Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses talk page (Discussion page). (January 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

Inaccuracies and proposal to merge

This article currently gives wrong or confusing information. The Governing Body of today was not created until the 70's. the article lists MacMillan and Covington, but they were dead or no longer in the Governing Body when it got its modern form. In fact, I have been doubtful for this article for a long time. The article now gives in fact very little interesting information, it is just discussing lots about the history and various (mostly critical) viewpoints. I will ask if the article can be incorporated in Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose any merger. The article is too detailed to be included as a section of that article. You give two reasons for merging it: (a) You don't find it interesting and (b) it discusses lots of history and critical viewpoints. Neither of those reasons is sufficient to cut it down to a paragrapg or two to merge with the Organizational Structure article.

Some time ago I raised the problem of spurious names and dates in the article. My thread was at [1]. There was never any response. I'm happy to cut that list back. LTSally (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the "All Scripture Is Inspired" book, (page 9 para. 16) is inaccurate because it does not describe the GB as God's 'Prophet'. The GB has never claimed to be directly inspired by God. Rather, it seeks to illuminate what God's inspired Prophets have recorded in the Bible, especially practical applications today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.123.1 (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The All Scripture reference is discussing how the Bible was purportedly received from God, so is not a suitable reference here. I have replaced it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Two "coterminous" bodies ... and the problem of historical revisionism

These two topics are entirely unrelated, so I separated them. Step 1. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Two "coterminous" bodies

Reduced to headlined point. Un-edited is in below thread at #historical revisionism. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam has added the line "In 1971 it was explained that the corporate board of directors and the religion's governing body were not precisely coterminous." I have asked him to clarify the statement; he responded by providing a link to Wiktionary that explains that the word relates to such documents as property leases terminating at the same time. This is not an explanation or a clarification. The word "coterminous" does not appear in the Watchtower libarary as having been used in any Watch Tower publication, so I'm puzzled by when and how the WTS gave this explanation. Considering the word has its roots in the words "co-" and "terminus", meaning expiring together, I have absolutely no idea of what AuthorityTam is trying to say. [...] Which still leaves the mystery of the claim that the board and the Governing Body were not "precisely coterminous". Since neither body has terminated, and nor is there a plan to terminate either body, the rationale for such an "explanation" in 1971 (whenever, and by whom, it was) remains a puzzle. If anyone can shed light in this, I'd be delighted. LTSally (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's link was to wiktionary, specifically Wikt:coterminous.
IMHO, Wiktionary's current "first" definition is actually the least common usage of the term.
The term "coterminous" is defined elsewhere with only two definitions:
1.) having the same border or covering the same area.; 2.) being the same in extent; coextensive in range or scope.
For example, a group's ethics committee may or may not be coterminous with its rules committee (in that the two committees may or may not be composed of the identical list of committeemen). An obvious example of non-chronological "coterminous" is that of Kings County, New York, which is coterminous with the New York City borough (and former city) Brooklyn. By comparison, Xico, Mexico is a city which is not exactly coterminous with the Mexican "county" Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.
Consulting more than one dictionary can sometimes help an editor to attain clarity regarding what may have previously seemed to be a mysterious puzzle. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless an obscure word is directly related to an article topic, it is generally better to use a more common word rather than supplying a wiktionary link to the obscure word for its own sake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow; "coterminous" is an obscure word? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A google search of a word for a specific number of occurrences is irrelevant to the issue (though the results are significantly less than similar searches for common English words). The fact that you felt the need to supply a link to wiktionary reflects that you realise the term is not broadly used enough to require use in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the first entries in the search results are about the definition of the word, meaning that people are usually asking what the relatively obscure word means.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

historical revisionism

Copied entire above thread to date (next will winnow above thread to relevant point). --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam has added the line "In 1971 it was explained that the corporate board of directors and the religion's governing body were not precisely coterminous." I have asked him to clarify the statement; he responded by providing a link to Wiktionary that explains that the word relates to such documents as property leases terminating at the same time. This is not an explanation or a clarification. The word "coterminous" does not appear in the Watchtower libarary as having been used in any Watch Tower publication, so I'm puzzled by when and how the WTS gave this explanation. Considering the word has its roots in the words "co-" and "terminus", meaning expiring together, I have absolutely no idea of what AuthorityTam is trying to say.

Reading through decades of Watch Tower Society literature, it is patently obvious that the concept of the governing body was made up as it went along. In 1944 the occasional references to the "governing body" meant nothing more than the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. In 1955 they drew a veil over the concept, describing it as "closely identified" with the board of directors. In 1971 Franz gave a speech in which he stated forcefully that the society was just an agency used by the faithful and discreet slave class (in other words, it answered to him rather than the other way round). In October the decision was made to take the seven directors and add four other men and call that group the Governing Body, with capitals. From that point some furious historical revisionism occurred, trying to convince the faithful that the Governing Body had existed since 1884 and had somehow been responsible for decisions that had always been attributed to the president. When Russell developed his doctrines, did he consult with a governing body? If he did, who was it? When Rutherford sacked the majority of the board of 1917 was he working with the governing body or opposing it and acting independently, rebelliously? When he gave the green light to the publication of The Finished Mystery, unknown to the board, was he working with it or again opposing it? If, between 1971 and 1975 the governing body made decisions but it was powerless to enact them because the president was still in control, what power did the governing body really hold?

AuthorityTam's recent edits indicate that neither Maria Russell nor Hayden Covington were really members of the governing body despite having been members of the board. Why? Because (a) in 2009 The Watchtower decided that only males could be members of the Governing Body and (b) The Watchtower in 2001 decided, rather belatedly, that the Governing Body had always consisted only of anointed Christians, which Covington evidently didn't consider himself. Bottom line is this: Confusion reigns. Because they changed the rules as they went along, applying them retrospectively, it meant people who had been deemed to be members of the Governing Body were now not, and worse, that the Governing Body of past times had in fact been overridden, ignored and bypassed by presidents who didn't think it was worth consulting! A bit of a mess, really.

Which still leaves the mystery of the claim that the board and the Governing Body were not "precisely coterminous". Since neither body has terminated, and nor is there a plan to terminate either body, the rationale for such an "explanation" in 1971 (whenever, and by whom, it was) remains a puzzle. If anyone can shed light in this, I'd be delighted. LTSally (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam's edit was intended to added refs and pre-1971 names.

Prior to that edit, the article referred to a 'changed view in 1971', a conclusion likely based on this:

• 1970 Yearbook: "So really the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania."
• 1971 Watchtower 12/15 p. 754: "The governing body over all these theocratic congregations is whole-souled behind this evangelizing work...it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work"

Those ideas don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Consider analogy: How many family businesses have dad=president, mom=vp, jr=secy, sis=treas? Yet the business serves the family, not the other way around. Again, thats AN ANALOGY.

As a clearly defined concept, GBJW starts at 1971. A little history is useful, the pre-1971 names useful. ...But it seems tiresome and disingenuous to use this article as just another "christmas tree" upon which to hang a bunch more anti-Rutherford stuff.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues 2010-03

The bloviation in sections Reorganization and Headquarters purge seems:

• Heavily reliant on Ray Franz as the only "source" for many facts

Franz is used as a source at two points in the "Headquarters purge" section. The rest of the section is drawn from three other sources. In the "Reorganization" section Franz is cited as a source for three points, which is reasonable considering he was a member of the Governing Body and well placed to note what was happening. There are two other sources for that section. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Duplicated in other articles, where it makes more sense
• Of questionable relevance in this particular article

Based on your comments in this thread, I'd be dubious of accepting any claim of yours that content of the article is "of questionable relevance". But go ahead, raise any content you think is irrelevant. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, some details...

• Penton's 1997 observation (...'most in their 80s and 90s'...) is now of questionable relevance; by 2010 only two GBJW members are over 75.

I agree. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ray Franz's abundant claims must be more plainly labeled as such, or removed.
  

I don't know what "abundant claims" you refer to, but if any contentious statements are in the article and sourced to Franz, there's no problem in identifying him as the source of them. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Most of "Faithful and discreet slave" section should be at Faithful and discreet slave article instead, with a link from this section.

Disagree. The Governing Body claims it represents the faithful and discreet slave class. A discussion of the relationship between the two, including a critical assessment, is appropriate in this article. LTSally (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some discussion is appropriate. Most of the current section is overkill parked here at this article, especially considering the existence of a separate article entirely devoted to the subject. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sullivan neither resigned nor was removed. Eleven months before he died, he moved to the Wallkill facility and so did not attend GB meetings (held in Brooklyn) for those last months. Thus, someone (not me) referred to Sullivan as an "active" GB member until 1973. If Sullivan had sufficiently recovered, he would have rejoined the meetings of the body of which he was still a member. Knorr also convalesced at Wallkill, only it was from January 1977 until his death in June 1977, mooting the issue of "active until year".

