2025 GB Update #5 - Putting to rest issues on “Higher” Education

[trottigy]

Please note: any more posts discussing Brother Morris (positive or negative) are not going to be approved.

Edited Monday at 05:40 PM by trottigy

[dannysharedstuff]

To put things into perspective:

 

Last annual meeting, when the limit age to enter Bethel OR to attend the SKE was lowered to 18 / 21 years old (respectively), where "we" thinking "oh no... I wish had the that opportunity when I was 18 / 21 yo...."

Did you think that? How about now, regarding "additional secular education", are you feeling you missed out something? Why is that the case, and not regarding Bethel or SKE?

 

Sometimes we need to put things into perspective to understand what are really our motives and priorities...

 

I sure wish I could have the opportunity to attend SKE with 21 yo. Regarding higher education, not so much.. don't feel I've missed out on that 😉

[Doug]

33 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

 

Do Governing Body members have personal opinions on topics? Yes, definitely. That should be clear by how quickly some grew beards after that particular update. However, they keep their personal opinions to themselves. What they share publicly is always in harmony with the Governing Body's direction. 

 

Help us understand this statement, because it sounds like you're saying the GB say one thing publicly but may actually have a different point of view privately.

 

[YayaMichelle]

19 minutes ago, dannysharedstuff said:

To put things into perspective:

 

Last annual meeting, when the limit age to enter Bethel OR to attend the SKE was lowered to 18 / 21 years old (respectively), where "we" thinking "oh no... I wish had the that opportunity when I was 18 / 21 yo...."

Did you think that? How about now, regarding "additional secular education", are you feeling you missed out something? Why is that the case, and not regarding Bethel or SKE?

 

Sometimes we need to put things into perspective to understand what are really our motives and priorities...

 

I sure wish I could have the opportunity to attend SKE with 21 yo. Regarding higher education, not so much.. don't feel I've missed out on that 😉

 

This maybe applicable for the ones in US territory but may not be a simple decision for different folks in different circumstances at 18 y/o for different cultures. For many  cultures outside US, some JW kids grow up in poverty or have sick family members, aging parents whom they aim to support or help with medical expenses.  University is not forever. It’s 4 years or less. They attend universities even if they don’t have anything to eat. It’s a gamble yes but the goal is to help family members to alleviate current situations.  Doesn’t mean they forget spiritual pursuits or they don’t care about SKE.  It’s just really the reality.  

 

JWs who attended universities in the past most likely do not plan on forgetting Jehovah.  Most likely some just want it over with to support themselves eventually after graduation and then better serve Jehovah without burdening others.  Even goaling to become a pioneer, ministerial servant, elder, even attending schools like SKE. 
 

Now was it a risky move? Were there JW university students who ended up leaving the truth?  Yes.  But not attending  university doesn’t make someone not leave the truth also. 
 

depends on the spirituality of the person and the heart condition which we cannot read thus the no judgment stance? 

[Jwanon]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

 

Help us understand this statement, because it sounds like you're saying the GB say one thing publicly but may actually have a different point of view privately.

 

 

Individual members of the Governing Body are not the Governing Body. Bro. Splane is not the GB, nor is Bro Morris, or Bro. Lett. They necessarily will have different opinions and views. 

 

On the other hand, the Governing Body is a council. It's an instrument used by Christ to unify his people and gather true Christians over the earth. 

 

At the risk of sounding pedantic, that's why I have an issue with those who refer to the GB as "they". It's not a "they", it's an "it". 

Edited Monday at 07:45 PM by trottigy

[Ostria]

5 hours ago, Krusso said:

Try to avoid cleaning windows. You might find it hard to pay the bills

 

 

Not highlighting everything so i did the last sentence. Most places here in the state to even get a semi decent job (outside of factoties with NO connections) you need at least a bachelor's degree. My husband has the experience and knowleshe for a lot of high paying jobs but he lacks that degree, it sucks that most places dont care how good you are, just that you have that expensive piece of paper

[Ivar]

32 minutes ago, Doug said:

1 hour ago, Shawnster said:

 

Do Governing Body members have personal opinions on topics? Yes, definitely. That should be clear by how quickly some grew beards after that particular update. However, they keep their personal opinions to themselves. What they share publicly is always in harmony with the Governing Body's direction. 

 

Help us understand this statement, because it sounds like you're saying the GB say one thing publicly but may actually have a different point of view privately.

 

 

I think this statement means that if the GB makes a decision based on a majority vote, individual members who belong to the minority vote will support the decision and not share their personal opinions.

