Posted by Randall Watters [2bithonky] on November 06, 1999 at 15:11:35 {p8g/8h8r5Q3tOw5Cy.7EQNyTO0grzY}:
In Reply to: **Dean of the 1975 Fiasco posted by Beaver on November 06, 1999 at 12:21:29:
I don't know exactly how the politics worked, I am sure Ray could answer that and probably does in his book. What I know came from the meeting of the 2-300 Bethel elders periodically, where Schroeder usually led discussions and he would "hint" at things so if you were "in the know" you would know what was to be the new rulings, new attitudes, etc. and probably most of those present got the sense of it. This is where "new light" really came from (respecting organizational policy); it was tested on the Bethel elders to see their reaction often before it was settled upon as policy or "new light." We were allowed to throw questions back at the speakers, something you would not see in the congregation. They listened. I remember one brother who was such a bootlicker he stood up after Schroeder said they were going to be "questioning" some (they had a list of ten questions they made you pass or get disfellowshipped), and he said, "Brother Schroeder, do you think it would be good to make them pass an oath of loyalty?" (I almost died--what is this the Inquisition?) My heart lifted as Schroeder said (after pausing for a timeless moment), "We are not pursuing that at this time."
But at times you had to be of the dissenting elders to know what certain hints really meant. The Governing Body members had a way of directing subtle messages and threats to those whom they were meant for, while others typically remained clueless. In the pressroom, Tom Cabeen and I spent long hours discussing what was going on in private, as long as our floors were running well. Tom's office mate was named "Fisher" (I can't remember his first name because we all called him "fish") and he was a very straight-laced Bethel elder, and he would listen to us talk in lower voices and we often said enough about a subject to at least make him curious, yet he never caught on. To ease the heart a bit we would often joke about how clueless most of the Bethelites were as to what was going on, even the Bethel elders.
How did it work?
The GB member who officiated at the morning table each week would lash out at the dissenters by vague references, not using names or giving out too many clues (unlike Knorr who would). If you were not among the dissenters (which were small packets of Bethelites who were not "united" in any form of political effort, because we did not want to take over or change anything, save making manifest the awareness of grace and the need for honesty in the leadership), you only figured out that "someone" is being singled out as an enemy or apostate, and it was none of your business.
I was not at Bethel before 1974 so I do not know how they dealt with dissenters, I assume that Knorr picked them out at the table by name and booted their butt out right then. But this was an organized effort by the service department, with their shaggy ten questions and their tapping of phone calls. You were hunted down by any means necessary and picked out as a "sour grape." These were the days when the "royalty" (Knorr) had died and Franz was useless as president, besides the others on the GB wanted power. They literally said it, at least one did in a Bethel elders meeting. The arrangement was much as was adopted in the local congregations (they like to try things out at Bethel first), making it more of a committee, where the President and Vice-President could be ignored. Franz and Knorr were ignored, and Franz even refused to hide his feelings about it in one Gilead Graduation ceremony. You didn't have to be a dissenter to figure out the power play that was going on in the newly-formed GB.