Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

How Does The Governing Body Make Decisions?

This is taken from Chapter 5 Of "Crisis Of Conscience" by Raymond Franz.

TRADITION AND LEGALISM

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. . . . their teachings are but rules made by man.—Matthew 15:6, 9, New International Version.

Most of Jehovah’s Witnesses envision Governing Body sessions as meetings of men who spend a great amount of their time in intense study of God’s Word. They think of them as meeting together to consider humbly how they can better help their brothers understand the Scriptures, to discuss constructive and positive ways to build them up in faith and love, the qualities that motivate genuine Christian works, doing all this in sessions where Scripture is always appealed to as the only valid and final and supreme authority. Since all Governing Body sessions are completely private, only its members are witnesses of what actually occurs in those sessions.

As has been noted, the Governing Body members, better than anyone, knew that the Watchtower articles describing the relationship between the corporation and the Governing Body presented a picture that did not accord with reality. So, too, members of the Governing Body know, better than anyone else, that the picture described in the preceding paragraph differs measurably from reality.


I spent nine years on the Governing Body. Going over the records of meeting after meeting after meeting, the most prominent, constant and time-occupying feature found is the discussion of issues ultimately coming down to this question: “Is it a disfellowshiping matter?”

I would liken the Governing Body (and in my mind I often did) to a group of men backed up against a wall with numerous persons tossing balls at them for them to catch and throw back. The balls came so frequently and in such number that there was little time for anything else. Indeed, it seemed that every disfellowshiping ruling made and sent out only brought additional questions thrown at us from new angles, leaving little time for thought, study, discussion and action of a truly positive, constructive nature .

Over the years I sat through many, many sessions where issues that could seriously affect the lives of people were discussed, yet where the Bible did not come into the hands or even on the lips of practically any of those participating. There were reasons, a combination of reasons, for this.

Many Governing Body members admitted that they found themselves so occupied with various matters that there was little time for Bible study. It is no exaggeration to say that the average member spent no more time, and sometimes less, in such study than many Witnesses among the so-called “rank and file.” Some of those on the Publishing Committee (which included the officers and directors of the Pennsylvania corporation) were notable in this regard, for a tremendous amount of paper work came their way and they evidently felt that they could not or should not delegate this to anyone else to review and present conclusions or recommendations.

On the few occasions when some purely Scriptural discussion was programmed it was generally to discuss an article or articles for the Watchtower that an individual had prepared and to which there was some objection. In these cases it regularly occurred that, even though notified a week or two in advance of the matter, Milton
Henschel, Grant Suiter or another member of this Committee felt obliged to say, “I only had time to look this over briefly, I’ve been so busy.”

There was no reason to doubt that they were truly busy. The question that came to mind was, How then can they vote in good conscience on approval of the material when they have not been able to meditate on it, search the Scriptures to test it out? Once published it was to be viewed as “truth” by millions of people. What paper work could equal this in importance?

But these brothers were by no means alone, for the discussions themselves clearly demonstrated that by far the majority of the Body had done little else than read the material written. The subject was often one that had originated and developed in the mind of the writer without consultation with the Body, even though it represented some “new” understanding of Scripture, and often the writer had then worked up all his arguments and put the material in final form without having talked things over, tested his thinking, with even one
other person. (Even during Nathan Knorr’s lifetime this was the normal procedure followed by the Society’s principal writer, Fred Franz. Only when put in completed form did anyone else—and usually only the president—have opportunity to consider and discuss the ideas or interpretations developed.) The argumentation was frequently complex, involved, of a kind that no superficial reading could ever allow for sufficient analysis to test its validity and determine if it was Scripturally solid or just a case of ‘acrobatical logic,’ a skillful juggling of texts that made them say something other than what they really said. Those who had only read the material usually voted in favor; those who had done extra study and research were those most likely to raise serious questions.

Thus, after one discussion of an article by Fred Franz which presented the view that the “festival of the harvest ingathering” (celebrated, according to the Bible, at the close of the harvest season) pictured a circumstance in the history of the Witnesses at the start of their spiritual harvesting, sufficient members voted in favor for it to be accepted.1 Lyman Swingle, who had not voted in favor and who was currently serving as Coordinator of the Writing Committee, then said: “All right, if that’s what you want to do I’ll send it over to the factory for printing. But that does not mean that I believe it. It is just one more stone piled on the enormous monument of testimony that the Watchtower is not infallible.”

A second reason for lack of real Bible discussion, follows obviously, I believe, from the preceding one. And that is that most of the Body were actually not that well versed in the Scriptures, for their “busyness” was not something of recent origin. In my own case, right up until 1965 I had been on such a “treadmill” of activity that I had found little time for truly serious study. But I think the matter goes deeper than that. I believe that the feeling prevailed that such study and research were really not all that essential, that the policies and teachings of the organization—developed over many decades—were a reliable guide in themselves, so that, whatever motion might be made in the Body, as long as it conformed satisfactorily to such traditional policy or teaching, it must be all right.