Either he was a member until he died, or he wasn't. Is there a reference stating that he "would have rejoined the meetings of the body of which he was still a member"? If so, I'd be happy to move it back to the other section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan was a GBJW member until his death in 1974. In September 1973, Sullivan resigned only from the Watch Tower board of directors, likely so that the 1973 annual meeting could elect his replacement. After his resignation from the board, Sullivan was still listed as a GBJW member.

"The Governing Body", 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pages 257-258
The [1974] Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses consists [note the present-tense] of eleven brothers, all anointed of God. They are as follows: Frederick W. Franz, Raymond V. Franz, George D. Gangas, Leo K. Greenlees, John O. Groh, Milton G. Henschel, William K. Jackson, Nathan H. Knorr, Grant Suiter, Thomas J. Sullivan and Lyman A. Swingle. [...] T. J. Sullivan, who has been a faithful and beloved brother and director of the Society for approximately forty years, had found it necessary to resign [his directorship] on September 5, 1973. [Note the past tense] This he did due to physical handicap, mainly his sight, failing health, and his age being eighty-five years. As Brother Sullivan wrote in his letter: “It seems beyond my physical capacity to meet the very heavy requirements of a director of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Under the circumstances therefore it seems entirely in accord with Jehovah’s will . . . that this resignation take place as soon as possible.” [emph added]

A more encyclopedic question might have been: Is there a reference stating that Sullivan resigned or was removed from the GBJW? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying a suitable reference as requested. Given that you clearly understood the request, it was unnecessary for you to complain about how it might alternatively have been requested. Questions at Talk pages don't have to be "encyclopedic".--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Unnecessary complaining and counter-complaining is unseemly. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Currently, the section Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Watch Tower Society board members says, "Though the Governing Body was formally defined in 1971, the term was also applied to board members of the Watch Tower Society prior to that time." That needs to be rephrased to better reflect their publications' actual statements, and clarify that the "application" of the term was not the enumerated names in that section (unless it was, then that can be ignored or added in footnote maybe)

As noted below, that's going to be a challange because of the Watch Tower Society's rubbery definition of the governing body that changed over time. Feel free to explain it better, but please avoid adding further synthesis. If the society can't get its story straight, there's no requirement for Witnesses do do it for them. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I only intended that wording as a starting point, in place of the patently unnecessary distinction between the Watch Tower Society board members of Jehovah's Witnesses vs. the Bible Students (which included misleading information about the Bible Students (all?) becoming known as JWs). The wording can definitely be improved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Primarily, wording should discourage the natural inference that the "GB" term was applied to named individual directors before 1971. Unless it was, which I don't think happened; for example, did any article ever state or strongly imply, "Macmillan/Van Amburgh/Riemer was a member of the gGoverning bBody of Jehovah's Witnesses."? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Moot following move to Watch Tower Society#Directors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding Covington and Mrs. Russell, the "subsequently" more than implies that they had been considered members of a religious governing body during their directorships. Please source or remove.

It was you who, through a process of synthesis of published material, have singled those two out as not ever having been part of the governing body on the basis of WT articles in 2001 and 2006. When Maria Russell and Hayden Covington were members of the board, they were — by the definition of the 1943 Watchtower and 1970 Yearbook cited in the article — part of the governing body. If you have a source to indicate that during their lifetime neither was considered to be part of the governing body (which was then the board), or that both were later explicitly deemed by the WTS not to have been members, then produce it. Otherwise it should either be made clear with the use of the word "subsequently" that they were later deemed not to be members or, better, delete your original research. LTSally (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm happy to stipulate that Covington and Mrs. Russell were part of a (lowercase) governing body of the Watch Tower corporation. That is different from being part of "THE Governing Body" (capitalized) of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion.
Even if a 1970 JW publication stated that the 1970 board and the 1970 governing body were "really" the same persons, that was a practical acknowledgment of that snapshot in time; it didn't express theological doctrine or override that the two bodies were previously and subsequently described as "identified with" one another. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Moot following move to Watch Tower Society#Directors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope to look at these changes soon. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything to be gained by listing former directors of the Watch Tower Society on the Governing Body article? If there is dispute about whether these were part of the Governing Body, they are better listed under the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania article as directors. A list of Governing Body members should sensibly then include only those who were part of the body from 1971 onwards. That would avoid any need for private interpretation about whether some individuals were on the religion's governing body or not. And note, there was never a governing body of the Watch Tower corporation. It had a board of directors, which was always and continues to be identified as such. LTSally (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that directors are better listed at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, and that such a list/section would be a useful addition to that article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done following move to Watch Tower Society#Directors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Year of birth

Not much point in including year of birth for GB members when all but two are unknown. A list of question marks is unencyclopedic. And is "year of fulltime ministry began" verifiable, notable and significant? LTSally (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The years of birth are not unknown, but (at the moment) they are not usably sourced. Unless/until the birth years are reliably sourced, I have no issue with removing all the birth year question marks from GBJW#Current. However, especially in the absence of birth year, the year each GB member began his fulltime ministry provides a sense of his age and experience. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing the year a person began 'full time ministry' seems to be a fairly clumsy way of giving a sense of their age. Years spent preaching do not necessarily imbue a person with skills for leading a religious group or formulating its doctrines, therefore inclusion seems weaselish as it draws a conclusion for readers about an indirect comparison.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of fulltime pioneers in the ranks of the Witnesses, including women, but the length of time they have spent doing this is no indicator of potential experience for governing a religion. As GB members I doubt that they are now pioneers in the sense of putting in 70 hours a month in the door-to-door and home Bible Study work, but even if that were so, I don't think think that figure actually tells the average reader anything at all. Their name and year of appointment are all that really matter in an encyclopedic list. LTSally (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Critics seem to be distracted by the phrase "fulltime ministry" in the place of "career". The year a person began a particular career is useful, interesting, and encyclopedic, as well as notable to an extent warranting simple mention alongside his major career milestone. If an editor believes the matter can be worded better or formatted better, he should do that rather than delete well-sourced information. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer work as a preacher is not a "career" in the typical sense, nor is the start of their formal 'full time preaching' the actual start of their 'career' of preaching. Additionally, many JWs have pioneered for as long or longer than these individuals but are not considered as much or more suitable as members of the Governing Body. It is therefore an invalid comparison, and your misdirection about "critics" is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For GB members who are notable in reliable sources, it would be entirely appropriate for articles specifically about those individuals to include reference to the information about when they formally began 'full time preaching'. It simply is not pertinent in this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. I believe the article would benefit by including each member's birth year and year beginning fulltime ministry, and that the information (and pattern across members) is notable. Beginning as a fulltime JW minister is entirely different from merely beginning to preach or beginning to engage in simple "volunteer work", and JWs and others do view it as a career. The United States Supreme Court actually ruled that an appointed JW pioneer (their term for a fulltime minister) deserved a minister exemption from conscription, whereas appointment as merely a deacon or elder may only be 'parttime' and not sufficient for such an exemption.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

M. James Penton and Raymond Franz - Unreliable and Biased Sources

M. James Penton is clearly a strong critic of the organisation and someone who has proven to be biased and unreliable in his interpretation of the facts. Only by prefacing his statements with comments such as "According M. James Penton, a strong critic of the organisation" can the reader fully appreciate this. No other conclusion is possible. The same reasoning applies to Raymond Franz. Both Penton and Franz are clearly unreliable sources. They could say anything. How can you say that they are reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While it is admirable that you have now attempted to discuss only after you have been advised of your breach of the 3-revert rule, your point is still incorrect. You have prefaced statements of basic fact (specifically, that the GB is the ruling council of the religion and the number of members of the body) with ad hominem attacks on the sources that have no bearing at all on those points. There are also other quality problems with your edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing the number of members of the GB in the years stated in the article? Are you contesting the point that the GB has authority over doctrinal matters? If not, your attacks on the sources have no relevance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You have slightly modified your edits. However, you still cite the sources as 'critics' when referencing statements of plain fact that are not in contention. There are still other quality problems with your edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read their books? Can you honestly say that are unbiased? Can you honestly say they are a source of accurate, proven information? What proof is there that their versions of events and testimonies are truthful? Prove that the governing body is the “ruling counsel”? You can’t. Neither can they. Prove that they decide on the religions “doctrine”. You can’t. They are matters of opinion and the reader needs to know that. To keep dogmatically referring to these statements as “fact” without providing evidence is counter productive. Stick to the facts.80.254.146.132 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are biased or not does not mean every single thing they say is untrue. Regardless of whether you want to mince words about the "ruling counsel", the fact remains that the GB does indeed have authority of the doctrines of the religion. Your ad hominem attacks on the authors are entirely irrelevant to the points you have prefaced with those attacks. Additionally, your claims about the 15 March 1990 article are untrue. The article you cite neither confirms nor denies that the GB formulates doctrine. However, other articles do indicate that the GB is responsible for the "spiritual feeding" in the religion, which refers to the provision of doctrine to members of the religion (e.g. see Watchtower, May 15, 2009).--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research, citation tags

