The GB chose the GB.
The great unanswered question - WHO chose the Governing Body to serve as representatives?
by cedars 105 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
rocky220
I wonder how many of them will attend the Bohemian Grove this year........just wondering. rocky220
-
cedars
Hi everyone!
Wow - I'm impressed with the responses. To those playing devil's advocate (for want of a better expression!) by suggesting that God's Holy Spirit chose the Governing Body to serve as representatives of the Slave Class, I would say two things:
- This isn't what the Governing Body themselves specifically claim in their publications, although I'm sure they would if they felt they would get away with it, AND...
- Even if God's holy spirit DID choose the Governing Body to act in the way they are doing, WHEN did this happen? And WHAT is the scriptural precendent for this? Bearing in mind that when Jesus supposedly selected the FDS in 1919, the Governing Body as a distinct entity was not even in existence?
Still no mandate...
I do appreciate you playing devil's advocate though. It helps to pre-empt sincere questions from any lurkers etc.
Cedars
-
tornapart
The Governing Body choose themselves then tell us they were chosen by the Holy Spirit. Who are we to question it??
-
cedars
00DAD - Thanks to you also for your thoughts. I guess the obvious answer to your issue with the definition is that the word "representative" is never implied as being symbolic or ideological in any of the literature. If this is the manner in which the word is used, it certainly isn't made clear - and even if that were the case we are still left wondering "does the word 'representative' in a symbolic sense constitute a mandate for the legislative way in which the Governing Body behaves on behalf of the Slave Class?"
Cedars
-
wasblind
Hey cedars,
do you have a kingdom proclaimers book on hand ??
on page 152 A.H. Macmillan who was the administrative ass. of three
presidents of the WTS Qouted:
" there is no doubt in my mind--- not then nor now-----that the Lord guided him ( Rutherford ) in that. ( that bein' the name change )."
could it be that Macmillan believed that rutherford was guided by the Lord period ???
-
00DAD
CEDARS - I agree that the word "representative" is never implied as being symbolic or ideological in any of the WT literature. You misunderstood the point I was making (or trying to make). A representative could be an example or merely typical of a group. Remember Freddie Franz and his love of types and anti-types?
The point is that although words have specific meanings, they also can have a variety of meaning, shades and nuances. This is one of the beautiful things about language; it is also one of the problems with communication.
It is interesting to me that the Society is pre-occupied with nailing down and restricting the meaning of some terms (ex. porneia) to be more specific than the words will mean in general use; while deliberately obfuscating the meaning of other words (think "generation").
He Who Defines the Terms Controls the Argument - Chinese proverb
The fact is, that many words have a variety of meaning(s). The specific meaning is sometimes clear because of context or usage. But sometimes not.
From everything I have ever read, the GB has seemingly avoided ever making a clear, concise explanation about how the modern day Governing Body came into existence. The JW mythology is the Jesus chose the FDS in 1918/19. Then through something resembling, although never called, apostolic-succession this "mantle" has passed from Russell to Rutherford and so on down to today.
The GB arrangement was formed first as part of the legal arrangements of the WTBTS sometime around the '40s and then morphed over the years into what it is now. The GB just keep asserting that the FDS was chosen by Jesus, and they are the spirit-directed/anointed representatives of this class. They are the leaders, you must follow.
In Ray Franz book, Crisis of Conscience, he devotes 36 pages to explaining how the GB came into existence. What you WON'T find there or anywhere in WT literature is what your OP implies you're looking for: "How does the FDS class chose the GB members?"
You won't find it because it doesn't exist.
This is the false belief that most JWs hold, that the anointed members are somehow involved in running things. This is the logical conclusion of the whole "Faithful and Discreet Slave" (Matthew 24:45) parable that the GB holds up as their "proof of authority". But the reality is that there is no such thing as "The FDS Class" and the anointed, or at least those claiming to be, have no stake in the leadership of this organization; none, none at all. It's just those 7 Guys in Brooklyn. Assert, assert, assert!
Governing Body = Guys in Brooklyn
-
cedars
wasblind - Macmillan probably did believe in the "mantle" and even "apostolic succession", but what Macmillan may have believed and what the pages of the bible clearly say (or don't say) are two different things entirely.
00DAD - I'm with you 100% and I sincerely thank you for raising these arguments. I am also a lover of language, and I love the way words can have different nuances. As you've noted, Franz loved his types and anti-types. However, the fact remains that for any organization to wield power over Christ's flock - they must have a clearly defined mandate. Nuances, ideas, and heresay are insufficient. Throughout the pages of the bible, God has chosen certain men, given them a clearly defined mandate, and let them get on with the job. For the Governing Body to truly be considered representatives of the Slave Class, they would need (1) to have been around in 1919 when the Slave Class was chosen, (2) to concur with members of the Slave Class to ensure that their decisions are truly representative of how the anointed remnant views things, and (3) a scripture showing clearly that the Faithful Slave alone would be insufficient to feed the domestics, and this role would need to be outsourced, at least in part, to a centralized Governing Body comprised of their anointed fellows. As we're all aware, none of those things are true, and yet the Society repeatedly flaunts the word "representative" in describing its relationship with the Slave Class as a whole.
I know where you're coming from though, and I feel we're on the same page entirely!
Cedars
-
00DAD
Some additional thoughts ...
The eight references you quoted in your OP are perfect because in every one of them authority of the GB is implied by the explicit link to the FDS. Of course, in some of your quotes you only had a sentence or two but it was interesting that only three of them had a direct reference to Jesus as the Ultimate Authority. But, again, in EVERY ONE, the GB links itself to the FDS.
I infer from this two things:
- They know that their claims of authority need to be constantly reinforced by this connection to the FDS; otherwise, why do they keep doing it?
- They know that the majority of JWs have not thought the whole FDS thing through. Because if they had, they'd realize that it is a myth with no scriptural, historical or logical foundation
This is why the GB deliberately keeps a lot of these topics vague and undefined. That being said, it really is amazing their admission in the Watchtower of 8/15, 2011, Question From Readers, that they don't know who the anointed are!!!
That obviously was designed to deflect and counter the problem over the last decade of the ever-increasing number of Memorial Partakers which runs counter to the previously oft published claim that the previously declining numbers was proof that we were deep in the time of the end.
Apparently they weren't thinking when they tried to plug THAT hole that it would tear open a huge gap in their FDS teaching. Fortunately for them, either the majority of the R&F Dubs are too indoctrinated, too programmed, too unskilled in Critical Thinking, and/or just too damn scared to (openly) question and doubt.
-
cedars
00DAD
That being said, it really is amazing their admission in the Watchtower of 8/15, 2011, Question From Readers, that they don't know who the anointed are!!!
You've nicely led us to our next big question, which is "how can the Governing Body truly be representatives of a group of people that they fail to even identify?"
Cedars