Edited Monday at 06:45 PM by Ivar
Typo

[LeolaRootStew]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

 

Help us understand this statement, because it sounds like you're saying the GB say one thing publicly but may actually have a different point of view privately.

 

 

Why would that be wrong? If a GB member thought beards were appropriate, but the current standard is to be clean-shaven, why would it be wrong for him to give a talk outlining the very standards he lives up to?

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

 

Help us understand this statement, because it sounds like you're saying the GB say one thing publicly but may actually have a different point of view privately.

 

 

Don't we all? Isn't that how beliefs get clarified? 

 

 

In every belief that is clarified someone has an opinion, point of view, or understanding that is different than what we currently at the time taught or believed as an organization. Some felt so strongly on this difference that they wrote the Organization with their question. In time, perhaps many years later, some of those beliefs are clarified and our teaching on that topic changes.

 

Until that happens, the humble and mature Christian keeps their differences of opinion to themselves. They do not "run ahead of the chariot" by discussing this with others. They do not teach it to others. The mature Christian likely never gives anyone the impression they view the topic differently than the Slave. They humbly submit to direction. 

 

The members of the Governing Body are people just like you and me. They have individual opinions and unique points of view. They may feel differently on a teaching or understanding we currently hold. They may even discuss this with the rest of the Body. It is only when the Governing Body is unanimous that the belief needs clarified that such changes to our teachings takes place. If the Body is not in complete agreements, then there is no change. For people, even the Governing Body, to disagree on a matter means that they do not all share the same opinion. 

 

It's OK to feel differently on a decision made by those taking the lead. It's never OK to refuse to accept that decision. It's never OK to ignore the decision and substitute our own. Wives do not always agree with their husbands but the submissive wife yields to his lead. Jesus disagreed with Jehovah on the night of his betrayal. He prayed for a different outcome. However, Jesus humbled himself and followed Jehovah’s will. 

 

We are individuals, not robots. We all have free will. We all have a brain we use to form our own opinion. We are never going to agree with everything all the time. That's OK. Jehovah does not expect us always agree.  Our obedience is what Jehovah wants. Obedience means following direction even when we disagree. 

 

Brother Jackson has a beard. Maybe he's always wanted a beard. Did he grow a beard before the clarification in 2023? No. He waited until we changed our understanding on whether beards were acceptable for exemplary brothers in the US. 

Edited Monday at 07:44 PM by Shawnster

[Doug]

54 minutes ago, Ivar said:

 

I think this statement means that if the GB makes a decision based on a majority vote, individual members who belong to the minority vote will support the decision and not share their personal opinions.

 

My understanding is that decisions don't move forward until the GB is unanimous on the decision.  Which lead to my question because saying one thing publicly while holding a dissenting viewpoint privately is what politicians do.  Their words are a veneer at best.

[trottigy]

6 minutes ago, Doug said:

 

My understanding is that decisions don't move forward until the GB is unanimous on the decision.  Which lead to my question because saying one thing publicly while holding a dissenting viewpoint privately is what politicians do.  Their words are a veneer at best.

 

Just thinking out loud here ... At some point one of them has to introduce something that's different from what the group is saying, correct? Like beards .. somewhere along the line, one of them at least had to say, "Hey, I think we should look re-look at beards. My opinion is a little different than our current standing. What do you guys think?"

 

Edit: and maybe the first time he brings it up the rest of the group, the majority, say they're not ready for a change. So, his opinion is different than the majority but he goes along. Then maybe 6 months or so go by or a year and he feels he should bring it up again ... 

Edited Monday at 07:52 PM by trottigy

[Doug]

10 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

 

The members of the Governing Body are people just like you and me. They have individual opinions and unique points of view. They may feel differently on a teaching or understanding we currently hold. They may even discuss this with the rest of the Body. It is only when the Governing Body is unanimous that the belief needs clarified that such changes to our teachings takes place. If the Body is not in complete agreements, then there is no change. For people, even the Governing Body, to disagree on a matter means that they do not all share the same opinion

 

5 minutes ago, trottigy said:

 

Just thinking out loud here ... At some point one of them has to introduce something that's different from what the group is saying, correct? Like beards .. somewhere along the line, one of them at least had to say, "Hey, I think we should look re-look at beards. My opinion is a little different than our current standing. What do you guys think?"

 

 

I guess my question needs clarification (little joke there).