The editor who added the WP:OR and citation tags might like to identify the specific areas of concern in the article. If there is no discussion, the tags will be removed. There is already an abundance of sources cited that leave little room for original research. BlackCab (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

M. James Penton is not a neutral or reliable source. His claims are a matter of opinion without supporting evidence. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. For example, he says: "Ewart Chitty and Leo Greenlees—resigned[12] or were dismissed, both reportedly for improper sexual conduct.[13]". What is the truth here? Did they resign? Or were they dismissed? Did they engage in improper sexual conduct or was it merely alleged that they did? Making this statement in the article is harmful to the reputations of Ewart Chitty and Leo Greenlees. But, no proof of what they really did or did not do is offered. The use of the weasel word "reportedly" also brings into question M. James Penton’s neutrality and reliability. Does M. James Penton know what really happened, or is he simply passing on gossip that he heard about the two men. Surely if he were a reliable and neutral source he would not need to do this. His book contains his “own original research” and is not a neutral source, as is required by Wikipedia rules. He is a former “Jehovah’s Witness” who “fell out” with the religion. If he makes a clear statement of fact, fine. But if he says things that are hearsay or opinion, the article should make that clear. Raymond Franz’ book is used as a reference as well. The article says that he was "was forced to resign in 1980 over accusations that he had been promoting "wrong teachings" as "new understandings" in private conversations with other Witnesses.[14][15]". This is clearly Raymond Franz version of events, which he is, of course entitled to state. But, that is not clear in the article. As with Penton, is his version of events proven, reliable and neutral as per Wikipedia rules? Once again, no proof is offered. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. His book is clearly his opinion and testimony as opposed to a proven, neutral, factual account by a neutral observer. Once again, his book is his own original research. If he had put the information directly into the article himself, it would have been highlighted as such. Therefore, how can the article legitimately use his testimony as a statement of fact? There are always two sides to such a disagreement. What is the “Jehovah’s Witness” version of events? This does not seem to be in the article. It may be quite different to the Raymond Franz version. Which is the truth? Would you ask a former aid of the president of America, who had resigned over a heated dispute with his boss, write an encyclopaedic article about him? Or for that matter, would you ask Barak Obama to write an encyclopaedic article about George W. Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk • contribs)

I agree that clarification is required regarding Chitty and Greenless. However, a source being biased isn't quite the same as a Wikipedia editor being biased. As to the reliability of Penton and Franz, it is clear that the individuals did have experience in the religion and are in a position to have the specific inside knowledge they claim to have. Of course, anything that may be challenged should be indicated as only their claims if not otherwise verifiable, and should be consistent with the principles of biographies of living persons.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide clear evidence that Raymond Franz testimony is neutral, verifiable and encyclopaedic. Please provide clear evidence that M. James Penton’s testimony is neutral, verifiable and encyclopaedic. If the article cannot meet the Wikipedia editorial rules, please remove them as “reliable sources”. Surely, at the very least Raymond Franz' use in the article should be limited to facts, and not to his personal disagreements with the religion? At least remove anything that relates to Raymond Franz “personal dispute” and opinions. It is irrelevant. All organisations have members who fall out with them, but details of their personal disagreements should not dominate a factual encyclopaedic article. Let me provide a further example of this. The following section from the article is lengthy, relies mainly on a single source, and is negative “opinion” as opposed to neutral and factual. This section of the article says: "According to former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, now a critic of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a widespread perception [weasel words, hearsay, opinion, no evidence or statistics to prove it and therefore should not be included] among the Witnesses that the anointed somehow transmit their thinking, scriptural research, and conclusions to Brooklyn, and gain the attention of the Governing Body. He has claimed that some Witnesses [weasel words, hearsay, opinion, no evidence or statistics to prove it and therefore should not be included] also mistakenly believe that periodic surveys are taken [clearly no surveys were taken, because Franz would have evidence to support his claim regarding the beliefs of “some Witnesses” - people in all organisations have “mistaken beliefs” at times, but for all we know it could be 3 people out of several million], by which the Governing Body discover the views of the anointed worldwide.[6] He adds that there is actually no mechanism in place to seek the views of anointed Witnesses [opinion, unproven], including those at Brooklyn Bethel, and that letters from anointed Witnesses are given no more attention than those from anyone else [opinion, unproven], and Governing Body members make no attempt to contact other anointed Witnesses [opinion, unproven] to discuss their views”. I understand how you can conclude that Raymond Franz and M. James Penton are “individuals did have experience in the religion and are in a position to have the specific inside knowledge they claim”, but as former members of the religion who have fallen out with the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” they could also be attempting to harm the religion’s reputation, due to a personal grudge. I would therefore suggest that only neutral, reliable, verifiable sources be used. These men have done nothing in their careers other than write very critical books about their former bosses. What qualification does that given them to be the primary sources for encyclopaedic articles for their former bosses? If I was a former Wikipedia employee who had a massive falling out with Jimmy Whales, would you view me as a neutral, reliable, verifiable source of information about Wikipedia? Yes, I have got the inside knowledge that I claim, but as I now have a grudge, am I going to use my knowledge in an encyclopaedic manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk • contribs)

Books by both Penton and Franz meet Wiki standards of reliable sources. Every book -- whether on the history of World War II or the Impressionist movement -- is going to necessarily contain the opinion of the author. From your comments it appears you have read books by neither author, so you are therefore under the false impression they are anti-JW diatribe from the first page to the last. I'm not sure there is an entirely "neutral" source about JWs, not in the sense you mean. Watch Tower Society publications certainly don't meet that description in that context. (It's an interesting exercise to read the contrasting perspectives of the battle for the presidency of the WTS after Russell's death ... the views of the ousted directors on one side and the comments by Rutherford and subsequent reporting in other WTS publications, up to the Proclaimers book, are markedly different). It's a matter of using all the available reliable sources and creating a balanced and editorially neutral article.

With that in mind, Franz's observations about the views of JWs about the faithful and discreet slave are certainly valuable and worth including. Regardless of the fact that he left the religion, he has valuable insights on the operation of the GB that are nowhere else available. The wording of the article leaves the reader in no doubt that they are claims. You make, however, a good point about Greenlees and Chitty. Penton provides no source for his claims and the article could reasonably take a more cautionary approach and leave that out. BlackCab (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on original research explains: "The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." The issues raised above are worth discussing, but they pertain to the content of reliable sources. There is no support for a suggestion that anyone has breached the rule on original rseaech. I'll therefore remove the OR tag. BlackCab (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added two more sources that discuss the circumstances of Franz's departure. User:80.254.146.132 remarks, "There are always two sides to such a disagreement. What is the Jehovah’s Witness version of events? This does not seem to be in the article. It may be quite different to the Raymond Franz version." He/she is correct and it's possible Franz's version is not correct. Has the Watch Tower published its version of events? For the sake of fairness, that should be represented if it has. If it hasn't we're restricted to what the sources, including Franz's autobiography, contain. BlackCab (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The claims of Ray Franz, Penton, Gruss, Louderback-Wood, the Bottings, and other former Witnesses can be mentioned (if the claims are encyclopedically useful), but the necessary disclosures must be there.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"improper sexual conduct"

It's undisputed that Chitty resigned and that Greenlees wasn't on the GBJW by the end of 1985 (1980 Yearbook, page 258 and 1986 Yearbook, page 255). But, it would seem that a rock-solid source should be needed for the claim that these prominent men were "dismissed, both reportedly for improper sexual conduct". An editor who wishes the allegation to remain should (at the least) provide a quotation from the citation by former JW Penton, so that the claimed interpretation can be verified. Does Penton cite an actual report, or merely hearsay?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Penton concludes his discussion of the claims in his footnote by saying "the facts need to be known", but he provides no source for his information. There have been discussions about Greenlees and Chitty on websites, but insofar as reliable sources are concerned, Penton's claim so far remains unsubstantiated. The article loses nothing by deleting it. BlackCab (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed what another editor had previously added. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Dominated by the Opinions of Non-Neutral Sources

