by pixel 143 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Frankie,
I suppose since there would be enough young guys who would fight for the job then they could be considered expendable if they begin to doubt. The investment into the future is not something a young spritually strong JW really thinks about is it?
Is the CO a compensated position or do they get living expenses and green handshakes to survive?
And, the GB gets some free time during theit meetings, no? because currently I believe they have to spend sometime reviewing the applications.
The GB today has NOTHING to do with appointements. It's all handled via the Service Department.
The reality here is that this is a way to speed up appointments. End of the week of the C.O.: appointment made. No muss, no fuss. Probably the C.O. just logs into his account at JW.org, puts in the name of the brother, prints out a form letter and that's the end of it. Just like appointing regular pioneers, but only this time, it's the C.O. who does it instead of the local elders.
I'm curious about those challenging cases where brothers have a "history" that the branch knows about, but the local elders might not and the C.O. might not.
I also wonder, in accordance with Acts 14:23, if the C.O. will be fasting.
This is just another degree of separation between the branch and the Congregations. I wouldn't be surprised if they move to an annual review/ appointment and reappointment system. That way after 1 yr they can say "we haven't appointed any of the elders in the congregation".
i wonder if headquarters will still ask for information on on judicial cases?
This is a HEAVY change folks!
First, it really upgrades the role of COs. Simultaneously, it downgrades the significance of the privilage per se; I mean, it's different being appointed by the Branch Committe itself and being appointed by a Jon Doe Circuit overseer.
Apart from that, the game changes with respect to appointments/deletions: The Branch office was detached from the persons in question so it could give a 'objective' appointment/deletion. Now, it's all up to the CO, who personally knows the individual and may even be best friends, or worst enemies, with him!
A personal example: When I was due to be deleted, both the BOE and especially the CO did not wish my deletion. But the Branch office took the matter in their own hands and chopped my head in an istant. So, if that adjustment was in force back then, I would now still be an elder. (which would be for the worse, now that I think of it)
Thank you for posting this.
I really appreciate that it is in cut-and-paste format and not just a link.
Thank you
-Aude.
Well, it shows that the COs are the primary men for the Society.
Either kiss the COs ass, or YOU might be deleted.
There are sooo many power hungry COs. This WILL get bad for those in the Hall.
"In accord with this Scriptural precedent, the Governing Body has decided......"
The Watchtower organization is well over 130 years old and its' barely now figuring out how to appoint responsible men to positions of oversight in the 110,000+ congregations! It should make people wonder if even the appointment of the Governing Body members themselves has been scripturally done right.
What next:
"In accord with this Scriptural precedent, the Governing Body has determined that publishers will no longer be required to turn in monthly hour reports!"
or...
"In accord with this Scriptural precedent, the Governing Body has determined that the practice of disfellowshipping and shunning will be discontinued!"
or...
"In accord with this Scriptural precedent, the Governing Body has determined that the doctrine of no-blood transfusions will be terminated!"
or how about this one...
"In accord with this Scriptural precedent, the Governing Body has decided to implement a 15% tithing arrangement of each and every publisher"........ Holy Crap!
They appointed on the basis of the Circ Ov's recomendation anyway. Not much of a change. The issue isn't who appoints; it's that they provide no real training or education for elders. None. None that matters.
So ... if an elder turns out to be a pedophile, do we get to sue the circuit overseen?
I'm just speculating here , but is the real reason behind this a legal move to , as it were , disassociate the WTBTS from individual congregation elders? At present the appointment of elders has to be rubber stamped by the branch but if the CO has the final say , it could be successfully argued in any legal action ( for example in a paedophile related lawsuit ) that the elder wasn't appointed directly by the branch , thus removing the WTBTS from any legal liability.
I'm a bit puzzled exactly what the mechanics of this will be. The congregation elders will presumably still have to recommend particular brothers. The Branch has always reserved the right to veto any appointment ( famously they did that in the case of Ray Franz , who was recommended by his congregation in Alabama but vetoed by Bethel. ) This also happened in my circuit when a brother with a somewhat notorious past was recommended both by the elders & the CO but Bethel didn't allow it. Would the branch really want to relinquish that control? I guess avoiding potential lawsuits worth millions would make it worthwhile.
Also - why make it such a big thing with reading out the letter to the congregations if it is just a procedural change? Most JWs don't know & don't care how elders & ms are appointed or deleted. They just hear the announcement.
And if it is such a scriptural arrangement , why wait till September 1st? So that means the present "old light" unscriptural arrangment continues until then.
