The "Good Cop/Bad Cop" Alternating GB Theory

by ILoveTTATT 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ILoveTTATT

  I have a theory, given that I have analyzed JW history for a while:

  There's a "Good GB" and a "Bad GB" and they alternate. Currently we are at a "Bad GB" stage. The "Good GB" are delusional, but they truly believe what they say. They are more "saint" than evil". The "Bad GB" are fully awake and know exactly what they are doing. They are psychopaths and are more "evil" than "saints". They don't believe a word of what they say. They're just riding the gravy train.

  Consider:
  
  Russell: Good GB. Not perfect, still a cult, but historians generally regard him as a nice person who was delusional. Obviously he wasn't a saint, he did some bad things, but overall not a bad guy.

  Rutherford: Mostly evil, a psycopath who took advantage of the WTBTS to create massive wealth for himself. Pictures don't lie, most workers at Bethel during his time were absolutely miserable.

  Knorr: Not such a bad guy, undid some of the Rutherford things, implemented the schools, turned the WTBTS into a corporation.

  Fred Franz: Psycho, 1975 debacle was authored by him alone. According to Raymond knew that the NWT was completely biased.

  GB 1.0: Mixture of good and bad, mostly good. Early 90's was the WT's best years ever (perhaps)?

  GB 2.0: Mostly bad, changing things up like Rutherford... in it for the money.

  Opinions? Do you think this is a pattern? What if there was a GB 3.0? Would they change things back to GB 1.0 style?
• 

  Oubliette

  Interesting theory.

  But the Good Cop/Bad Cop ploy is a deliberate technique to manipulate and control a hostile suspect.

  Both cops are in on the game.

  According to your scenario above, the "Good Cop" GBs were delusion fools and not explicitly in on the scam.
• 

  Coded Logic

  You seem to be using the word "psychopath" VERY loosly. I think your theory would benefit from more concise language and specific examples of good and bad cop behavior.
• 

  ILoveTTATT

  Maybe I meant sociopath?

  ok maybe the good cop/bad cop analogy is not good... Help me improve the theory, but I guess the gist is there's a good GB and a bad GB and theu alternate. Maybe some are completely delusional and are true believers, and maybe some know what they are doing...
• 

  Oubliette

  There is no significant difference in meaning between "sociopath" and "psychopath." Both refer to what is more properly called antisocial personality disorder.

  Since it seems like you're "thinking out loud" here, my guess is that you are trying to distinguish between leaders of this religion (although it has not had a coherent, consistent set of beliefs of it's course from Russell to the present) that were/are sincere in their beliefs and those that were/are merely opportunists.

  That being said, I'd label them all as bad. They mislead people with their delusions and deceit whether intentionally or not.
• 

  MrMonroe

  Harsh, Oubliette. Raymond Franz was much the same as most sincere JWs, believing the lie, doing what he thought was best, and doing what he could to lighten people's burdens until he discovered it was all a lie. He deceived the R&F, but no more than I did in conducting bible studies with people I met at the door or giving meeting assignments.
• 

  Oubliette

  MrMonroe, how is that harsh?

  Hey, we all were part of it at one time, but those of us here left.

  I do not believe the OP refers to Ray as part of the WT "Good or Bad Cops." He was clearly the exception for leaving.

  Believing something that isn't true doesn't change the fact that it isn't true.

  Insisting that others believe the same as you do is bad. It just is. It doesn't matter that you think/thought it was true.

  I distinguished between those that were delusional and those that are simply opportunists.

  The evidence suggests that Rutherford and the current GB all fall into the latter category. But there is simply no way to be sure.

  What is certain, is that they all (with the possible exception of Russell) insisted that everyone believe as they say or be labelled as an "apostate." This is bad. It's really bad. Again, that fact that some of them may have believed it is not exculpatory.

  I taught lies, untruths and errors for many years. I learned I was wrong and left the religion and changed. What I did was bad. The fact that I believed it at the time didn't make it any better.
• 

  MrMonroe

  Ray Franz was a GB member, so he was a "cop" too. He was a good cop who quit when he realised the force was corrupt and that the good cops never win.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  This is a tough one. I have flip-flopped over this myself. Are they evil or deluded?? Are some good and some bad?? I think any BOE provides a pretty accurate view of the GB. At the local level you can have a mix of personalities. Sometimes the stronger more fanatic Elders rule the BOE. Any progressive change is nigh impossible because the "good" Elders are outnumbered.

  The big difference between the BOE and the GB is that the GB are the big time. They bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions of the BOE. When the BOE experience a moral dilemma they ALWAYS defer to the Shepherd Book. If their hearts lead them one way, but the Shepherd Book says otherwise....

  I think there may be "good" and "bad" GB members. Then again, they may all be puppets of the Corporation which has become a living entity. I believe this to be close to the reality. The Corporation needs what it needs to survive. The GB in the grip of religious delusion believe that the Corporations needs are the leading of Jehovah's chariot. Naturally, their decisions, however crazy they seem, are a result of that belief.

  They could think Jehovah in his infinite wisdom is leading them. No matter how much they zig and zag through the wilderness, it's Jehovahs direction. It's a sad situation. I mean, JESUS H. CHRIST, JWTV?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! HOW can they not see the hypocrisy?? Blind religious zeal is probably the reason.

  At the local level, the BOE commits atrocities to support the GB/ORG. They are sincere, but does it really matter?? The whole situation is bat-shit crazy.

  DD
• 

  Syme

  Interesting theory; but I think you should swipe the Knorr/Franz duo.

  I think Fred Franz was a true believer; delusional of course, maybe *the* most delusional of all, but that is the nature of a really true believer, after all. Everything in Franz's life and writings speak of that. Gee, he even stayed celibate for his whole life, like a medieval monk. When Knorr became President instead of him (although being older in age and in the 'truth'), Franz didn't care. Even when he did become President after Knorr's death, he wasn't a real leader; he was more like a symbol, or the Society's "wise man". The real power was the then-new GB committees.

  On the other hand, Knorr was, and acted like, a business man. Remember all the business-like things he introduced: special training for house to house preaching, Gilead training, DFing and tightening of the membership rules (smoking, for instance), and a lot more. He was authoritarian just like Rutherford, and when the GB was established in 1971, it marked the decline of his power, which may have led to his quick decline of health after that, and his untimely death.