The opening paragraph of this article seems to be dominated by the opinions of Raymond Franz and M. James Penton. They are both former JW's who are on record stating that they are "not very happy with the religion". So, they are not neutral. For example, although M. James Penton's description of the GB as a "ruling counsel" may be technically true in that the English word "rule" has a very similar meaning to the word "Govern", it does give the impression that the GB "creates" doctrines and policies itself, rather than balancing the article by indicating what the GB claims it does to formulate policy. The JW movement and the GB have consistently claimed that they use the Bible as a basis for all their doctrines and policies. Even though they may be misguided in this, in fact, they may be just lying, it is more encyclopaedic and balanced to put that this is what they claim. In fact, its so central to their doctrines that they "don't just make it up" but rather they "follow the Bible" and allow themselves to be "led by the holy spirit", that it would not be encyclopaedic to fail to mention that this is the way the GB "claim" to operate. Of course, if the claim can be challenged with neutral, verifiable sources, then that's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your view is clearly colored by your objection to the use of material sourced from Penton and Franz. Both have written books containing clear factual material about the organisation, and both describe in a neutral manner the function of the Governing Body. The fact that both books contain criticism of the religion in no way negates them as a reliable source. By any definition the Governing Body is a ruling council. It is the highest ranking group within the organisation that today establishes policies and doctrine and directs the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. Regardless of its supposed inspiration, it makes the rules and this encyclopedia notes that fact. BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Steady now BlackCab. Please don't make personal remarks like "your view is clearly colored". I could say that you have read their books, believed everything they say is fact, and therefore your view is "clearly colored" by what you have read. But, I am not going to even suggest it. I do wonder though whether you are familiar with their work? From start to finish Franz and Penton, who have fallen out with the religion, attempt to create total distrust of the religion in the mind of the reader. So to say they are neutral, when they were with the religion for decades, but now write books that attempt to do this, hardly makes then neutral sources. So: let’s stick to encyclopaedic facts. It is a fact that this particular religion very strongly claims that its GB do not make up their own doctrines and policies. One of their central claims is that the take their doctrines and polices from the Bible and the "holy spirit". Whether they do or not, surely you have to put that this is what they claim. Give references to prove that they are crazy to believe, sure, but to delete references that so that this is the central claim of the GB is wrong. What harm can it do to show the reader the biggest claim that the GB dare to make: That they don't make up their own doctrines and policies - they get them from God! Let the reader decide if that makes them mad. But, at least you have put both sides of the argument to be neutral and balanced. Franz / Penton = they make up their own doctrines. That’s fine. GB = God tells us what to do. OK, so that’s what they say. Then, let the reader decide for himself, instead of attempting to decide for him. Can you prove that they don’t get their doctrines and policies off Jesus? It’s impossible to prove they don’t. So why state is as a fact that they don’t? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the article "Loyal to Christ and his faithful slave" (WT April 1, 2007) it refers to a comment by former GB member Albert Schroeder, who had said: “The Governing Body meets every Wednesday, opening the meeting with prayer and asking for the direction of Jehovah’s spirit. A real effort is made to see that every matter that is handled and every decision that is made is in harmony with God’s Word the Bible." I see no suggestion there to support your claim that "they don't make up their own doctrines and policies - they get them from God". The Bible is the Bible. Different religions interpret it in different ways. In this case the GB establishes doctrines (as did the presidents when they had that power) based on their interpretations. This is indicated in the WT of November 15, 1972, which refers to the body as an agency that "administers policy and gives direction, guidance and regulation to an organization". It takes action. It sets doctrines and enforces rulings. The article is quite correct in its phrasing. If you can provide a WT reference that explicitly states that the Governing Body does not establish doctrines, I'll be happy to reconsider the issue. BlackCab (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your quotation is a good one. It makes it very clear what the GB claim to do. I recommend you add it. According to your quote, they are “asking for the direction of Jehovah’s spirit” and making decisions “in harmony with God’s Word the Bible”. If the claim is true, then the “holy spirit” and the Bible actually dictate the decision. They are always quoting Jesus, claiming he said he didn’t do things of his “own originality” (John 7:17, 18). They “claim” that they follow that pattern. They claim they are just “pawns” of the Bible and the “holy spirit”. This is a fundamental and central claim of the GB of the religion. But, the article does not include this claim. It’s comparable to Papal infallibility in the sense that when you mention the GB, it’s got to be the first thing you say about them (see the Wikipedia article “Papal infallibility”). Not that they claim to be infallible; they list dozens of their own errors in their “Proclaimers” book. But they do make the central “claim” that the holy spirit and the Bible are the “real” decision makers. This, technically, could be true, even if it seems ridiculously unlikely. Can you provide references to prove that they aren’t “guided by the holy spirit” and the Bible? If you can, you need to put them, because it proves they are “lying” about a central GB doctrine. If not, balance the article by including the claim. Also, can you explain in more detail why the edits that showed this claim were reversed? Final point: Can you provide a reference that shows they do determine doctrines?80.254.146.132 (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely the first paragraph can be reworked to avoid referencing controversial writers for uncontroversial points. I may get around to that eventually, and I'd hope other editors would appreciate the benefit of that.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A revealing comment. The facts stated are "uncontroversial" and therefore not disputed, but it bothers you that they are sourced to authors who have left the religion. Horrors! Is it not possible for a Jehovah's Witness to accept at face value something written by someone who has chosen to leave? BlackCab (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear AuthorityTam: I have learnt my lesson. Although it was very enjoyable to join in this debate, I now believe I was wrong to do so. From what I have read, I am now convinced that most of the editors of this article have a subtle, but deep seated bias against this particular organisation. They appear to be intelligent, well educated men and women. But, they are not neutral themselves. I now freely admit that I was in error to engage with them. As I am out numbered, and as the work of making these articles truly neutral in the face of this opposition would be extremely time consuming, I am going to admit defeat. Even if these articles were changed so that they are neutral and from verifiable sources, I am now beginning to question the benefit. I am going to learn from and follow these principles instead: Proverbs 22:4; 2 John 9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:33; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; Matthew 7:6; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Proverbs 22:10

Just remember who really controls the organisations of the world (1 John 5:19-20). Try not to use too much of your valuable time debating with them.

Please do not use your valuable time to reply to this post, as I will not revisit this page to read your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just remember who really controls the organisations of the world... That's got to be the mother of all association fallacies, and is hardly consistent with a claim to want articles to be "neutral".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Franz could not have been “forced” to resign over “allegations” – Weasel Words

The article makes the statement that Raymond Franz was “forced to resign in 1980 over accusations that he had been promoting "apostate" teachings as "new understandings" in private conversations with other Witnesses”. These are weasel words and could not be true, due to the religions way of punishing wrongdoers. If the allegations were “true”, the religion insists that their must be two or more “witnesses” (in the sense of people who “witnessed” the event, no pun intended). This is because they say it’s a Biblical requirement to have two or more witnesses. Franz would have known this and respected this rule, as a long time member. He would have demanded that the witnesses give their evidence. If the witnesses did not exist, or there was no evidence, why would he resign? The fact that he “resigned” shows that it was his decision. The whole point of “resigning” is that “you” make the decision, as opposed to being dismissed where you are “forced” to go. On the other hand, if they had said: “your guilty” and he had not accepted it, they would have ostracized him (as is their practice in the case of persons who commit “wrongdoing” but who either don’t accept it or deny it in the face of evidence). If the evidence was false, why did he feel the need to resign? Why not say: “Sorry, you haven’t proven your case” and let them ostracize him? Surely he wouldn’t have just said: “Yes, I am guilty, but don’t worry I’ll resign” for no reason? The fact that he resigned willingly shows that he accepted that he had done something wrong. Also, the JW’s only “let you off” from ostracism if you claim you are “truly repentant”, so he must have claimed that he was “truly repentant”. Was he “forced” to make this claim? Additionally, if they weren’t threatening him with ostracism if he didn’t resign, what other sanction could they bring to bear on him? The region “claims” it doesn’t actually pay anyone. They “claim” they are all volunteers, so they couldn’t even stop his salary! (I think that if they did secretly pay people, Franz would be the first one to “reveal” it!) So, he resigned willingly. Therefore, he must have accepted he had done wrong. Therefore, the “allegations” were not just “allegations”. Therefore the article is incorrect in this respect also: Rather than allegations, it should say: “he breached the rules of the religion that he claimed to follow for decades”. If you join any organization, you agree to follow its rules. If you break them and there are witnesses, and you offer to resign, no one can say you were “forced” to do something because of an “allegation”. President Nixon was “forced to resign”. But, did he resign because of “allegations” or because he had actually done something wrong? The article is misleading. It uses “weasel words” to make people think “oh what a poor man, he was wrongly accused and forced to resign”. From what I can see, Franz was a highly motivated, highly intelligent, well educated man who was more than capable of standing up for himself. “Forced” to do something that is actually a “voluntary act” when there is no evidence and no real sanction available if you don’t comply. I don’t think so. Please modify this article to show that Franz was either “forced” to resign over “actual wrongdoing” or chose to resign “on principle” because he disagreed with what they were up to. Or, give references to prove that he was “forced” to resign because they “threatened” to do something to him if he didn’t. Anything else is misleading and un-encyclopedic. Weasel words play on people’s emotions. This is an inverse ad hominem attempt to get the reader to believe that Franz was badly treated early on. Once you “prove” that someone has been “forced” to do something “against their will” because of “accusations”, you have subtlety gained your audience’s sympathy for the said person. When the person then makes further claims later on in the article, the audience will naturally tend to have sympathy for those claims as well. Very clever, but not very encyclopedic or neutral. There is no proof, so it should not be in the article as fact.

