The great unanswered question - WHO chose the Governing Body to serve as representatives?

by cedars 105 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cedars

  Reading further down on pages 228 and 229, it's interesting that the term "governing body" is used in connection with Charles Taze Russell, as follows:

  It was a fact that Charles Taze Russell, who for the Society’s first 32 years was foremost in the governing body, was financially, physically, and mentally the greatest contributor to the Society.

  However, note how the term " g overning b ody" is used WITHOUT CAPITALS!

  This is a deliberate attempt to insinuate that there was a Governing Body around even in Russell's time, when in fact there wasn't.

  The " G overning B ody" actually only came into existence in 1944, and later in the 70s

  (as Ray Franz testifies in Crisis of Conscience) it took the form that we all know of today.

  Still, no mandate.

  Cedars
• 

  00DAD

  Cedars: Thanks for the quotes for the Proclaimers book. Just as a reminder, the term "Governing Body" was apparently first capitalized in the The Watchtower of December 15, 1971.

  In case you missed it, check my post # 1058 on the first page of this thread. My post #1062 on the second page adds some additional details.

  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 Proclaimers book is an example of revisionist history.

  Check also these sources:

  • "Theocratic Organization with Which to Move Forward Now; A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation". The Watchtower. December 15, 1971.
  • "A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation". The Watchtower: 761. December 15, 1971.
  • Franz, Raymond (2007). Crisis of Conscience. Commentary Press. pp. 58. ISBN 0-914675-23-0.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Cedars, the Society never was a "republic". Russell ran the show, albeit it in a softer manner. When the Judge came, all the fun and games were over. He ruled with an iron fist.

  Here is an excerpt from freeminds.

  The last page of the February 1, 1976, Watchtower was devoted to a notification entitled "Governing Body Adjustments." The article advised that the Governing Body had, as of January 1, 1976, formed six supervisory committees: Service Committee, Writing Committee, Publishing Committee, Teaching Committee, Personnel Committee, and Chairman's Committee. This was, of course, big news in the world of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Prior to this time virtually all important policy- and procedure-making decisions depended ultimately upon the approval of one man--the Society's president, Nathan H. Knorr.

  And as we all know, his behind the scenes guy, Freddy.

  So it seems that, while the quotes you give, give an impression that the GB as we know it today existed since '44, it wasn't until '76 that it really began functioning as we know it today.

  The full article is here. You can see Freddy discredit a GB.
• 

  cedars

  Just as a reminder, the term "Governing Body" was apparently first capitalized in the The Watchtower of December 15, 1971.

  00DAD - Yes, I'm sure it was - but surely it's no coincidence that both "Governing Body" and "governing body" are used just a few paragraphs apart in a book dealing with the history of the organization?

  "governing body" in lower case = the pre-1944 administrative arrangement (and makes it sound like there was always a Governing Body)

  whereas

  "Governing Body" = the administrative arrangment POST 1944.

  Have I missed something?

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  Knowsnothing - you're right, it was a poor analogy. I was just getting a bit excited when I saw a long-standing insitution that demands obedienced based on supposed biblical authority rising from the ashes of organizational instability and a power vacuum.

  You're right, there was never any republic. I knew I should leave these things to OUTLAW!

  [edit post]

  So it seems that, while the quotes you give, give an impression that the GB as we know it today existed since '44, it wasn't until '76 that it really began functioning as we know it today.

  The full article is here. You can see Freddy discredit a GB.

  Yes, I would agree with that. Although I think the Governing Body was "born" in 1944, it didn't really get out of adolescence until the 70s. Irrespective of whether the Governing Body began operating in the 40s or 70s, it's still DECADES after the FDS supposedly received its commission from Jesus.

  Cedars
• 

  00DAD

  CEDARS: Have I missed something?

  It seems like you have. Knowsnothing clearly knows SOMETHING and made the point well; but at the risk of being redundant: the "governing body" of the '40s was part of a legal arrangement for the WTBTS, whereas the "Governing Body" of the '70s is a completely different animal on the farm. This is when and where the GB took over leadership from a single man, exercised in the succession of WT Presidents, which was held at that time in the person of Nathan Knorr.

  It appears the Society deliberately conflates the two confusingly similar terms to further their agenda and shore-up the illusion of there being some history to their relatively recent invention. Pure revisionist propaganda!

  There's another word for it, but it wouldn't really be appropriate to use it here on this forum. But I'll give you a hint: It starts with "S" ends in "T" and rhymes with "SHIT"!
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Cedars, I didn't mean to sound mean. I apologize if I did. Text can never fully convey emotion like face-to-face.

  I honestly wonder why the decision was made. Did the GB want power for themselves, as opposed to be commanded by a single leader, or did they genuinely see themselves conforming to 1st century Christian authority structure?

  If the vote was "unanimous", the prez. no longer had any say in the matter. A better analogy would be that it went from a monarchy to an oligarchy, yet there was essentially no change in "political policy". All power rests with "The Party". Ingsoc is always right.
• 

  00DAD

  Knowsnothing: "Ingsoc is always right"

  Ingsoc - (Newspeak for "English Socialism") is the political ideology of the totalitarian government of Oceania in George Orwell's dystopian science fiction novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
• 

  cedars

  00DAD

  the "governing body" of the '40s was part of a legal arrangement for the WTBTS, whereas the "Governing Body" of the '70s is a completely different thing. This is when and where they GB took over leadership from a single man, the succession of WT Presidents.

  Yes, I did know that already. I think we may be at crossed purposes. I was answering Knowsnothing's first post in which he said as follows:

  While nothing is published, who did make up the concept of GB? Doesn't freeminds have a transcript of Freddie denying a GB existed? So, who really pushed the idea and got it implemented? Was it that Bethel saw the flaw in having one person run the show, and therefore decided to make up the concept to distribute power more evenly?

  I was interested in finding out what the publications claim was the beginning of the Governing Body, irrespective of what we know to be the real case based on Ray Franz's memoirs etc. I suspected that there must be a point in the Society's history where, as Knowsnothing put it, "Bethel saw the flaw in having one person run the show, and therefore decided to distribute power more evenly." We all know this happened to its fullest extent in the 70s, but I wondered whether there was a definite 'turning point' in the Society's history where the "Governing Body" as an entity of ANY kind is born. This happened in 1944, although as we all know, the "Governing Body" between then and the 1970s was really just at the beck and whim of Knorr.

  Now are we on the same page?

  Cedars
• 

  Knowsnothing

  00DAD, then what's the government called, The Party? I don't believe I have my quotes right, but I'm just putting the idea out there.

  1984 on revisionism/absolute authority is so relevant to this subject.