anointed" and how they know this. If they can't, then they're only going on their own suppositions.
AlanF
-
AGuest
Sigh! Peace to you all.
Look, I PROMISE you that at least TWO (2) of the last four appointed to the GB do not profess to be 'anointed'. How do I know? Because their appointment caused QUITE a 'stir' among many so-called 'younger' anointed ones who made it a A POINT to call or write and protest. They could not understand WHY the GB would appoint men who were NOT 'anointed'... when there were many who purportely ARE. That was, in fact, the beginning of the 'persecution' of many 'younger' anointed, and the resultant articles about anointing and replacements and folks thinking they were when the Society thinks they're not, etc., etc. And if such ones 'partake' now, they most certainly didn't at the time of appointment and for awhile after their appointment.
The other part of the matter was the NUMBER of GB members, remember? There was a question from the readers after the death of Booth regarding the NUMBER, and the reply was that there would BE no replacement as there didn't necessarily NEED to be at least 12 members? Remember... back when the number dropped down to NINE? And then, out of the clear blue sky (well, not really - a cry for a 'minority' on the GB called for action), they appointed FOUR new members, including an African American?
The 1992 article quotation is simply a REHASHING of what took place in 1972! It was in 1972 that SIX (6) committees were formed to 'assist' the GB. But due to many questions regarding non-GB member approval and non-anointed writing of the WT and AW... the 1992 article revealed the presence of the HEADS of these committees in the GB meetings. Dear ones, they had BEEN attending such meetings. How do I KNOW? Because on Februaru 21, 1997, CAREY BARBER told me that the GB 'has had NOTHING to do with the writing of the WT since 1972!" Quote; unquote. He said that IF I wanted to know how the magazines were written, all I need do is view the first WTBTS video tape. It tells you THEREIN just how the articles come about:
There was (at Bethel)/is (at Patterson) a HUMONGOUS file room the walls of which are lined with files cabinets, and articles are compiled from the info in these cabinets. "New light"... is simply stuff said previously that was 'changed' back to the OLD way... of, uh, thinking.
Some of you may not be aware of the matter because WTBTS issues that are 'unique' to 'the anointed' (which, at one time, included me...) don't necessarily interest you. But my goodness, dear ones, if you're gonna FOLLOW someone or something... or follow its/their actions... DO YOUR HOMEWORK. I mean, you can always CALL Bethel (oops! Patterson, right?) and ASK!! Yes? For, truly, what benefit is there in speculating? You wanna know something? ASK. Or do you fear you will not receive the 'truth'? Or that you WILL?
A suggestion: start a thread and ask the Board "Are ALL of the GB Anointed?" But tell me: just what will it mean to you find out that not all of the GB ARE? (Actually, NONE of them are, but for brevity's sake, let's just start with two that even THEY admit are not...) Will you question the 'spirit' that directs THEM... or will you once again say 'wait on Jehovah'... all the while letting earthling man lead where HE will?
John 10:1-15, 27
Please... get a clue... and wake up. Please.
A slave of Christ,
SJ