The facts point to this conclusion. At times a long discussion on some “disfellowshiping” issue would suddenly be resolved because one member had found a statement related to the matter in the Society’s Organization book, or, more likely, in the book called “Aid to Answering Branch Office Correspondence,” a compendium of policies arranged alphabetically on a broad range of subjects—employment, marriage, divorce, politics, military matters, labor unions, blood and scores of others. When such statement was found, even though no Scripture was cited in support of the particular point of policy, this seemed to settle the matter for most of the Body members and they would usually vote without hesitation in favor of any motion that conformed to the printed policy. I saw this happen on several occasions and I never ceased to be impressed by the way that kind of printed policy statement could effect such a sudden transformation in the progress and resolution of a discussion.

A final reason for the Bible’s playing little part in such discussion is that in case after case the issue involved something on which the Scriptures themselves were silent. To cite specific examples, the discussion might be to decide whether the injection of serums should be viewed the same as blood transfusions, or whether platelets should be considered just as objectionable for acceptance as packed red blood cells. Or the discussion might center on the policy that a wife who committed one act of unfaithfulness was obliged to confess this to her husband (even though he was known to be extremely violent in nature) or else her claim of repentance would not be considered valid, leaving her liable for disfellowshiping. What scriptures discuss such matters?

Consider this case that came up for discussion and decision by the Governing Body. One of Jehovah’s Witnesses, driving a truck for the Coca-Cola Company, had as his route a large military base where
numerous deliveries were made. The question: Could he do this and remain a member in good standing or is this a disfellowshiping offense? (The crucial factor here being that military property and personnel were involved.)


Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

Again, what scriptures discuss such matters—in a way that can be clearly and reasonably seen, in a way that obviates the need for involved reasonings and interpretations? None were brought forward, yet the majority of the Body decided that this work was not acceptable and that the man would have to obtain another route to remain in good standing. A similar case came up involving a Witness musician who played in a “combo” at an officers’ club on a military base. This, too,was ruled unacceptable by the majority of the Body. The Scriptures being silent, human reasoning supplied the answer.

Generally, in discussions of this type, if any appeal was made to Scripture by those favoring condemnation of the act or conduct, that appeal was to very broad statements such as, “You are no part of the world,” found at John, chapter fifteen, verse 19. If a Governing Body member personally scrupled against the action or conduct under discussion and could think of no other argument against it, often he would fall back on this text, extending it and applying it to fit whatever the circumstances were. The need to let the rest of the Scriptures
define what such a broad statement means and how it applies often seemed to be considered unnecessary or irrelevant.

A major factor in Governing Body decisions was the two-thirds majority rule. This produced some strange effects at times. The rule was that a two-thirds majority (of the total active membership) was needed to carry a motion. I personally appreciated the opportunity this allowed for a member to vote differently from the majority or simply to abstain without feeling that he was, in effect, exercising ‘‘veto power.” On minor matters, even when not in complete agreement, I generally voted with the majority.

But when issues came up that genuinely affected my conscience I frequently found myself in the minority—seldom alone but often with only one, two or three other members expressing conscientious objection by not voting for the motion. This was not so often the case during the first two years or so after the major change effected in the authority structure (officially put in motion on January 1, 1976). In the final two years of my membership, however, a strong trend toward a “hard line” approach obliged me either to vote differently from
the majority—or to abstain—with greater frequency. But consider now what sometimes happened when the Body was quite divided in its viewpoint, not nearly so uncommon an occurrence as some might think.

An issue might be under discussion involving conduct that had, somewhere in the Society’s past, been designated a “disfellowshiping offense,” perhaps a person’s having a particular blood fraction injected to control a potentially fatal ailment; or possibly the case of a wife who had a non-Witness husband in military service and who worked in a commissary on her husband’s military base.

At times in such discussions the Body might be quite divided, sometimes even split right down the middle. Or there might be a majority who favored removing the particular action, conduct or type 2 I can recall, and my records indicate, only a couple of occasions in over eight years where I found myself completely alone in voting contrary to the majority or in abstaining. of employment from the “disfellowshiping offense” category.

Consider what might happen because of the two-thirds majority rule: If out of fourteen members present, nine favored removing the disfellowshiping offense “label” and only five favored retaining it, the majority was not sufficient to change the disfellowshiping label. Though a clear majority, the nine were not a two-thirds majority.
(Even if there were ten of them favoring change this was still not enough, for though they would be two-thirds majority of the fourteen present, the rule was two-thirds majority of the total active membership, which during much of the time was seventeen.) If someone from the nine favoring removal of the disfellowshiping category advanced a motion it would fail, because twelve votes were needed for it to pass. If someone from the five favoring retention of the disfellowshiping offense category advanced a motion that the policy
be maintained, the motion would, of course, fail also. But even the failure of the motion in favor of retaining the category would not result in the removal of that disfellowshiping category. Why not?