Regardless of your long-winded reasoning, there are reliable sources that say Franz was forced to resign, which Wikipedia uses in its article. Franz makes the claim himself, Penton (p.120) supports it, Time magazine Feb 22, 1982) also reported it. Your claim has nothing to do with weasel words, and you should read the article that deals with that. BlackCab (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When using this talk page, please be respectful with your edits. It is your opinion that my reasoning is "long-winded", but it is not necessary to state it. So, what you are saying is that Franz “claims” he was forced to resign over allegations. It is not a fact. Can we make that clear in the article? Penton is not neutral, so that fact that he agrees may not be the point. Also, Penton was not a governing body member, so he wasn't there, so he can’t possibly know if its true. (Please give references to show that he was there if available). Saying that someone was "forced" to do something that is actually a voluntary act is weasel words. Using the words "over allegations" implies that the allegations were not proven = weasel words. Please read the section on weasel words again. By the way, your reasoning is far too short - only kidding BlackCab. Thanks for your response, I do genuinely appreciate you taking the time to read through my observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I have altered the lead section to say Franz "claims he was forced to resign from the Governing Body", thus repeating the wording used inthe main body of the article. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. See WP:SIGN. BlackCab (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Claim about “complete control of doctrines” is misleading

The article says that “Jehovah's Witnesses Ray Franz and James Penton claim that until January 1976, the president exercised complete control of doctrines, publications and activity of the Watch Tower Society and the religious denominations with which it was connected”. This claim is obviously unproven, as it’s just a claim, but by not putting the JW version, it could still mislead the reader. The JW version should also be stated in order to make the article balanced and neutral. According to JW literature, C.T. Russell, the first president of the religion said: “Our work has been to bring together these long scattered fragments of truth and present them to the Lord’s people – not as new, not as our own, but as the Lord’s. We must disclaim any credit even for the finding and rearrangement of the jewels of truth.” He further stated: “The work in which the Lord has been pleased to use our humble talents has been less a work of origination than of reconstruction, adjustment, and harmonization.” (“Proclaiming the Lord’s Return” page 49.) This is very different from Franz and Penton’s version. As Franz and Penton are not neutral, surely both sides should be presented to the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It was Russell, however, who wrote the bulk of The Watch Tower in his lifetime. The magazine reflected his views. When he changed his mind on a belief, that was reflected in his magazine. The schism that developed in 1909 over the new covenant teaching occurred because of opposition to the doctrine Russell established. The over-riding of the Watchtower editorial committee in 1925 took place because they disagreed with a new doctrine established by Rutherford, and Rutherford alone. Rutherford established doctrines on a host of issues, including the idea of "God's organization V Satan's organization", Armageddon, the emphasis on the necessity of preaching, the emphasis on use of the name "Jehovah" and so on. All these facts are stated in histories of the Witnesses. The quotes from Russell you cite do not conflict with that fact. Russell commonly used the term "we" and "our" to refer to himself. He believed the Lord was using him, so whatever he decided was the truth became the doctrine stated in the Watchtower. BlackCab (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Well reasoned and good supporting evidence. But, there is a flaw in your reasoning. You are forgetting that technically, it might actually be possible that when Russell changed his mind and altered a doctrine (which he did!) it was because he had prayed to his God, received holy spirit and then acted accordingly. As unlikely as this will seem to many readers, we can't actually prove that this didn't happen. We are talking about a religion after all. They believe all kinds of things. But, the point is, it was Russell's belief, or at least he claims it was, that he didn't actually decide things himself. He says he prayed and received the "holy spirit" and allowed Jesus Christ to direct him. You can't possibly not mention such a central claim that the head of the religion makes in this context. Once again: C T Russell = God told me or it’s in the bible. Franz/Penton = he just made up his own doctrines at will. You have to put both sides, or the reader will not understand what the religion actually teaches about the GB. If you have references to prove that Russell was insane or just lying, please provide them. With regard to your statement "The quotes from Russell you cite do not conflict with that fact", well, what Russell claimed he believed does conflict. Russell would have said: "No, I don't control the doctrines, Jesus does".80.254.146.132 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless we are specifically discussing belief, we report what is, not what might be. But aside from that, JW literature specifically disclaims literal "inspiration". It is a fact that the GB formulates JW doctrines. It is an opinion that they are guided to those doctrines by god/holy spirit. Additionally, the context of the statement about having "complete control of doctrines" is about whether they were controlled by either a president or a governing body. Whether god and/or the holy spirit happen to guide that president or governing body is an irrelevant distortion of the context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses#Sources of doctrine article already cites the transcript of the 1954 Walsh trial in Scotland in which officers of the WTS gave evidence under oath. The following quotes from that transcript make clear the method of doctrinal development, indicating (a) doctrines were developed and decided through staff research and then discussion by board members and the president; and (b) the president had the final say.

• Fred Franz, who was then Vice President of the WT Society: “Q: In matters spiritual, has each member of the Board of Directors an equally valid voice? A: The President is the mouthpiece. He pronounces the speeches that show advancement of the understanding of the Scriptures ... Q: Tell me, are these advances, as you put it, voted upon by the Directors? A: No... they go through the Editorial Committee, and I give my OK after scriptural examination. Then I pass them on to President Knorr, and President Knorr has the final OK. Q: Does it go before the Board of Directors at all? A: No.” (page 100)

• Franz again (discussing the earlier view that Christ returned in 1874): “Q: In what form was the miscalculation corrected? A: When we reached the date 1914 and the world developments went forward, then we say that we had not understood some of the prophecies correctly. Therefore, we saw that there was a need for a review of our beliefs respecting how the prophecies would be fulfilled. …. Q: In your experience which body is it which issues authoritative interpretations of corrections of the same; is it the editorial committee or is it the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Society? A: The editorial committee does the research work, and then it finally comes under the review of the President of the Society, the Chairman of the Board of Directors. He issues the final approval and sends it to the press. … Q: Am I right that the Board of Directors do at some stage consider it? A: They all consider it. Q: And vote upon it if need be? A: There is no voting up on it. (Page 108)

• Franz again: Extended questioning on Rutherford’s teaching about one of the beasts of Revelation that Franz accepted was later discarded. Repeated reference to Rutherford taking a view on scriptures to establish doctrines. (Pages 110-117)

• Legal counsel Hayden Covington: “When we see a thing that is established—the apostle Paul says ‘Come and let us reason together’ – and we take all the scriptures relative to a certain subject and put them together and from this intelligent, reasonable study of the scriptures we reach a definite fixed conclusion, and we operate on that until it becomes quite apparent that we have been in error.” (Page 310)

Those statements, made under oath and devoid of Watchtower spin, suggest that a sentence stating that "until January 1976, the president exercised complete control of doctrines, publications and activity of the Watch Tower Society and the religious denominations with which it was connected” is entirely accurate. BlackCab (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that's a laughable interpretation.
For one, Fred Franz explicitly said of the board of directors (their then-"governing body") regarding any proposed doctrine: "They all consider it." That certainly sounds like discussion and tweaking would be involved in their groupwide consideration. Furthermore, Fred Franz testified EXPLICITLY that proposed "advances" in doctrinal matters "go through the Editorial Committee"; do editors seriously imagine that the editorial committee had one member, the Watch Tower president? Fred Franz subsequently testifies only that the vice-president could veto a proposed "advance", and after him the president had a final veto over any proposed "advance".
Veto authority is certainly not "complete control", else the U. S. Supreme Court has "complete control" over all laws in the United States.
Furthermore, whatever may have been in 1954, the article's references repeatedly state that matters changed in 1971—that's FIVE YEARS before 1976.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The testimony clearly shows that whatever discussion there was by the editorial committee, the president had the final control of whether doctrines would be accepted or not. No one could outvote the president. BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1954 testimony was about proposed changes to doctrine; it states that a body proposed changes, and another body considered proposals, and finally "the president" was one of two persons who could veto a proposed change to doctrine. Nothing there comes close to saying the president originated doctrinal changes. --AuthorityTam (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The article does not claim that all presidents originated all doctrines. It says presidents exercised complete control of doctrines, publications and activity. Franz's testimony clearly shows that he controlled what was and was not approved for articles, which included doctrinal changes.

