Some of these issues are also being discussed on this thread.
Posts by DT
-
45We Need A Group Of Anointed To Challenge The Governing Body
by DT ini believe that a coup is one of the governing body's worst nightmares.. imagine a splinter group led by anointed ones that draw off enough of a following to cause confusion about who is directing the organization.. this may be one of the reasons the governing body removed the special status of the anointed and placed it on an organizational arrangement that they just happen to occupy.. the irony is that this action is a coup in itself.
by declaring themselves leaders in complete control of the organization, they have created a rival group composed of those who disagree.
these people have no obligation to follow these newly self appointed leaders.
-
-
-
45
We Need A Group Of Anointed To Challenge The Governing Body
by DT ini believe that a coup is one of the governing body's worst nightmares.. imagine a splinter group led by anointed ones that draw off enough of a following to cause confusion about who is directing the organization.. this may be one of the reasons the governing body removed the special status of the anointed and placed it on an organizational arrangement that they just happen to occupy.. the irony is that this action is a coup in itself.
by declaring themselves leaders in complete control of the organization, they have created a rival group composed of those who disagree.
these people have no obligation to follow these newly self appointed leaders.
-
-
DT
I believe that a coup is one of the Governing Body's worst nightmares.
Imagine a splinter group led by anointed ones that draw off enough of a following to cause confusion about who is directing the organization.
This may be one of the reasons the Governing Body removed the special status of the anointed and placed it on an organizational arrangement that they just happen to occupy.
The irony is that this action is a coup in itself. By declaring themselves leaders in complete control of the organization, they have created a rival group composed of those who disagree. These people have no obligation to follow these newly self appointed leaders. They have every right to stick to the previous arrangement and understanding.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe that any court in the United States would be willing to interfere in internal religious matters to determine which group is legitimate. For a person to side with one group would indicate that they are not under the authority of the other. A court might determine ownership of property, but would probably be unwilling to arbitrate theological issues.
What is needed is for the group that disagrees with the Governing Body's self designation as the Faithful And Discreet Slave to have a face and some level of organization. These would probably be disfellowshipped, if they aren't already, but they could also formally disfellowship the Governing Body. I don't believe there would be any legal basis for deciding which disfellowshipping would be legitimate.
Even one anointed person could be enough, although a group might be better. If that group has a website with some spiritual information, they could be said to be dispensing spiritual food at the proper time. The could have a claim on being the Faithful and Discreet Slave (or a part of it) that would be unlikely to be challenged by any court.
The Governing Body could face some serious legal challenges if they ever tried to punish those who never joined their coup. A religion doesn't have the right to punish nonmembers. The Mormons have gotten into trouble for this very thing, so there is a precedent.
There is one very useful thing that this rival group could accomplish. They could process letters of disassociation. I would recommend that they keep the identities of those who disassociate private, but they could send them a letter saying that the request has been approved. This letter could be used to threaten legal action against any elders who represent the Governing Body and try to punish them in any way, including an announcement that is intended to get the congregation to shun them.
I welcome your thoughts. I never claimed to be of the anointed, but I would be willing to offer some assistance to a group that wishes to challenge the Governing Body.
-
57
Do You Realize That Almost EVERY Society Publication Is "Old Light" Now?
by minimus innow that the "faithful & discreet slave class" has become essentially the governing body since 1919, almost every publication is obsolete and useless!
(i know, they are useless)..... the fds doctrine is a core teaching unique to jehovah's witnesses and now i believe they will have to change all of their understandings that are recorded in the revelation climax book, ezekiel books---every prophetic book written by the society!.
-
-
DT
"I wonder if this negates all our baptisms been as we signed up to a very different organisation and said yes to teachings and a structure that has now proven to NOT exist ?"
I think it could. This is being discussed in the comments of this thread.
-
13
Possible Reasons For The Faithful And Discreet Slave Change
by DT ini've been thinking a lot about the new faithful and discreet slave understanding.. first of all, i regard the faithful and discreet slave doctrine to be the core doctrine of jehovah's witnesses.
without a single charismatic leader like other cults, the watchtower society needed to have something to keep the rank and file in line.
the fds doctrine was mysterious and served to give the organisation a leadership structure that appeared to be directly connected to god.
-
-
DT
"but couldnt they announce that "_______ is no longer a Jehovahs witness" without any legal rammifications? isnt that why they stopped using "df'ed & da'ed"? so they can still fommand the cong to shun and not be sued?"