Because the policy was that some motion had to carry before any change would be made in previous policy. In one of the first of these instances of such a divided vote, Milton Henschel had expressed the view that, where there was no two-thirds majority, then “status quo should prevail,” nothing should change. It was quite uncommon in these cases for any member to change over on his vote and so a stalemate usually resulted.

That meant that the Witness taking the particular action or having the particular employment involved would continue to be subject to disfellowshiping, even though a majority of the Body had made clear their feeling that he or she should not be! On more than one occasion when a sizeable minority or even a majority (though not two-thirds) felt that a matter should not be a disfellowshiping offense, I voiced my feelings that our position was unreasonable, even incomprehensible. How could we let things go on as before, with people being disfellowshiped for such things, when right within the Governing Body there were a number of us, sometimes
a majority, who felt that the action involved did not merit such severe judgment? How would the brothers and sisters feel to know that this was the case and yet they were being disfellowshiped?

3 The secret nature of Governing Body sessions, of course, allows little likelihood for any to come to know this. The “Minutes” of the meetings are never opened for other Witnesses to see them. To illustrate, if five congregational elders forming a “judicial committee” were to hear a case and three of the five did not believe
that the person’s action or conduct called for disfellowshiping, would the fact that they were only a three-fifths majority and not a two-thirds majority make their position invalid?4 Would the person then be
disfellowshiped? Surely not. How could we, then, let a mere procedural rule of voting cause a traditional stand on disfellowshiping to prevail when most of the Body members felt otherwise? Should we not at least take the position that, in all disfellowshiping matters, when even a considerable minority (and especially a majority, however small) felt that there were not sufficient grounds for disfellowshiping, then no disfellowshiping ruling should be sustained?

These questions put to the Body brought no response, but again and again in such cases the previously-established traditional policy was kept in force, and this was done as a matter of course, as normal. The effect on people’s lives somehow did not carry enough weight to make the members feel moved to set aside their “standard” policy in such cases. Somewhere in the past history of the organization a disfellowshiping policy had been formulated (often the product of one man’s thinking, a man all too often pathetically isolated from the
circumstances being dealt with) and that policy had been put into effect; a rule had been adopted and that rule controlled unless a two thirds majority could overturn it.

In all these controversial cases the “disfellowshiping offense” was not something clearly identified in Scripture as sinful. It was purely the result of organizational policy. Once published, that policy became fixed on the worldwide brotherhood for them to bear, along with the consequences of the policy. Is it wrong in such circumstances to feel that Jesus’ words apply: “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them”?5 I leave that to the reader to decide. I only know what my conscience told me and the stand I felt compelled to take. Nonetheless, I feel that in these various disputed issues the Governing Body members favoring disfellowshiping generally believed they were doing the right thing. What thinking could cause them to hold to a disfellowshiping stand in the face of objection from a sizeable minority or possibly from half or more of their fellow members?

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

In one case where prolonged discussion had made such a situation predictable, Ted Jaracz voiced a view that may well reflect the thinking of others. Of Slavic descent (Polish) like Dan Sydlik, Jaracz was different both in build and in temperament. Whereas Sydlik often was moved by a “gut” feeling as to the rightness or wrongness of an issue, Jaracz was of a more dispassionate nature. In this particular session he acknowledged that ‘the existing policy might work a measure of hardship on some individuals in the particular situation being
discussed,’ and said, “It is not that we don’t feel for them in the matter, but we have to always keep in mind that we are not dealing with just two or three persons—we have a large, worldwide organization to keep in view and we have to think of the effect on that worldwide organization.”

This view, that what is good for the organization is what is good for the people in it, and that the interests of the individual are, in effect “expendable” when the interests of the large organization appear to require it, seemed to be accepted as a valid position by many members. Additionally, some might advance the argument that any softening of position could “open the way” to a floodtide of wrongdoing. If one or more extreme examples of bad conduct were known that could be related to the issue under discussion, these were presented as strong evidence of the potential danger. The ominous spectre of such danger was usually brought forth in those cases where, even before a motion had been offered, it was fairly evident that a considerable number of the Body inclined toward a change. In one such case, Milton Henschel seriously urged caution, making the point that, “If we let the brothers do this, there is no telling how far they will go.”

I believe that he, and others who made the same point on other occasions, doubtless felt convinced that it was necessary to hold firmly to certain longtime policies in order to ‘keep people in line,’ to hold them within a protective “fence” so that they would not stray off. If the protective “fence” of these policies had actually been one plainly outlined in God’s Word, I would have had to agree and would gladly have voted accordingly. But so often that was not the case, and that it was not was clearly indicated by the fact that the particular
elders (often men on Branch Committees) who had written in about the subject had found nothing in Scripture dealing with the matter, and by the fact that the Body itself had not found anything