It is sufficient to identify Franz and Penton as the source of those claims. It is irrelevant that Penton, who is the author of a book detailing the history of the religion, was a member but left. I'm guessing your description of them as "former Jehovah's Witnesses" is meant to suggest apostasy and anti-JW agendas, but if I'm wrong, please spell out your reasons here. Your insistence on reinstating the term when there seems no good reason for it shows your intent to engage in another edit war. BlackCab (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let make this really simple:

GB – We read the Bible, pray, research, collaborate, allow the Holy Spirit to guide us. Finally, we publish and act on the results.

Franz/Penton – The GB or the president controls the doctrine, not God, Jesus, the Bible or the holy spirit

Two opposing opinions: Neither can be empirically proven

The article should contain both, in a neutral, balanced, encyclopaedic manner.

The trial evidence: When they say “the president had the final OK” it’s obvious what they mean. The president was he final HUMAN to have the OK. The trial judge would not be interested in anything else, such as “I prayed and researched it first”, then said OK. BUT: This is an encyclopaedic article about a religion and its ‘’beliefs’’, not a trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the transcript yourself. The witnesses spoke a great deal about their beliefs on prayer and divine direction. Neither Franz nor Penton say what you claim. Put really simply, the Governing Body establishes doctrines. Just as presidents Russell, Rutherford and Knorr established doctrines. That's all the article really needs to say there. BlackCab (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Was The Editorial Committee Actually Put to Death? Or Was the Committee just disbanded?

The article says that “in 1925 he eliminated the Watch Tower Society's editorial committee”. This sounds very drastic. If they were killed, are their references to support this? If the committee was simply disbanded, were the members ostracized or just asked to leave quietly? The English word “eliminated” can mean different things. For example: “to eradicate or kill: to ‘’eliminate the enemy’’” or to “to remove or get rid of, esp. as being in some way undesirable: to ‘’eliminate hunger’’”. The article gives the impression that the president viewed them as a ‘’ a enemy’’ that had to be ‘’eradicated’’. Can we provide reference to prove that this is how viciously the president carried this out? It must have been pretty nasty to use the word “eliminate”. If I had an employee, and I decided to “eliminate” him, either I am quite a vicious employer, or the employee is very, very bad. Which is it? If you just leave it as it is, the reader is given the impression that the President was a ruthless dictator. Can references show that he was?80.254.146.132 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your objection is a tad dramatic, but I've replaced it with dissolved. Presumably you will understand that it was the committee that was dissolved, and not its members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference was inaccurate and I have corrected it. This was picked up in the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article and corrected some time ago. The editorial committee actually continued in existence for some time. Being president, and having full control over doctrines, Rutherford could afford to ignore them because he believed he was right and they were wrong. BlackCab (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And I have modified it slightly again. 'overrode the objections of' seems a bit wordy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Most of the article seems to be biased toward the views of Raymond Franz, since - excluding references relating to the list of Governing Body members - Raymond Franz' books form a very large proportion of references. References with the views of just one person are not good enough to be in Wikipedia, as there is no way of verifying that these statements are true. Could Wikipedians please add extra references to this article which support those from Raymond Franz' books. If statements in this article still have only one reference - those from Raymond Franz' books - I believe that these statements should be removed. If anyone disagrees with this, please post your comments below. I will give four weeks from now - 7th June 2010 - before I start to remove statements containing only one reference.Beeshoney (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are contested statements with only one reference, they should be removed if they can not be otherwise verified. However, statements don't need to be removed simply because they're from a source some editors don't like. Please raise the specific contested points before indiscriminantly removing information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Franz was unique in writing about his experience as a member of the Governing Body, so he had insights on the body's processes that no one else has provided. It is appropriate that unsubstantiated claims he made are clearly indicated as claims if there no other supporting references, but there is no basis for deleting statements simply because he made them. Any inappropriate deletions of material will be reinstated. BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All the writings of Franz about JW are with no doubt critical - if not to say extremely critical. Therefore, I would not call it balanced to say that his writings gives us some really unique insights on the body's process. His wiritings gives us mainly his own view. At least, his writings should be balanced by other more neutral references too. It would be very interesting with other sources of information of JW that are written by religion sociaologists etc. Summer Song (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All articles benefit from more sources. Until there are more books written by Governing Body members, or the WTS itself becomes more frank about its operations and processes, or other books are written that deal in more detail with the workings of the GB, we are rather limited in sources. Despite his criticisms of the religion, Franz's books remains a valiable source for what he reveals. BlackCab (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen Franz's books. However, I imagine it would not be too difficult to discern credible statements from comments that are merely critical. Anything that can only be given as a 'claim' should be cited as such. However, not everything he says should necessarily be distrusted, e.g. if Franz said he was a member of the Governing Body, we don't need to preface that as a 'claim' because we know from WT sources that it was true. Though we shouldn't necessarily trust everything he says (because there are always two sides to a story), nor do we need to apply the almost superstitious suspicion with which JWs label 'apostates'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, they're all fair points. However, I still think the article should clearly mention that sources from him are claims, rather than facts, which is a bit patchy at the moment. Anything I find I'll put here, but I won't change anything in the meantime. I hope this is OK.Beeshoney (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. Please do not remove the "Neutrality" banner yet, as the dispute over neutrality hasn't yet been fully resolved.Beeshoney (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that statements that can't be substantiated should not be put in a way that implies they're definitely true, but care should also be taken not to generate bad prose by prefacing every statement with "Franz claims". It's usually possible to have some variation in presentation and still convey the correct idea though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "neutrality" banner for the time being. This is because there is no "dispute" over the article's neutrality, as shown by the agreement above. Once again, it is still important for the article not to put over Franze's claims as being definitely true. I'm a bit busy at the moment to sort it all out, but hopefully this problem will be resolved in the near future.

Under the section entitled: Relationship with “faithful and discreet slave”

I feel the quoted by Ray Franz in the paragraph makes it take on unnecessary of suspicious and paranoid mood. Of course I ascribe no ill-intent on the part of article’s editor/-s. I assume such this was done so unintentionally.

E.g., we see the contemptuous statement by Ray Franz. Where he critically asserts some type of sinister scheme being at work:

“He (Ray Franz) describes the Governing Body's self-description as spokesman for the "faithful and discreet slave class” as a means to divert attention from the small group's monopolisation of authority over the religion.”

I just want to respectfully inquire if this is the section is the appropriate place for such a reference.

I also want to mention a reference to the: June 15, 2009 Watchtower (Paragraphs: 10, 15, 16-18) which provided could a helpful information on this subject: reasoning on such scriptures as: 1 Corinthians 12:14-18, 19-26, 29; Matthew 18:17; Acts 16:4, 5.

I want to thanks the hard-working sincere editors of Wikipedia here. I would just like recommend to that these editors to please consider the idea of corroborating with official representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses for further clarification. Corroboration usually makes improved documentation. [2] --Anaccuratesource (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You have used the words "suspicious", "paranoid" and "contemptuous" to describe a former GB member's fairly reasonable opinion on why the GB claims "new light" comes through the worldwide collection of 10,800 anointed Witnesses, but in fact makes all doctrinal decisions itself. There is obviously a dichotomy between statements that the entire group of anointed is the channel God uses and the clear command to anointed members to mind their own business and wait for "new light" through the pages of the Watchtower. Franz argued that obedience from the rank and file would come a little more easily if Witnesses were told that all doctrines were somehow filtered through 10,800 anointed Witnesses rather than being the result of votes taken by a group of old men sitting around a mahogany table behind closed doors in a Brooklyn highrise tower.

As to your suggestion about seeking corroboration from the Watch Tower Society: Wikipedia articles cannot be written from original research. Articles rely on previously published reliable sources. In any case, the Watch Tower Society has never expressed a willingness to explain how doctrinal decisions are reached. Something to do with them being suspicious and paranoid, perhaps. BlackCab (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My question is firstly, is the quote necessary to this article and this section? My second question is to what relevancy does have here?

I wish to explain the scriptural basis for the governing body representing the "Faith and Discreet slave". As state earlier this discussed in the June 15, 2009 Watchtower (Paragraphs: 10, 15, 16-18) " To illustrate: The scriptures at times speak of "the congregation" ( Matt 18:17) “If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” - (New World Translation)

... Although only the elders who take this action in their capacity as representatives of the congregation. The elders do not contact all members of the congregation to ask their various opinions before they make decision. Theocratically, they perform the role that they have been assigned; they act on the behalf the whole congregation."