They could certainly try and possibly succeed. I'm not sure if these issues have been specifically addressed with Jehovah's Witnesses. They have won cases where that announcement came immediately after someone was disfellowshipped. The situation might be different for someone who can prove or at least claim that they have stopped being a Jehovah's Witness for a significant period of time. Yes the announcement would be true, but I don't think it would be hard to prove that it involves actual punishment since it is code for start shunning that person. In theory, there is a limited window of opportunity for the Watchtower Society to punish former members. I don't think the courts in the U.S. have had an opportunity to rule on this. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and these are just my opinions. I'm not qualified to give legal advice.)
-
9
I was Baptized in 1960 , with the changes over the years to the wording of baptismal candidates,does that make my baptism invalid ?
by smiddy ini would appreciate your thoughts on the matter and if any could provide legal ?
precedents / obligatory requirements from either parties , how binding , or what sanctions can be imposed on a violater of said baptism .. your thoughts/comments appreciated.
smiddy.
-
-
DT
I started a thread where some of these questions are being discussed.
-
9
I was Baptized in 1960 , with the changes over the years to the wording of baptismal candidates,does that make my baptism invalid ?
by smiddy ini would appreciate your thoughts on the matter and if any could provide legal ?
precedents / obligatory requirements from either parties , how binding , or what sanctions can be imposed on a violater of said baptism .. your thoughts/comments appreciated.
smiddy.
-
-
DT
My opinion is that your baptism was a private arrangement between you and God. (I'll assume God exists to make things easier.) No third part can alter that arrangement or force themselves into it.
The change in baptism questions could be viewed as changing the conditions of membership in the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. It can be argued that you agreed to the changes by not objecting to them, assuming you kept going to meetings.
I think this is a very week argument, but the fact that it can be made could be enough to prevent a court from even investigating a case in countries like the United States due to reluctance to interfere in internal religious matters.
-
13
Possible Reasons For The Faithful And Discreet Slave Change
by DT ini've been thinking a lot about the new faithful and discreet slave understanding.. first of all, i regard the faithful and discreet slave doctrine to be the core doctrine of jehovah's witnesses.
without a single charismatic leader like other cults, the watchtower society needed to have something to keep the rank and file in line.
the fds doctrine was mysterious and served to give the organisation a leadership structure that appeared to be directly connected to god.
-
-
DT
"so how did that work (i wasnt aroundback then) did they just announce "if anyone isnt cool with this change, nows your chance to walk away"?"
No, it was all very sneaky. Hardly anybody noticed the change, even though it was pretty profound. Previously, the questions involved making an unreserved dedication to God. In 1985 it changed to becoming associated with God's spirit directed organization. This made it easier to argue that the person agreed to live by the rules of the religion including disfellowshipping and shunning, even if the only agreement was not objecting to the new questions.
-
13
Possible Reasons For The Faithful And Discreet Slave Change
by DT ini've been thinking a lot about the new faithful and discreet slave understanding.. first of all, i regard the faithful and discreet slave doctrine to be the core doctrine of jehovah's witnesses.
without a single charismatic leader like other cults, the watchtower society needed to have something to keep the rank and file in line.
the fds doctrine was mysterious and served to give the organisation a leadership structure that appeared to be directly connected to god.
-
-
DT
Suppose you are a fader and prepared a document like this. I wonder what the elders would do if they ever tried to form a judicial committee against you and you claimed that you had proof that you were not a Jehovah's Witness and any further action on their part would be illegal.
I hereby dissolve my association with the religion known as Jehovah's Witnesses. This is in response to a coup within the organization where a small group of men who call themselves the "Governing Body" have claimed complete leadership of the organization. Previously, it had been a doctrine of the religion that a group of thousands of spirit anointed Christians were leading the organization and providing spiritual food at the proper time.
If my previous association with Jehovah's Witnesses can be viewed as acceptance of the earlier arrangement, the fact that I have discontinued attending church meetings and participation in their ministry should be seen as evidence that I reject this change in leadership that alters the actual nature and identity of the religion known as Jehovah's Witnesses.
I will not imply that Jehovah's Witnesses now have any legitimate leaders or representatives by submitting this letter to any of those who claim an official position within that organization. My refusal to participate in church activities should be sufficient to show that I am no longer associated with Jehovah's Witnesses.
As an added precaution, I will have this letter signed and dated by witnesses as proof of my feelings on the matter. I will then have it as proof of the date when I ceased being a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. This should help protect me if members of that religion harrass me in the future.