6 These points may also have been substantially what Milton Henschel meant when he frequently commented on the need to “be practical” in our approach to such matters, for in voting his position and that of Ted Jaracz regularly coincided. either. Thus the members had to resort to their own reasoning in a prolonged discussion, in many respects, a debate. On the occasion earlier mentioned, following Milton Henschel’s expression, my comment was that I did not believe that it was up to us to “let” the brothers do anything. Rather, I believed that God is the One who “lets” them do certain things, either because his Word approves it or because it is silent on the matter, and that He is the One that prohibits, when his Word clearly condemns the action, either
explicitly or by clear principle. That I did not believe that as imperfect, error-prone men we were ever authorized by God to decide what should be allowed or disallowed for others. My question before the Body was, “When the matter is not clear in Scripture, why should we try to play God? We do so poorly at it. Why not let Him be the Judge of these people in such cases?” I repeated that view on other occasions when the same line of argument was being advanced, but I do not feel that the majority saw it in that light and their decisions indicated that they did not.

To paint a foreboding picture of potential unrestrained wrongdoing on the part of the brothers simply because we, as a Governing Body, removed some existing regulation, appealed to me as saying that we suspected our brothers of lacking true love of righteousness, of inwardly wanting to sin and being held in check only by organizational regulations. An article published some years earlier in the Society’ magazine Awake! came to mind. It described a police strike in Montreal, Canada, and showed that the absence of the police force for a day or so led to all kinds of lawless deeds by usually law-abiding citizens. The Awake! article pointed out that genuine Christians did not have to be subject to law enforcement in order to act in a lawful manner.

7 Why, then, I wondered, was the position taken by the Governing Body that it was dangerous to remove a traditional regulation, in the belief that this could “open the way” for widespread immorality and misconduct on the part of the brothers? What did that say about our attitude toward, and our confidence in, those brothers? How different did we feel that these brothers were from those individuals who violated laws during the police strike in Montreal, and how deep and genuine did we believe their love of righteousness really was? At times it seemed that the prevailing sentiment within the Body was, trust no one but ourselves. That, too, did not seem to reflect commendable modesty to me.

The results that came out of these divided decisions were by no means inconsequential. Failure to conform to a Governing Body decision once published or made known could, and did, bring disfellowshiping, being cut off from congregation, family and friends.To conform, on the other hand, might require giving up a certain
employment, sometimes when jobs were scarce and costs of caring for a family were great. It could mean taking a stand against a marriage partner’s wishes, a stand that could, and sometimes did, lead to divorce, the breaking up of marriage, home and family, separating children from father or mother. It could mean feeling compelled to refuse to obey a certain law and then being arrested and sent away from family and home to a place of imprisonment. It could, in fact, mean loss of life itself, or what can be even more difficult to bear, to
see loved ones lost in death.

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

To illustrate the difficulties that might arise even when a change was made in some earlier ruling, consider the organizational position taken regarding hemophiliacs and the use of blood fractions (such as Factor VIII, a clotting factor) to control against fatal bleeding. For many years inquiries sent by hemophiliacs to the headquarters organization (or its Branch Offices) received the reply that to accept such blood fraction one time could be viewed as not objectionable, as, in effect, “medication.” But to do so more than once would
constitute a “feeding” on such blood fraction and therefore be considered a violation of the Scriptural injunction against eating blood.

8 Years later, this ruling changed. Those staff members who worked at answering correspondence knew that in the past they had sent out letters to the contrary and that hemophiliacs who had taken their “one time” injection were still under the impression that to do so again would be counted as a violation of Scripture. They could bleed to death because of holding to such a stand. The administration was not in favor of publishing the new position in print since the old position had never been put in print but only conveyed to the particular individuals inquiring. To publish something would require first explaining what the old position had been
and then explaining that it was now obsolete. This did not seem desirable. So the staff workers made a diligent search through their files to try to find the names and addresses of all those persons who had written inquiries and another letter was sent to each advising of the change. The staff workers felt better about this.

Then they realized that many of the inquiries had come in by phone and that they had no record of such phone calls and absolutely no way of determining who such inquiring hemophiliacs were. Whether, in the interim between the old ruling and the new, some had died, they did not know; whether some whom they had not been able to contact would yet die because of holding to the old ruling, they did not know. They only knew that they had followed instructions, being loyally obedient to their superiors in the organization. This change in policy was made official at the June 11, 1975, session of the Governing Body. It was not until three years later, in 1978, however, that the change was finally put into print, though rather obscurely stated and, strangely, listed in with the issue of the use of serum injections to combat disease (whereas hemophilia is not a
disease but a hereditary defect), in the June 15, 1978, issue of the Watchtower. It still was not acknowledged that this represented a change in the previous policy as to multiple use of blood fractions by hemophiliacs.

Another clue to the thinking of Governing Body members in such cases was the emphasis often placed on the long-standing nature of a particular policy. This meant that through the years thousands had abided by the Society’s policy even though it created a severe burden for them, perhaps leading to imprisonment or other suffering. To change now, it was argued, might make such ones feel that what they had undergone had been unnecessary and, whereas they had found personal satisfaction in suffering in such way, viewing it as ‘suffering for righteousness sake,’ now they might feel disillusioned, possibly even feel it unfair that they had endured a form of martyrdom while others now could escape such.