The anointed ones are also known as the "Israel of God." In ancient Israel did all them serve as priests, teachers, kings and so forth?... In the First century did all anointed take the lead? 1 Corinthians 12:29 states: “Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they?” - New World Translation. The Governing Body is also the elder body to the congregation of anointed ones. I hope this information helps answer your questions.

Additionally, as stated earlier I recommend wikipedia consider consulting with the official representatives of Jehovah's Witnesses, I am sure they would more be more than willing to answer and explain any sincere questions about organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have listed the site here: [3] --Anaccuratesource (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

JWs interpret some scriptures in a way that they believe endorses their application of a 'governing body', however those scriptures themselves do not constitute a specific "scriptural basis" for their understanding. Additionally, it is not necessary here to 'prove' that the JW doctrine of the 'governing body' is correct or good; the article simply presents what they believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I politely disagree, I feel it explains the nature cause and effect here. The article on the Vatican mentions the Roman Catholic tradition holds that Peter was the first Pope and died in Rome. Therefore, would it not be reasonable that we include the basis referencing official sources provide to better explain the Governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses? I would agree however, usually it is not necessary to mention statements questioning interpretation unless somehow relevant. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which 'Vatican' article you're talking about. On cursory examination, neither Holy See nor Vatican City seem to attempt any 'scriptural' claim that Peter was the first Pope. In any case, the term 'governing body' does not appear in the bible, even in the NWT. It may be appropriate to state that JWs believe that there was some form of Christian 'governing body' in the first century, however the JW tradition about 'older men' in Jerusalem constituting such a ruling council should not be presented as fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree when I was not referencing their (Roman Catholics) making a 'scriptural' claim in the article. My point was we could reference what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Bible. We do not need to debate the matter. We could say: Jehovah's Witness believe... Jehovah's Witnesses based this on... This way we are reporting the beliefs as well their motivations. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I think I agree with the general idea that the JW leadership gets its general idea of its GB model from their interpretation of the Bible. However 'Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Bible' is a gross simplification—all Christian religions 'believe in the Bible', and they all interpret it as they choose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Statment needing clarification about anointed and the Governing Body

This statement,

although in practice it does not seek advice or approval from any "anointed" Witnesses other than high-ranking members at the Brooklyn headquarters.[4][5][6][7]

gives a misleading view of the Governing Body. There are assistants to the Governing Body and others who regularly confer with the Governing Body, as well as established forms of communication through which responsible members of both the anointed and those not anointed communicate with the Governing Body, through both anointed and non-anointed circuit and district overseers and branch committees. There are both anointed and mostly non-anointed helpers to Governing Body Committees. The statement here is clearly voiced by a Wikipedia editor in the form of a complaint or criticism, and it needs to give clarifying details to give the true scope of the Governing Body and how it operates in this instanceNatural (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

The existence of 'helpers' (apparently a jargon term for 'assistants') at Brooklyn in no way invalidates the fact that no 'anointed' outside the headquarters are consulted on matters of establishing doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Ray Franz use the term Monoarchal? or is that an interpolation?

Jehovah's Witnesses had been under a monarchical rule until 1976

Yes. Repeatedly, starting with the subheading "Three monarchs" on page 58 of Crisis of Conscience. BlackCab (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

1980 purge

A quote has been requested for the Botting reference to the word "purge". On page 161 of The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses they write: "Several Watch Tower officials were treated with even less dignity than Franz in the initial purge, according to Watters and Sullivan." The word "purge" was also used on page 2 of the Time magazine article of February 22, 1982 in relation to the investigation and dismissal of about a dozen headquarters staff who were accused of spreading apostate teachings. BlackCab (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My request was and is for a quotation regarding the former Witnesses' claims that the so-called "purge" explicitly led to JW splinter groups across Canada, Britain, and northern Europe. Frankly, most of the section at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Headquarters purge reads like a sop to that handful of expelled Witnesses rather than as an encyclopedically useful and relevant part of this particular article.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The mistaken interpretation has now been removed. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

President's role

By adding the qualifier "Former Jehovah's Witnesses Ray Franz and M. James Penton claim that until January 1976, the president maintained complete control of doctrines, publications and activity of the Society and the religious denominations with which it was connected ..." are you suggesting someone other than Russell, Rutherford and Knorr determined WTS doctrines? If so, who? Do you have sources that suggest anyone else determined doctrines? If not, there's no value in identifying that simple statement of fact as coming from former Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witness GB "claim" that they get their "guidence" from two sources: The Bible and the "holy spirit". This may well not be true. But you cannot deny that is what they claim. It also appears to be very likely that its what they believe. Whatever the truth is, the official Watchtower line is that the president was doing what the Bible said, and that he was "allowing himself to be directed by holy spirit". Call them crazy if you wish, but it does appear to be a fact that he "believed" this. So, when the article says that he "maintained complete control of doctrines" it is are condtracting the "Jehovah's Witness" own doctrine that they do what the Bible says and what the holy spirit directs, not follow their own ideas. Whatever critism that you throw at them, to say that this guy "maintained complete control of doctrines" is not actually proveable. You would have to prove that he was a liar and that he didn't do what the Bible said and that he didn't have the holy spirits direction. And, lets face it, that's going to be very hard to prove! So, that leaves the burden of proof on Franz and Penton. And, they can't prove that the president was not being directed by "holy spirit" either. In fact, for decades they believed it themselves! Its just their opinion that the president was doing his own thing and maintained complete control. Its part of their argument that the JW's are actually not doing what the Bible says. So, in fairness, it gives a more balanced view of the matter to qualify the statement as the "undentified" editor had done, in order to show that it is not a fact, but just an opinion. If the president did "maintain complete control of doctrines" then you need to prove that he wasn't getting his ideas from God and the Bible, as they always claimed. So, I support keeping the editors qualifier, as it does no harm to the article, but helps avoid giving an incorrect view of what the GB claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It was me who added "Former Jehovah's Witnesses Ray Franz and M. James Penton claim that until January 1976, the president...". I did not have in mind the supernatural.
Rather than merely the president, multiple references in the article ALREADY state that a "governing body" (not "the Governing Body") made decisions affecting doctrine, publications, and/or activity before 1971. IMHO, involvement by a body of men seems more credible than the idea of three sequential superhuman presidents who ignored everyone around them for ninety years; by contrast, various former Witnesses claim that the individuals on the corporate boards (aka governing body) did almost literally nothing. So, first there is Watch Tower's published list of accomplishments by their pre-1971 governing body, second there is what seems likely (that is, others did at least a bit more than nothing), and thirdly, there are publication bylines by others before 1940-something. There are good reasons the article cannot and should not present the claims of former Witnesses such as Ray Franz and Penton as incontestable facts.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your points: (1) The pre-1971 "governing body" was the board of directors, as explicitly stated in WT literature. That did not act independently of the president. (2) What you think is "more likely" is of no consequence in an encyclopedia that uses only reliable, published sources. (3) The other bylines in Watchtower articles in Russell's day do nothing to contradict the statement of a former Governing Body member (and Franz's sworn testimony) that the president alone approved articles and doctrines. The Watchtower in Russell's day was the vehicle for his beliefs. In Rutherford's presidency it was a vehicle for his. Knorr, according to JW histories, delegated the research to Fred Franz and signed off on it. Unless those facts are contested by other sources, your personal disagreement with them is immaterial. And again, there is no significance in the fact that both Franz and Penton are "former Jehovah's Witnesses" when stating those facts. Unless you are using that wording to imply something else. BlackCab (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually,

• 1. Yes, they did. Some corporate board members were also on the editorial board. During Knorr's presidency, they'd have been among those who submitted new theology to the vice president. Also, the entire corporate board 'considered new teachings'. Additionally, some actually wrote publications. Finally, directors were often zone overseers, implementing details at the branch level and with missionaries and traveling overseers. The fact that the WT president had a veto doesn't mean that he controlled everything; otherwise we could say the U. S. Supreme Court controls everything in the United States.
• 2. What Wikipedia editors think is of consequence, especially when there are differences between competing "reliable, published sources" (WT claims the board of directors did have a role, and therefore it's appropriate to question the credibility of a competing source claiming the board had no role).
• 3. F. W. Franz certainly did NOT say 'the president alone approves articles and doctrines'. In his 1954 testimony, Franz said that an editorial board originated new material, then the vice-president could veto it or approve it, then the president could veto or approve it, and then the entire corporate board would "consider" it (by implication, they'd consider how best to present and implement the new material).

