Posted by Rick [Rick] on November 01, 1999 at 00:14:12 {2gTL9dbN6k7mY4XD8K2cFMFBt36Xyc}:
In Reply to: Q and Challenge for GB Member posted by M733 on October 31, 1999 at 16:08:14:
I was already to get tucked into bed and booked on a cruise in slumberland, and your post made me pause to emphasize a point I was trying to make in an email to Ros, bcc:'d our Forum Director, as well as the GB member I asked her to pass the email to also, that I wrote tonight. I was trying to explain why some might oppose seeing someone posting as a member of the GB, while clarifying the FPP issues for our Forum Director to pass to moderators. I was so tired, I couldn't think of the right words, but you just said them better than I could.
YOU SAID: "Personally, I remain skeptical. I would suggest to H20 members that we are witnessing a contemporary example of an ancient literary genre called "epistolary pseudepigraphy": Many examples exist of ancient authors writing letters in the name of an influential figure in order to vest their literary works with the authority of that figure. In the case of the so-called Governing Body letters: What better way to get a hearing for one's manifesto among Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-Witnesses than to write in the name of a secretly disaffected Governing Body member? The author, in fact, is thereby unquestionably enjoying a much wider audience for his or her message than would otherwise be the case."
Whether this is the case or not, neither I nor you nor anyone else without all the facts can say. HOWEVER, this expresses the resentment, perhaps, from some who feel their voice on matters of reform is being lost to someone they suspect is "cheating" by pretending to be an authority figure, in order to get their message taken more seriously.
Now, again and again I must emphasize that if we are not willing to take the chance and accept the possibility a GB member (or more) could share their thoughts on this site through a go-between like Ros, we are NEVER going to reform. The problem is, that we have attracted a group of people, a sizeable group, who don't want to see the organization reformed. They want to see it destroyed, plain and simple. Because I don't have the necessary training in many facets from Bible scholarship to behavioral psychology to other academic disciplines, I feel it wouldn't serve a greater purpose to clamp down on this site similarly to the way that some university professors control focused discussion forums. However, I feel the lack of discipline that makes tightly moderated university discussion forums so powerfully beneficial to their stated purpose, has been H2O's major weakness.
The bottomline is that H2O is for a said purpose, the FPP outlines that purpose, and provided the GB is offering his thoughts and ideas within the framework of that purpose then he is given the benefit of doubt by all concerned. (That is, until such time when conclusive evidence were to warrant a re-examination of our accepting him as who he represents.) Providing he limits his remarks to his own opinions and doesn't compromise the security of the organization we are trying to reform, or claim to represent the Society, then he's welcome. Certainly I don't practically slave to maintain this forum so atheists who are off-topic on our site's purposes can dominate the discussions, but unfortunately they continue to make my experience of running this site a miserable and thankless one. Why shouldn't I welcome for a change someone who wants to positively reform the organization, and why should I believe their sincere claim they are who they say they are, over the dubious claims of our resident atheists promising us "freedom"?
Please keep your mind open to all possibilities, while continuing to question. I have no doubt the one who posts through Ros as a GB member completely understands to need to "make sure of all things," accepting nothing at face value.
Rick