I found that potential attitude a poor reason for holding back on making a change where there was sound evidence in favor of it. It seemed that such ones who had suffered could rejoice in knowing that others would not be called upon to undergo that burden in order to stay in good standing in the organization. If, as an illustration, an individual had lost a farm due to heavy—even unjust—taxation, should he not rejoice on behalf of friends, faced with a similar loss, if he learned that the heavy tax was lifted? Should not a coal miner
suffering with a lung ailment be happy if conditions in mines improved, even though he could no longer benefit from this? It seemed that a genuine Christian would. Particularly so if the source of the unjust policy accepted its responsibility and expressed regret for harm done. It appeared to me that we needed to ask ourselves
how much of the concern expressed might not actually be traceable to a concern over the Governing Body’s own “image,” its credibility, and its hold on people’s confidence, being affected by fear that admitting error could weaken this.

Listening to some of the arguments presented in the Governing Body sessions brought to mind the many cases that Jehovah’s Witnesses had carried before the Supreme Court of the United States. Opposing lawyers had used arguments similar in many respects to those used by men on the Governing Body. Such lawyers stressed
potential dangers. They claimed that there was a strong danger that door-to-door visitation might become a serious nuisance or a blind for thievery and other criminal activity and that this justified placing restrictions on the Witnesses’ freedom to carry on this activity. They said that to allow the Witnesses freedom to carry on their public activity or to give talks in parks in certain communities could lead to mob violence, due to the adverse and hostile attitude of the community as a whole, and therefore that restrictions should be placed. They argued that to allow the Witnesses to express their views on such subjects as saluting the flag, or their attitude toward worldly governments as being “part of the Devil’s organization,” could be detrimental to the interests of the larger community, could tend to create widespread disloyalty, hence be seditious; restrictions were necessary.

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

The Supreme Court justices in many cases showed remarkable insight and clarity of mind in cutting through such arguments, demonstrating them to be specious. They did not agree that the rights of the individual or of a small unpopular minority could properly be curtailed just because the fear of possible or imagined danger or
because the claimed interests of the larger majority made this appear desirable. They held that before any rightful restriction could be applied limiting such freedoms, the danger must be more than a “fear,” something presumed to be likely to develop. It must be proven a “clear and present danger,” one actually existing

How many favorable decisions would the Witnesses have received if the Supreme Court justices had not shown such judicious wisdom, such ability to see where the real issue lay, such concern for the individual? Their decisions were applauded in the Society’s publications. Sadly, however, the high standards of judgment and the
approach to emotionally charged issues shown by these judges often appeared to be on a higher level than that manifested in many Governing Body sessions. The expression of one Supreme Court justice in a particular Witness case comes to mind. He stated: The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision
are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the constitution with no fear that freedom to be intelligently and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. . . . freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

The confidence that the justice expressed in the ‘existing social order’ and the freedoms it espoused seemed considerably greater than the confidence expressed by some Governing Body members in their fellow Witnesses and the effect their freedom of conscience, if exercised, could have on the existing “Theocratic order.” If the Supreme Court justices had reasoned as some of the Governing Body members reasoned, the Witnesses would likely have lost case after case. Court decisions are judged by history. The Scriptural declaration that, on a day certain to come, each Christian elder will “render an account” to the Supreme Judge regarding his dealings with, and treatment of, God’s sheep, should surely give those exercising great authority among Christians a serious reason for weighing carefully what they do.

The way in which recent major changes of policy have been presented in the organization’s official publications demonstrates that concern over the effect of the change indeed has not been so much for the individuals who had suffered needlessly but concern for the “image” of the organization as God’s channel and of the Governing Body as a body of divinely appointed and divinely guided administrators. Perhaps the most striking example of this is with regard to the major change as to acceptance of “alternative service.” “Alternative service” describes civil service (such as hospital work or other forms of community service) offered by a government as an alternative for those who conscientiously object to participation in compulsory military service. Many enlightened countries offer this alternative to such ones among their citizens. What developed within the Witness organization and its Governing Body in this connection is of particular interest in view of a policy change in 1996.
The official position of the Watch Tower Society, developed in the early 1940s during the Second World War, was that if one of Jehovah’s Witnesses accepted such alternative service he had “compromised,” had broken integrity with God. The reasoning behind this was that because this service was a “substitute” it therefore took
the place of what it substituted for and (so the reasoning apparently went) came to stand for the same thing.12 Since it was offered in place of military service and since military service involved (potentially at least) the shedding of blood, then anyone accepting the substitute became “bloodguilty.” This remarkable policy developed before the Governing Body became a genuine reality and was evidently decided upon by Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr during the period when they produced all major policy decisions.Failure to adhere to this policy would mean being viewed automatically as “disassociated” and being treated the same as if disfellowshiped.
The May 1, 1996, Watchtower reversed this policy. In an article titled “Paying Back Caesar’s Things to Caesar,” the paragraphs shown in the Appendix (for Chapter 5) appeared. These gave the readers none of the history of the policy that had existed up to this point, a policy that had been in effect for more than 50
years. Similarly, they told the readers nothing of what had taken place within the Governing Body some two decades earlier regarding this same policy. Perhaps nothing illustrates so forcefully the effect of the “two-thirds majority” voting rule on people’s lives as does that information. Consider: It was over twenty years ago, in November 1977, that a letter arrived in Brooklyn from a Witness in Belgium, Michel Weber,questioning the reasoning on which this organizational policy was based. See the following page for some of the points his letter raised:

As late as the November 1, 1990 Watchtower this was alluded to as a “compromising substitute” for an unscriptural service. This led to the alternative service issue being dealt with by the Governing Body in a number of lengthy and intense discussions, first on January 28,1978, then on March 1, and again on September 26, October 11, October 18 and November 15. A worldwide survey was made and letters were received from some 90 branch offices. As documentation shows, many Branch office committees, including those from several major countries, indicated that the Witness men affected did not understand either the logic or the
Scripturalness of the organization’s position. In a number of cases the Branch committees themselves raised questions as to the rightness of the policy and presented Scriptural reasons for allowing the matter to be one of conscience. The Branch Committee in Belgium, the country from which Michel Weber’s letter originated, made
this expression

The letter from the Belgian Branch committee, signed by the Branch Coordinator, makes clear to what it was that “loyalty” was being shown. It recounts the committee’s efforts loyally to uphold organizational policy. It also shows that it was not a case of “loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them,” nor
of “responding to the proddings of conscience” that caused the young men to reject alternative service and thereafter be imprisoned for two years. The truth is that “few,” in fact “very few” of the brothers affected could explain with the Bible the basis for that policy. The letter states that nonetheless they refused alternative
service because “they knew it was wrong and that the Society views it as such.” Since they could not explain it Scripturally, their ‘knowing it was wrong’ can actually mean only that for them whatever the Society in Brooklyn said determined the rightness or wrongness of the matter—not what the Scriptures themselves said. They suffered two years imprisonment, not because of a decision based on personal conscience and personal conviction, but because of adherence to a humanly-originated ordinance.

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

The Branch Committee in Canada clearly indicated that they did not believe the then-current Watch Tower position was truly explainable from the standpoint of logic or Scripture. Discussing the problems on justifying that position both to governmental authorities and to the young Witness men affected by it, they wrote:
The Branch in Spain wrote a five-page letter.
These are some of the points raised in their letter: documentation and quotations demonstrating the degree to which this policy presented serious problems for both the male Witnesses affected and the Branch Committee members of several countries.

I personally had already presented to the Body some fourteen pages of historical, Scriptural and lexicographical evidence pointing in the same direction (See the Appendix “For Chapter 5”). Consider, then, what took place in the last three of the six Governing Body sessions referred to: At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine voted in favor of changing the traditional policy so that the decision to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, no change was made. On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote
taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven voted for changing the policy so that the Witness who conscientiously felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized
as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation.

This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made? No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change, announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds majority. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present, showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention. Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and, when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight.
Incredible as it may seem, this was the position taken, and most members of the Body appeared to accept it all as nothing to be disturbed about. They were, after all, simply following the rules in force.

A year later, on September 15, 1979, another vote was taken and it was evenly divided, half for a change, half against. Lloyd Barry had left. According to my records, those voting in favor of a change were: John Booth, Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz, George Gangas, Leo Greenlees, Albert Schroeder, Grant Suiter, Lyman Swingle and Dan Sydlik. Those voting against were: Carey Barber, Fred Franz, Milton Henschel, William Jackson and Karl Klein. Ted Jaracz abstained.

For another 16 years the policy remained in effect, until the May 1, 1996 Watchtower abruptly decreed that acceptance of alternative service was now a matter of conscience. During those 16 years, thousands of Witnesses, mainly young men, spent time in prison for refusing to accept assignments to perform various forms of community service as an alternative to military service. As late as 1988, a report by Amnesty International stated that in France, “More than 500 conscientious objectors to military service, the vast majority of them
Jehovah’s Witnesses, were imprisoned during the year.” For the same year, in Italy, “Approximately 1,000 conscientious objectors, mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses, were reported to be imprisoned in 10 military prisons for refusing to perform military service or the alternative civilian service.”

That is just a partial picture. If that one Governing Body member had not changed his vote in 1978, virtually none of these men would have gone to prison—for the branch office committees’ reports give clear evidence that it was not the personal, individual consciences of these young men that produced the imprisonment. It
was the compulsion to adhere to an organizationally imposed policy. The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance. One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural position, imposed by organizational authority.

Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any In several European countries the Watch Tower Society has recently experienced some difficulty in attaining or retaining a certain status with the government. The change in policy with regard to alternative service may be related to their concern in this area. explanation as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may now be operative in this area.”