-
13
Possible Reasons For The Faithful And Discreet Slave Change
by DT ini've been thinking a lot about the new faithful and discreet slave understanding.. first of all, i regard the faithful and discreet slave doctrine to be the core doctrine of jehovah's witnesses.
without a single charismatic leader like other cults, the watchtower society needed to have something to keep the rank and file in line.
the fds doctrine was mysterious and served to give the organisation a leadership structure that appeared to be directly connected to god.
-
-
DT
Here is a thought.
Remember when the baptism questions where changed in 1985? It has been argued that was a change in the conditions of membership and you could reject the changes by no longer attending meetings. I've heard that there are some that haven't been to meetings since then that are basically immune from disfellowshipping. If the Watchtower Society tried to take any action against those people, they could possibly be sued for taking action against nonmembers. I know the Mormons have gotten into trouble for trying to excommunicate people who had already resigned.
Could this be a similar situation? This is a change in a core doctrine that changes the power structure of the organization. It could even be viewed as a coup that has changed the actual nature and identity of the religion. The one baptism question asks if you acknowledge that you will be associated with God's spirit directed organization. I'm sure the wording of that question will stay the same, but the meaning is now completely different. It has changed from God's spirit working through the anointed to God's spirit only working through the Governing Body. A person who implied acceptance of the first arrangement by baptism wouldn't be under any obligation to accept the change and could indicate this be no longer going to meetings.
Since there is already a large group who have faded and failed to show acceptance of this new arrangement, the Watchtower Society could find themselves in a difficult legal position if they try to take any judicial action against them.
-
13
Possible Reasons For The Faithful And Discreet Slave Change
by DT ini've been thinking a lot about the new faithful and discreet slave understanding.. first of all, i regard the faithful and discreet slave doctrine to be the core doctrine of jehovah's witnesses.
without a single charismatic leader like other cults, the watchtower society needed to have something to keep the rank and file in line.
the fds doctrine was mysterious and served to give the organisation a leadership structure that appeared to be directly connected to god.
-
-
DT
I've been thinking a lot about the new Faithful and Discreet Slave understanding.
First of all, I regard the Faithful and Discreet Slave doctrine to be the core doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. Without a single charismatic leader like other cults, the Watchtower Society needed to have something to keep the rank and file in line. The FDS doctrine was mysterious and served to give the organisation a leadership structure that appeared to be directly connected to God. It went unquestioned by most Jehovah's Witnesses.
It was even used as the main test for apostasy. Many accused of apostasy were asked if they believed that the FDS was being used by God to lead the organization. Answering in the negative would almost guarantee disfellowshipping, while a convincing answer in the affirmative meant that any other source of "confusion" could possibly be handled without disfellowshipping.
It's odd that they would radically alter the doctrine that they were most concerned about their followers accepting.
I thought I would provide my own speculation on why they may have felt they needed to make this change.
The newly anointed were becoming a problem. The increasing numbers were an embarrassment. Also, an anointed apostate could potentially be far more damaging than a regular apostate.
There is also the factor that many newly anointed appear to be either mentally unstable, dishonest or overly ambitious. If it ever became routine to question the legitimacy of these newly anointed, it could lead to questioning the legitimacy of the entire FDS concept.
I'm sure the Governing Body felt it was necessary to open the doors again to the anointed class to have a larger pool of candidates to serve on the Governing Body. They just might not have anticipated all the problems and embarrassment that this would cause.
A bigger pool of potential candidates isn't very helpful if most of them are mentally unstable, dishonest or overly ambitious. I expect that some of those in power (perhaps non Governing Body members operating behind the scenes) realized that a cult cannot survive without competent leadership. The current GB are a bunch of clowns who have been making one embarrassing mistake after another. There is simply too much money involved in the organization for this trend to continue indefinitely.
The Governing Body might also be concerned about a coup led by rival anointed ones.
If my understanding of the new understanding is correct, the new FDS is tied to an organizational arrangement rather than individuals. Individuals only make up the FDS when they are participating in that organizational arrangement. This strips the anointed of any specialness while they are on earth. The organization becomes more clearly the idol that Jehovah's Witnesses worship.
This reduces the chances of a rival faction of anointed breaking away and confusing the followers. It also opens up the possibility of members of the great crowd serving on the Governing Body. Perhaps this is why they have been slow to appoint new GB members in recent years. They may soon have many more people to choose from.
It could also be the case that certain members of the GB would at least like to have the option of fleeing to a country that doesn't extradite to the United States. This would be easier if they can leave members of the great crowd in charge (perhaps people they can trust to keep their seats warm if they decide to return later).
Well, this is just my speculation for now. I welcome your thoughts.