 

When a member of the GB is speaking on behalf of the full GB, we assume the direction is unanimous, not 6 in favor ~ 5 opposed.  Consequently, we take the direction as being from heaven (otherwise known as 'current understanding').

 

So, I shouldn't have any reason to think that Br. Lett clarified the topic of additional education , although personally and privately, he doesn't agree with the clarifications.  That isn't possible.

 

But that's the impression the statement gave me where it said "However, they keep their personal opinions to themselves. What they share publicly is always in harmony with the Governing Body's direction".

Do you see how "keeping their personal opinions to themselves" and "what they share publicly" are presented as concurrent ?

[Michał]

Regarding the 2025 January broadcasting (that discouraged higher education) I noticed it wasn’t a global broadcasting yet. I mean it was only in English- broadcasts in other languages started to be be published (at least in Polish and Spanish) from May 2025 on.

 

But I think at least the interview with this brother from legal department was translated because I remember it clearly. There is his life story in WT too that describes that it took him a few years to regain modesty. 
 

As a side note there was a fellow student in my year who had studied law for 1 year but she resigned partly because of the majority of high-riding students. She didn’t feel okay there with that kind of people. 

[Michał]

 Hangę previous post for 2015 broadcasting please 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Parale]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

My understanding is that decisions don't move forward until the GB is unanimous on the decision.  Which lead to my question because saying one thing publicly while holding a dissenting viewpoint privately is what politicians do.  Their words are a veneer at best.

 

In BoEs they would yield, and then publicially support the final decision. This means they have a responsibility to publically support - in words and action - a decision that they may privately hold a dissenting viewpoint on.

 

Organised Book, page 39, paragraph 21

They may have very different personalities, but they preserve the unity of the body by listening respectfully to one another, even though they may not agree on every matter they discuss. As long as no Bible principle is being violated, each should be willing to yield and to support the final decision of the body of elders. Having a yielding spirit shows that one is guided by “the wisdom from above,” which is “peaceable, reasonable.” (Jas. 3:17, 18) No elder should think that he is above the others, and no elder should try to dominate the others. Elders are really cooperating with Jehovah when they cooperate as a body for the good of the congregation.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014935#h=26

 

  

1 hour ago, Doug said:

is what politicians do

 

Yes, and because of the above principle,is why some politicians will resign 'on principle' their role in government if they disagree with something the majority (or the Prime Minister) has decided on.

 

 

Edited Monday at 08:46 PM by Parale

[Andrey]

49 minutes ago, Doug said:

 

My understanding is that decisions don't move forward until the GB is unanimous on the decision.  Which lead to my question because saying one thing publicly while holding a dissenting viewpoint privately is what politicians do.  Their words are a veneer at best.

 

David H. Splane: Producing Accurate Publications

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-jwb_201711_2_VIDEO

 

David H. Splane: Decisions of “the Faithful and Discreet Slave” (Matt. 24:45)

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-jwbmw_201608_1_VIDEO

[Shawnster]

58 minutes ago, Doug said:

When a member of the GB is speaking on behalf of the full GB, we assume the direction is unanimous, not 6 in favor ~ 5 opposed.  Consequently, we take the direction as being from heaven (otherwise known as 'current understanding').

 

When a member of the GB is speaking on behalf of the full GB, he is giving the current understanding and direction on the subject. 

 

As to your remark about taking the direction from heaven, that troubles me. That gives me pause. The Governing Body are not infallible. They are not divinely inspired. There is no hotline straight to Jesus. There is no hole in the ceiling that opens straight to heaven. 

 

The Governing Body directs all of Jehovah's followers. We follow their direction the same way we follow the direction of our local body of elders. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug said:

So, I shouldn't have any reason to think that Br. Lett clarified the topic of additional education , although personally and privately, he doesn't agree with the clarifications.  That isn't possible.

 

Brother Splaine clarified the topic on additional education. The entire Governing Body is in unanimous agreement on this clarification.  It is possible, however, brother Lett or Splaine or Gages felt this clarification was needed 6 months ago, a year ago, or 20 years ago. 

 

So, no, it's not possible that any of the GB currently disagrees with this clarification as they all obviously were unanimous in feeling this clarification was necessary. We do not know when the first Governing Body member felt it was time for such clarification, not how long this was considered. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug said:

But that's the impression the statement gave me where it said "However, they keep their personal opinions to themselves. What they share publicly is always in harmony with the Governing Body's direction".

Do you see how "keeping their personal opinions to themselves" and "what they share publicly" are presented as concurrent ?