In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence. They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect, shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place. Paragraph 17 of the article, for example, points out that “compulsory service was practiced in Bible times” and contains a brief quotation from a history book that describes the “corvée” labor under Roman rule and the example of Simon of Cyrene being compelled to
carry Jesus’ cross. The memorandum I submitted to the Governing Body 18 years before (in 1978) contained fourteen pages of evidence of this identical evidence, as also extensive documentation of the fact that
the Biblical term for “tax” (Hebrew mas; Greek phoros) was commonly used to describe payment in the form of compulsory service.

(See the Appendix.) The major Biblical texts cited in the 1996 Watchtower in support of viewing compulsory service as acceptable, such as Matthew 5:41; 27:32; 1 Peter 2:13; Titus 3:1, 2, are all found (along with numerous other texts) not only in the memorandum I had provided but also in many of the letters written by
branch committees whose members reasoned that alternative service had Biblical acceptance. The Scriptural evidence had thus been presented back in 1978 but was simply not given weight by those Governing Body
members voting against any change in policy. For 18 years the traditional position continued to receive greater consideration.

Even error—if it is Watch Tower error—is presented as somehow beneficial. This same 1996 Watchtower discusses the organization’s earlier erroneous interpretation of the “higher powers” or “superior authorities” of Romans chapter 13, which interpretation rejected the clear evidence that these referred to human governmental authorities and insisted that the “higher powers” referred only to God and Christ.

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

This wrong interpretation had replaced an even earlier, correct view and was taught from 1929 until 1962. The May 1, 1996 Watchtower (page 14) says of this wrong understanding: Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period [that is, the period of World War II and of the Cold War].

This in effect says that to have had the right understanding, the understanding the apostle Paul intended when he wrote his counsel, would either not have been sufficient in guiding, or would not have been as effective in protecting against unchristian action, as was the erroneous view taught by the Watch Tower organization! There is nothing to show that God guides his people by means of error. He strengthens them
with truth, not error, in time of crisis.—1 John 1:5; Psalm 43:3; 86:11.

More recently the August 15, 1998 Watchtower also dealt with the issue of alternative service in place of military service, as shown here:Once again there is no shouldering of responsibility for the harm done to people’s lives by the imposition of a policy that had no Biblical basis. The suffering undergone, which over a period of half a century meant imprisonment for thousands of young men, is presented as if purely the result of the individuals feeling obliged to reject “certain types of civilian service,” due to “loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them or by responding to the proddings of conscience.”

There is no reason to doubt that many, probably most, of these young men felt clear in their minds and hearts as to “Christian principles” if the issue were regarding participation in the bloodshed connected with war, or the issue of entrance into the military, with its emphasis on force and violence. But the issue they faced was not
either of these matters. The “alternative service” provision was there precisely because their government gave consideration to conscientious objection in those areas.

Perhaps the writer of the Watchtower article presented was in ignorance of the reality of the situation. But the article had to have been read and approved by at least five members of the Governing Body, those forming the then current Writing Committee. They of all persons knew how inaccurate the picture here presented is, for they knew that Branch committee after Branch committee stated that the young men in their countries did not understand the Biblical basis for the policy, and submitted to it, not out of ‘loyalty to Christian principles,’
but out of submission to an organizational directive. They knew that many of the Branch committee members themselves advanced reasons why Christian principles actually allowed for acceptance of such “types of civilian service.”

Quotations from the 1978 letters of Branch committee members in such countries as Austria,, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Poland,, and Thailand can also be found in the book In Search of Christian Freedom, pages 259-266, 398, 399, demonstrating these points. Statements comparable to these are found in numerous other letters from Branch committees. They show how falsely the matter is presented in the August 15, 1998 Watchtower, when it says of a person who suffered due to holding that policy: Was it unrighteous on Jehovah’s part to allow him to suffer for rejecting what he now might do without consequences? Most who have
had that experience would not think so. Rather, they rejoice that they had the opportunity of demonstrating publicly and clearly that they were determined to be firm on the issue of universal sovereignty.(Compare Job 27:5) What reason could anyone have to regret having followed his conscience in taking a firm stand for Jehovah? By loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them or by responding to the proddings of conscience, they proved worthy of Jehovah’s friendship.

The August 15, 1998 Watchtower article compounds the wrongness of its presentation by thereafter attempting to find an analogy for this situation in the experience of Jews who had been under the Mosaic Law and its requirement for obedience, and who later as Christians were no longer bound to that requirement. The article follows this with the question: Did they complain that God’s arrangement was unrighteous in
having formerly required of them things that were no longer necessary? The analogy is completely without basis, since God himself did provide the Law covenant with its requirements, which served a beneficial purpose, but He did not provide the Watch Tower’s arbitrary policy requiring refusal of alternative service, with its imposition of sanctions for failing to adhere to that policy. In the words of God’s Son, it was a “tradition of men,” a “human precept,” one that “made void the word of God” on the issue involved. One cannot but think here of published statements such as these in the October 15, 1995 Watchtower in its article “Watch Out for Self-Righteousness.”

