The Two Governing Bodies

by Londo111 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    I remember when a GB member spoke at a circuit assembly, how the Society would not pick him up for the airport unless he was dressed in a suit. I found it a strange thing to say, because I believed him in charge. But he was not.

    Of course, this is common knowledge, but I’m mostly typing this to make sense of it:

    There are, in reality, two Governing Bodies.

    Obviously, we know of the Governing Body, currently eight men who govern Watchtower Theology.

    Then there is the Board of Directors, about 7 men.

    Wikipedia lists the following:

    • Don Alden Adams, director since 2000, president since 2000
    • Danny L. Bland, director since 2000
    • William F. Malenfant, director since 2000, vice-president since 2000
    • Robert W. Wallen, director since 2000, vice-president since 2000
    • Philip D. Wilcox, director since 2000
    • John N. Wischuk, director since 2000

    There have always been a Board of Directors since Russell, and they evolved into the original Governing Body. Then, of course, in 2000, the Board of Directors and the Governing Body became two distinct, non-overlapping entities.

    The current Board of Directors are said to be Administrative, not Theological, in nature. In some ways, it sounds like it harkens back to the Knorr-Franz era, where Knorr handled the administrative tasks, and left Theology to Freddie.

    Therefore, the Board of Directors can decide, for instance, that the Governing Body dress up when they travel. So the Board of Directors could be said to be in charge and I suppose dismiss them entirely if they so chose. Of course, I do not have a head for ‘business’, and there might be more to it.

    If anyone can fill in the gaps of my knowledge here, by all means, do so! Thank you!

  • Glander
    Glander

    I learn something new every day. Thanks, Londo.

  • hoser
    hoser

    I remember when they did the split. they made some big thing about how it would give the governing body more time for spiritual things but in reality I believe it is all about limiting liability

  • Sapphy
    Sapphy

    I believe the board of directors can be non-anointed men. So any who weren't quick enough to jump on the "I'm going to heaven" bandwagon (after they re-opened heavens gates by geting rid of 1935) would hope to be appointed to this board.

    Maybe they will do an elijah / elisha type hand over if the GB run out of sycophants faithful anointed men to propmote to the FDS.

  • Separation of Powers
    Separation of Powers

    Londo111

    I agree with your logic here. I think that Randall Waters (Dogpatch) does a good job on his website when he refers to those who are really "in charge." The fact of the matter is that the corporation's interests are more important than the Lord's interests. Why do I say that? Well, look at the blood issue for one....Why has it morphed over the years? Simple answer: Liability. Too many court cases, too much poor publicity. Each of those things cost money, and the Lord can't be losing no money!

    I am a fervent supporter of Bono (U2) when he says, "the God I worship isn't short of cash mister."

  • jookbeard
    jookbeard

    this Board of Directors and the legal dept that sits behind them control the old deluded idiots of the GB

  • Glander
    Glander

    The policy requiring the GB members to dress like important business men, even when flying, is nothing but sheer public relations. Image, image, image. Shallow bunch of phonies. Very impressed with their 'importance'.

    I flew to dozens of business engagements. Never once do I recall a need to be wearing a tie, etc. because travel days were never meeting/work days.

  • Oubliette
    Oubliette

    Londo: I remember when a GB member spoke at a circuit assembly, how the Society would not pick him up for the airport unless he was dressed in a suit.

    This religion is sofa king stew pit!

    SK

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    They have given themselves over to the Golden Calf. They believe that the Corporation's interests are God's interests! The image that they have given life to now controls them. They really do not believe that God can get the good news out there without their bumbling efforts. They give breath to the image and then worship that image. The Corporation has a life of it's own, and it demands blood. At this stage they have no choice except to feed it. I don't believe that it can be reformed.

    This reminds me of the infamous and yet to be confirmed quote from the Steve Unthank case in Australia. Supposedly the WTBTS lawyers said that the Governing Body does not really exist as anything other than a theological arrangement. While this dovetails with the nu-light about the GB being individual domestics until their powers are combined as the FDS, I have never seen any official document from the hearing.

    I would think that if it was true, Mr. Unthank would have confirmed it by now. I don't think that jwleaks has anything either, so I have to doubt the quote until it is confirmed. Still this separation of powers insulates both parties. Compartmentalization works wonders.

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    I believe they allegedly said that the "Faithful Slave" was a theological arrangement. Of course, that was before the "new light" where FDS=GB.

    I wonder if any "new light" has to be approved by the Directors.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit