by john.prestor 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Thanks for supporting me guys. Seriously.
The paper I'm working on now explains that the Jehovahs Witness organization changes so slowly because of bureaucracy, discipline/surveillance, and legitimacy. I'm happy to pass on a draft to anyone who's interested, PM me. Same with the book manuscript.
What do you mean by "legitimacy," if you don't mind my asking?
Of course. By that I mean that a Bible study vets candidates by ensuring:
They ask you to view the Governing Body as the legitimate spiritual authority.
They ask women to accept men as their legitimate superiors.
In other words, they only permit individuals to join who present no threat to their existing hierarchy and hierarchs.
Ah, I think I get it.
So, therefore there could be no grass roots calls for change?
In other words, this ensures that any change must come from the top?
8Exactly. The likeliness of some kind of grassroots movement forming is extremely slim because anyone who might try to engineer such a thing is weeded out before even joining. I know of only one attempt at this led by James Penton, which was immediately crushed with his disfellowshipping; and to my knowledge he barely gained a following. Maybe somebody else can add to my knowledge on this, I think it happened in the 80s.
So change has to come from the top. But because of bureaucracy and discipline, only the Governing Body can enact change, but only with a majority vote, so change has to be incremental. We all know what happened to Ray Franz for even entertaining radically unorthodox beliefs. Who on the Governing Body is going to risk their enormous prestige and leisurely lifestyle to give women better treatment, for instance, when even suggesting the idea because of how radical it is could get them demoted or even disfellowshipped?
This. ^
I am in a few political groups and being called a sheep is actually a derogatory term for people who don't think for themselves and allow themselves to be easily lead or just follow the crowd without doing their own research.
Yeah, in my experience it's not a compliment... Same with being compared to a child: I didn't say anything when a Jehovah's Witness I liked said that my watching David Splane's "overlapping generations" chart during a JW Broadcasting party was "like feeding a baby steak," but I felt insulted.
In the last meeting I attended the CO kept on emphasizing the need to be humble and follow the FDS. All the pieces came together at that point and I walked out never to step into a kingdom hall again. There is definitely a theme.
I never thought about the Q and A format of watchtower studies and bible studies until this post. It's similar to doctor-patient or teacher-student interactions. It's really a script that you aren't allowed to deviate from. You're assuming the JWs are an authority and you mindlessly follow this process. Not long ago I actually attended a religious workshop of sorts and there was an actual dialogue and back and forth of ideas with the people attending asking challenging questions. In most circles, the burden of proof lies on those presenting the information, but with JWs your character is attacked if you ask too many questions (see Wake Me Up's earlier post) or your redirected in a way so that the conductor continues to have control and hold the floor.
I also think that JWs are similar to other "truth seekers" and conspiracy theorists that somehow believe that they are special because they understand something or know something that no one else gets. So it feeds your ego - there's a payoff. jah "chooses" the humble ones to share this special information and secrets with.
I'm interested to see how your research develops.
@ mentalclarity...
Holy shit, yes.
I know for a fact, that - at the very least - they're more susceptible to conspiracy theories than most.
Know how I know?
'Cause that was me.
(Looking back, I've actually come to realize that it stemmed from a deep, private fear that the WTS was wrong and therefore a desire to find proof that they weren't.)