On pages 29, 30 the following paragraphs appear:Matthew 15:6-9. By attempting to divert attention from themselves to God, as if He needed defending for the responsibility for the “needless suffering,” the Governing Body again makes evident that, rather than expressing sincere regret for a wrong course and its harmful consequences, primary concern is to protect its image and avoid any diminishing of its organizational authority and control. Because of the power of control the organization exercises over its members through its decisions, and because of the enormous effect that these can have on people’s lives, it seems proper here to review what I consider one of the greatest examples of inconsistency experienced in my nine years on that Body. It still seems difficult to believe that men who voiced such strong concern for “an uncompromising stand,” could simultaneously gloss over a circumstance that can only be described as shocking. You may judge the
appropriateness of that term by what follows.

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore

Micah 3
1 And I proceeded to say: “Hear, please, YOU heads of Jacob and YOU commanders of the house of Israel. Is it not YOUR business to know justice? 2 YOU haters of what is good and lovers of badness, tearing off their skin from people and their organism from off their bones; 3 YOU the ones who have also eaten the organism of my people, and have stripped their very skin from off them, and smashed to pieces their very bones, and crushed [them] to pieces like what is in a widemouthed pot and like flesh in the midst of a cooking pot. 4 At that time they will call to Jehovah for aid, but he will not answer them. And he will conceal his face from them in that time, according as they committed badness in their dealings.

5 “This is what Jehovah has said against the prophets that are causing my people to wander, that are biting with their teeth and that actually call out, ‘Peace!’ that, when anyone does not put [something] into their mouths, also actually sanctify war against him, 6 ‘Therefore YOU men will have night, so that there will be no vision; and darkness YOU will have, so as not to practice divination. And the sun will certainly set upon the prophets, and the day must get dark upon them. 7 And the visionaries will have to be ashamed, and the diviners will certainly be disappointed. And they will have to cover over the mustache, all of them, for there is no answer from God.’”


In Christ

abe

Deuteronomy 32

At the appointed time their foot will move unsteadily,
For the day of their disaster is near,
And the events in readiness for them do make haste.’

36 For Jehovah will judge his people
And he will feel regret over his servants,
Because he will see that support has disappeared
And there is only a helpless and worthless one.

37 And he will certainly say, ‘Where are their gods,
The rock in whom they sought refuge,

38 Who used to eat the fat of their sacrifices,
To drink the wine of their drink offerings?
Let them get up and help YOU.
Let them become a concealment place for YOU.

39 SEE now that I—I am he
And there are no gods together with me.
I put to death, and I make alive.
I have severely wounded, and I—I will heal,
And there is no one snatching out of my hand.

40 For I raise my hand to heaven [in an oath],
And I do say: “As I am alive to time indefinite,”

41 If I do indeed sharpen my glittering sword,
And my hand takes hold on judgment,
I will pay back vengeance to my adversaries
And render retribution to those who intensely hate me.

42 I shall intoxicate my arrows with blood,
While my sword will eat flesh,
With the blood of the slain and the captives,
With the heads of the leaders of the enemy.’

43 Be glad, YOU nations, with his people,
For he will avenge the blood of his servants,
And he will pay back vengeance to his adversaries
And will indeed make atonement for the ground of his people.”


.

A simple question to all JW's.

Is the governing body (the only channel) a group of prophets for God, in which case all their teachings and doctrines are infallible?

OR

Are the members of the govering body a group of fallible men working for God as we all are, who may or may not be correct or certain doctrines?

Which is it?

Hii Micah,

The People who run the Watchtower, the governing body, are just a bunch of criminals, who run a mafia like organisation under the guise of religion. They themselves know that very well.

:heartbeat:

AR

Mafia is correct Frank. The GB are just frontmen, dancing to the tune of the Illuminati families that are really in charge, to disguise the Satanic Ritual Abuse that goes on in the back room.

Well I guess it's fair to assume that neither of you are JW's. :D
Do any of them post on this thread, because I would really like to hear their answer.

I'm not one either, Micah - but you might find an answer in this thread - http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...p?tid=6467

;)

Hi Micah,:hibye:

I was raised as a witness but have been inactive for over 2 years.

I will say that they are #2. But the things they write and say would lead one to believe that they like to be thought of as #1 (the only channel) , except when they are in trouble, then they are just fallible men.;)

So, its not a simple question of "which is it?". To remain as an approved associate in good standing one must be able to jump back and forth between the two as the cicumstance deem necessary.
For a true believer in this twisted, two sided reasoning, the cognitive dissonance can eventually become crippling. In reality the two cannot be reconciled.

:confused:

edit - Also, in regard to #2, because of the position they have taken upon themselves I would have to leave out the part about how they are "working for God as we all are".