 

There will be another clarification at some point in the future. I don't know what or when, but that's how this Organization rolls. It's likely right now one of the Governing Body members is looking at a current belief or understanding and feeling it needs clarification. It's possible he might bring this to the attention of the entire body next month. It's possible the entire body might need a couple of years to conclude a clarification is warranted. 

 

Until the entire body is unanimous the need for such an adjustment, the entire GB will continue to support and teach what is current, even if they feel an adjustment is needed. 

[Doug]

40 minutes ago, Parale said:

 

In BoEs they would yield, and then publicially support the final decision. This means they have a responsibility to publically support - in words and action - a decision that they may privately hold a dissenting viewpoint on.

 

Yes, and because of the above principle,is why some politicians will resign 'on principle' their role in government if they disagree with something the majority (or the Prime Minister) has decided on.

 

 

Yes, at the congregation level the decisions made will only have effect on that individual congregation. A brother, or two, may not be in agreement, but at the same time realize that it's not a hill to die on. Any brother not in agreement can 'go along' or leave the final decision up to the CO to approve or not. 

I can understand if a brother 'resigns' because he's the odd man out. Especially if it happens regularly.

 

We're talking about the Governing Body in their role as the Faithful and Discreet Slave.  I really doubt any member of the GB will throw-in his lot with the others because he's outnumbered, or wants to "go along to get along". Their decisions have a profound effect on the "whole association of brothers".

It has been explained that some decisions have been tabled for years because there wasn't a unanimous consensus.

[Esined]

6 hours ago, Esined said:

I hope this isn’t piling on because I haven’t read the whole thread. This is not a change or an update—it is ensuring that everyone has the same understanding of what’s been published for many years now, that it’s a personal decision, and not making rules. Thank goodness.

 

When you say “allowed,” what do you mean? Your parents? The CO can give counsel, but it’s on us to have a personal relationship with Jehovah and prayerfully make decisions about our lives. As adults even in the organization we are “allowed” to do anything—what we choose to do is a different story. I hate to sound harsh like this, but you are 45 years old. So many people go to college in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond. You can still go if it’s the right decision for you, your circumstances and your relationship with Jehovah.

 

@Buckeye and any others that might have found this contentious, I finally read through just about all of the thread and I apologize for the way I said what I did above. I didn't mean to make anyone feel gaslit. This can be a test of faith for sure, and it is easy to question our life decisions in the light of some of these adjustments. Imagine how people felt who had to live under Mosaic Law, which could be incredibly hard, and then Jesus comes and starts telling everyone it isn't like that anymore?? Jehovah's people during Jesus' time didn't all have the fullness of understanding then that we do now.

 

I was an outlier and my situation was unique. I was raised in the truth since birth but my family became very dysfunctional, so living at home and pioneering would not likely have been a healthy situation for me. My dad was no longer an elder and should not have been one anyway. My younger siblings left the truth and, ironically, either did not go to college or finished much later.

 

I went away to college at 17 and got a 4-year degree in the arts and humanities in the 90s, when this was very unusual and strongly discouraged in the U.S. I also later completed two graduate degrees, also in the arts and humanities. In the past I had many people I knew as a child make judgmental comments to me and assume that because I went to college, I'd left the truth. On the other hand, over the years Jehovah also blessed me with dear friends who I shared things in common with.

 

I was extremely fortunate and did not have to incur debt to get my education. In every instance I made it a matter of prayer and consulted elders before making my decision about going to school and even which school. I have never not served Jehovah and have never been inactive since my baptism as a 14-year-old. It was while in college that I was able to join and support a small foreign-language congregation. I also studied with someone I met in college who later got baptized. I have had many spiritual blessings and have been able to give a witness to many people who would not have listened to a Witness at the door.

 

I'm a nerd and I love learning and for the most part I'm glad I got the education I did. It has definitely helped me be self-sufficient (you don't work in the arts to be wealthy!) which has been necessary for me due to my circumstances. But it didn't come without spiritual costs.  While I loved a lot about undergrad school, it also had an effect on my mental health. I've gotten burned out at work in the not-so-distant past. This world really does chew people up and spit them out. All of our systems are deeply flawed. 

 

The way I understand this and all the recent GB updates is to gently reinforce on a global level:

- Not rules, but principles

- Do not go beyond what is written

- Eccl. 7:16-18. "...do not become righteous overmuch" and avoid extremes

- Cultivate reasonableness

 

This will allow us to be more effective in our ministry and refine us so that we are more loving and unified as a people.

