js2laws,
: Nice to hear from you. You know a year ago I would not even address your responses to my threads because you intimidated me. Now I view you as a friend with no fear. So forgive me for differing with you.
I was always your friend. You just didn't realize it at first!
:: Yes. The GB knew for years that alternative military service could not be supported in scripture, yet they allowed countless thousands of young men to be imprisoned because they were afraid of repurcussions.
: I agree. They allowed this to happen for years of needless harm. Yes, they were afraid. But of what? The men I knew in the 60’s and 70’s were afraid of changing things they did not understand. They believed in Fredie’s inspiration and just followed.
Right, but as has already been pointed out, THAT was the 60's and 70's and this is 30-40 years later. This is an entire generation later, and as Alan has pointed out it, has been twenty-two years (since about 1980) since the GD became intractable hardliners.
: They were in a position to change things in the last 20 years but being followers they, like most of us, dared not change the “truth”.
Once again, it has already been pointed out that in the last 20 years they have NOT been followers. Who could they possibly be "following?" Fred Franz was dead during that period and the GB were answerable to no one but themselves. When he became chancellor, was Hitler still a "follower?" When you've reached the pinnacle of power, can you still pass the buck? When you not only claim to directly speak for God, but claim to be the only few who speak for God, can you still pass the buck for causing untold harm on people you KNOW to be wrong. (We know they know they were wrong because they've stopped SOME of their evil practices, yet they knowlingly continue to promote other evil practices.)
:: The same is true today of the blood issue. They know their stance is wrong. Why do you think they've slowly kept softening their position over the years? And people still die because they knowingly harm others for "something they can get out of it": being protected from lawsuits, and not having to admit they were wrong.
:I suspect you are right, “they know their stance is wrong”. This is one of their biggest pickles that probably plaques the GB. But remember these boys did not formulate this policy, they inherited it.
So what? They inherited it thirty years ago. They've had over twenty years without Fred Franz's objections to scrap it. How freaking long do they need to do right by it, anyway. They claim to speak for God.
: And remember they are probably afraid to change anything they do not understand.
I do not agree. Several of us personally know men who have respectfully presented rock-solid scriptural arguments to the GB that conclusively prove their blood ban does not apply to transfusions. Given that, how can you possibly say they "do not understand" it is wrong, then.
Look, if it is true that the GB are now a bunch of senile blithering idiots drooling all over themselves and soiling their pants, then I would say, "yes, they are blithering idiots and probably do not even know what year it is." But they were not that way twenty years ago when Fred Franz died.
: So now you have a GB composed mostly of men who can no long tie their own shoes or feed themselves who follow the lead of the legal dept.
See my previous comment.
: The legal dept I suspect believes they are rectifying divine teachings with imminent litigation, seeking ‘theocratic strategy’ that will ‘vindicate Jehovah’s name’. It is BS and a tragedy.
I agree with the BS and tragedy part, but I'm not so sure about your opinion of the legal department. From what I've seen, these men are not the least bit interested in religious doctrine or doing what is right. These men are only interested in protecting the society's position and image. That's why they have duel policy on reporting accusations of molestation to authorities: if the law requires it, do it. If not, don't.
: But is it truly of evil intent?
I think you are fretting too much over hair-splitting with the definition of "evil." Let me ask you this: if the word "evil" did not exist in the human lexicon, would the actions and policies of the GB be any less worse?
: I know many if not most of these guys really believe they are doing what is right. Sad, isn’t it!
It's not only sad, it's pathetic.
::They are a bunch of self-worshiping, self-glorifing, self-promoting evil men.
: If your right, Farkel, that would make them “evil”.
What do you mean IF I'm right? Pick up just about any copy of the society's literature and count the number of self-glorifying references. The GB has placed themselves DIRECTLY in between Christ and men. Oh yeah, they say it is the FDS or anointed, but the FDS or other anointed have NO say in that doctrine.
: It is hard to be liberal here, but I’m trying not to be judgmental. I’m inclined to believe most of the individual members of the GB are not smart enough to be so cunning. Jst my opinion.
Wicked or evil and "smart" are mutually exclusive.
: Farkel, you are way ahead in this process than I, so you may be right. But I am not defending these guys. What they are doing is wrong. As to my crisis of conscience, I thought I was past that phase. If I am still in my “own crisis of conscience” how do I emerge from this?
I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that for you. We each have to emerge from it in our own way. But I know you are doing the right thing by asking the kinds of questions you are asking.
: I was quoting Ray Franz as to “victims of victims”. Do you feel he too is still in his “Crisis of Conscience”?
Others have already made some good observations about that in this thread. I would only agree with Ray if he was referring to all the WTS hierarchy UP TO the GB. But with them, and without Freddie's meddling, the buck DOES stop with them. THEY and ONLY they are the ones who claim to exclusively speak for God. And they and only they can perpetuate evil deeds or stop them. People under them are basically powerless and are forced to go along with whatever they say, or face an incredibly harsh punishment.
: I have only raised the issue of motivation.
They have decades of evidence stacked against them and they've had decades of evidence presented to them to change. Look what they did do Carl Jonnson. He proved without any doubt that they were wrong about 607 BC. Normally, that error would just be an error of an ancient date calculation. But in this case, that date is critical to every ounce of power they wield and their claim to spiritual appointment. They did not use their vast resources to try to rebut Carl. They did not change. They DFd Carl.
: Can we judge these without judging ourselves at least to some degree.
What do you mean by that?
: Having known a generation of these old men I have stated my perspective. The question remains in my mind, are they evil or high level followers?
As I've already stated, their evil deeds remain the same, whatever term is attached to them.
Farkel