 

Jehovah uses imperfect human beings with free will to accomplish his purpose, and this is what that looks like. The world has changed so much so fast in just a decade or two. The economy has changed. And the internet and JW Broadcasting have changed a lot about the way people relate to Jehovah's organization. We know a lot more about each other in various cultures and parts of the world than we did before. People may be more likely to write to the branch or express themselves to a CO if something seems out of balance locally. The Governing Body does not operate in a vacuum and the GB updates on video are a unique platform that has evolved over time. 

 

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

 

It has been explained that some decisions have been tabled for years because there wasn't a unanimous consensus.

 

See, you do understand. Exactly this. 

[Dolce vita]

2 hours ago, Andrey said:

 

David H. Splane: Producing Accurate Publications

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-jwb_201711_2_VIDEO

 

David H. Splane: Decisions of “the Faithful and Discreet Slave” (Matt. 24:45)

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&wtlocale=E&lank=pub-jwbmw_201608_1_VIDEO

Thank you, dear Andrei, for these two references. Brother Splane explained in 2016 why it can take years to make a decision regarding a clarification: these clarifications can have a domino effect, and this seems to be the case with the recent GB's Updates. All these decisions are therefore very carefully considered. For our part, we fully support the decisions and have complete confidence in the FDS.

[carlos]

One of the responsibilities of the Slave is to warn Jehovah’s people about potential dangers. For many years, they have cautioned us about the risks associated with higher education, just as they have done with various other matters. This does not mean that higher education is inherently wrong. Risks are relative and often depend on individual circumstances. In some cases, the risks may be minimal and manageable; in others, pursuing higher education could pose serious spiritual challenges.

 

So why this change now? Have those risks disappeared? No, they still exist. Most of the update is spent considering some of them. If someone concludes that higher education is now universally recommended, they’ve missed the point. Rather, it remains the responsibility of each family head to carefully evaluate their motives, circumstances, and the potential spiritual dangers involved before making a decision, just as before.

 

The difference is that, while in the past the organization almost took us by the hand and often strongly discouraged higher education, now the emphasis is on presenting Bible-based principles and trusting that we are mature enough to apply them wisely.  This approach is consistent with how the organization handles many other matters. For instance, while our publications have warned about the dangers of certain online forums or the complexities of emigrating to another country, individual Christians are left to weigh those factors and decide accordingly. This shift reflects a growing maturity among Jehovah’s people. It aligns with a broader trend in recent years: moving from rules to principles, from being directed in detail to being equipped to make personal, spiritually sound decisions.

 

[Eejay]

6 hours ago, carlos said:

Rather, it remains the responsibility of each family head to carefully evaluate their motives, circumstances, and the potential spiritual dangers involved before making a decision, just as before.

This is the decision that the GB unanimously supports. Along with the choice of beards or not, slacks on sisters, neck and jackets ties on service, toasting, whether symbols are religiously obectionable, the choice of who assists in training minors in field service if parents are unavailable, using zoom for meetings, etc.etc. These decisions are all either for the individual or family heads to make. All a free to choose their preferences here within the parameters of principle and conscience. GB members have the equal right to make choices in these areas and will have preferences that differ even from each other, as we all do. What they are unanimous about is the fact that the right to decide on such matters is for the individual, or in some cases, for a parental head.

[Ostria]

19 hours ago, Lance said:

whether a pair of jeans, a shirt, a dress, or a pair of shoes—that you love so much that you would commit to wearing it for the rest of your life?

Me knowing i'm able to wear a shirt my grandma got me back in 1999 (full of holes so i can only wear it as a pajama top)

[Almost there]

On 8/23/2025 at 9:48 AM, Buckeye said:

... making me feel like I’m crazy and it was just me who thought college was discouraged and that beards were acceptable too.  

 

You're not crazy, and you're right.  There might not have been expressed written rules against these things, but the consensus was clear all around, from the very top to the bottom.  All of our channels, all of our publications, all of our media (songs, videos, dramas), for decades and decades, have depicted the choice of going to college as a negative one ...  all around, with the exception in the 90s of a slight softening towards trade school type educations.  As faithful servants we took these depictions seriously and based our choices accordingly.   That's why indeed, the GB had to put out these videos at this point ... it's a clear change of tune.  

 

Having said that, we must embrace the change, without whitewashing our past.  Our org has always adapted to the times, with the objective of using every available tool to keep up with Jehovah's chariot.  So, change is not new, what worked in the past, simply might not work now .. and so the org adapts