The fact is that Russell, Rutherford, and Knorr all worked with editorial boards. That is a fact. There is evidence that the editorial board was disbanded during part of Rutherford's presidency, but there is also evidence that Rutherford sought approval from the board of directors for ideas such as changing the religion's name to Jehovah's witnesses (somewhere or other, board member A. H. Macmillan describes the formal meeting at which the full board approved the idea prior to the 1931 announcement).

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the 1944 Watchtower use the strong word "condemn" or is that an interjection from the Wikipedia editor/critic?

in an article condemning those who supported the democratic election of congregation elders, the magazine said the appointment Natural (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

It would be useful to see the quotation which was the source for "condemning". --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of Penton's Comments interjected here, clearly biased

This statement clearly contains bias, and is not refutted by authoritative sources. For such a stronlgy worded statement on Wikipedia, presenting of the exact quote is necessary.

James Penton notes that since Raymond Franz's expulsion in 1980, the Governing Body has displayed an increasing level of conservatism, sturdy resistance to changes of policy and doctrines, and an increasing tendency to isolate dissidents within the organization by means of disfellowshipping.[61]

With regard to this Wikipedia summation of James Penton.

1. Penton's statement is made at the time of the writing of his book, and refers specifically to the practice of treating family members who are disfellowshipped.

2. Penton himself is disfellowshipped, and his impartiality is certainly questionable in writing about disfellowshipping.

He is not writing impartially, but most likely expressing his own anger and complaints of being disfellowshipped.

There was no continued hardened attitude towards disfellowshipping by Jehovah's Witnesses or in their literature. It was a one-time issue, of dealing with family members who are disfellowshipped, according to Penton's book and the pages sited by Wikipedia.

If Penton's comments about disfellowshipping are to be used, then it must be disclosed by Wikipedia, that Penton himself is disfellowshipped. Natural (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

You are continuing to argue against statements drawn from reliable sources and insisting that your opinion, biased by your own devotion to your religion, is more accurate. The statements are sourced, accurate, fair and in context. I am not about to start typing out paragraphs of quotes from books you choose not to read. BlackCab (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that Penton's work is copyrighted 1997, and thus has no place in a section titled "2000 and beyond".

Furthermore, in 1997 the typical GBJW member had been on that Body for decades. As of now, the entire GBJW membership was appointed 1994 or after; it's dishonest to pretend that Penton was discussing the "attitude" of the current GBJW.

• First, I rephrased it from "Penton notes that since Raymond Franz's expulsion in 1980, the Governing Body has displayed..." to the more accurate "Penton concludes that after Raymond Franz's expulsion in 1980, the Governing Body began displaying...".
• Secondly, I moved that paragraph to the more appropriate section.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing Yearbook reference about Greenless and Chitty errant

This reference ^ Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses. 1980. pp. 257–258. says nothing about Greenlees or Chitty resigning. Greenlees is still mentioned in 1984. There are not Watchtower references saying Greenless resigning.Natural (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

As I wrote above... It's undisputed that Chitty resigned and that Greenlees wasn't on the GBJW by the end of 1985 (1980 Yearbook, page 258 and 1986 Yearbook, page 255). Public records show that Greenlees didn't die until 1988, yet a 1985 list of GBJW members doesn't include him.

• 1980 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©1979 Watch Tower, page 258, "In the past year Ewart C. Chitty resigned"
• The Watchtower, May 1, 1984, page 28, "[Watch Tower's Wallkill staff] heard talks by Leo Greenlees and Theodore Jaracz, both members of the Governing Body."
• 1986 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©1985 Watch Tower, page 255, "For your information, there are now 13 members comprising the Governing Body: Carey W. Barber, John E. Barr, W. Lloyd Barry, John C. Booth, Frederick W. Franz, George Gangas, Milton G. Henschel, Theodore Jaracz, Karl F. Klein, Martin Poetzinger, Albert D. Schroeder, Lyman A. Swingle, and Daniel Sydlik." [note no mention of Leo K. Greenlees]

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded it to say that Chitty resigned (as per 1980 Yearbook) and Greenlees "left". Applying the same terminology, Franz also "left". WTS publications do not explain the reasons for the departure of either of the two latter men. Penton makes certain claims about Greenlees, adding that the "facts surrounding the expulsion of both Chitty and Greenlees are well known among former Watch Tower headquarters Bethel workers and many others". BlackCab (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ray Franz

Raymond Franz became an apostate and open critic after asked to leave Bethel, not before. Check the sources on this information. This should be put in a different section, as it is most likely not accurately worded. He didn't resign, he was asked to leave. and Raymond Franz, who became a critic of the religion, claimed he was forced to resign in 1980 over accusations that he had been promoting "apostate" teachings as "new understandings" in private conversations with other Witnesses.[14][15][16][17] Natural (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz's departure from Brooklyn Bethel is irrelevant to this article. It is indisputable that he left the Governing Body; he later claimed he was forced to resign. See thread above. BlackCab (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New hardened attitude - a term used by Wikipedia editor? Or by the quoted sources?

What are the exact quotes. This statement is clearly biased. It does not belong on this page, but is a criticism from critics of apostate Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Watch Tower Society responded to the crisis with a new, hardened attitude towards the treatment of expelled Witnesses.[50][51][52]

Natural (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

It is a strange, though from you predictable, accusation that the statement is "clearly biased" when you have not seen the sources from which it is drawn. Here they are:

• Penton page 125: "In addition, the society has hardened the rules respecting how ordinary Witnesses should treat disfellowshipped persons."
• Penton page 319: "Besides developing a much harder line concerning the shunning of disfellowshipped persons and a new dictum that persons who voluntarily resigned from Jehovah's Witnesses were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped ..."
• Bottings, page 165: "The Governing Body subsequently encouraged a crackdown on dissension and apostasy with a vengeance, especially within the Brooklyn headquarters itself."
• In addition, the Watchtower articles, "Disfellowshiping—How to View It" and "If a Relative Is Disfellowshiped" in September 15, 1981 contain the instruction to Witnesses that they were henceforth to shun anyone who decided to leave the religion, thus viewing them as an "unrepentant wrongdoer". Witnesses were also told to cease association with expelled family members. Compared with the previous policy, it was definitely a hardened attitude. That was the point of the articles. BlackCab (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I submit that the first mention of his name should identify him as a former Witness and by full name (W. James Penton); subsequently he should be referred to merely as "Penton". But...if Penton is actually disfellowshipped, that fact should additionally accompany Penton's remarks about expulsion and disfellowshipping. Is there a WP policy that addresses something similar? --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If Penton is a former JW, it would be appropriate to state such in the article to indicate possible bias. However, Wikipedia articles need not make distinctions about whether an author of source material was 'disfellowshipped' from the religion, as if to 'warn' JW readers about 'apostate' sources, as such would constitute an ad hominem attack. Note that this is not the same situation as an article about a particular person reporting that the individual was 'disfellowshipped' if the person's status as a JW is directly relevant to their notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where Penton is getting his information on his claim of a crackdown on disfellowshipping, other than the fact that he is disfellowshipped. These are the references on disfellowshipping in the time period leading up to 1997 and before. It's not any different than it ever was, if anything, there seems to be more of a balancing trend, rather than a push for more disfellowshipping. If Penton made those statements, then they don't seem to reflect reality, except something he might have seen locally. These are the majority of the references on disfellowshipping from 1988 to 2009.

1. Mentions disfellowshipping in a Neutral way – 5/15/06 2. 11/16/06 – same information as have ever had on disfellowshipping 3. immorality is leading cause of disfellowshipping 4. 10/1/02 5. Balance on disfellowshipping –*** w01 12/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Thus, we should not jump to the conclusion that a person must be guilty of sin that incurs death solely because he is expelled from the congregation. It may take time for the true heart condition of the individual to be revealed. In fact, it is often stated that one of the purposes of disfellowshipping is to cause the sinner to wake up and hopefully to repent and turn around.

6. *** w91 4/15 pp. 15-17 Will You Imitate God’s Mercy? *** 9 What is involved in disfellowshipping? We find an object lesson in the way a problem was handled in the first century. Justice Balanced With Mercy

7. *** w91 4/15 p. 21 par. 6 Imitate God’s Mercy Today *** 6 Yes. At the time of disfellowshipping someone for unrepentant sin, elders who represent the congregation explain to him that it is possible for him to repent and receive God’s forgiveness. He may attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, where he can hear Bible instruction that may help him to repent. (Compare 1 Corinthians 14:23-25.) In time he may seek reinstatement in the clean congregation

8. the purpose of judicial hearings – Elders judge with righteousness 1993 9. The majority is for immorality – 1993

10. 1995 - *** w95 1/1 pp. 30-31 Determining Weakness, Wickedness, and Repentance *** Even at the time of disfellowshipping an individual, the elders, as shepherds, will urge him to repent and try to make his way back into Jehovah’s favor. Remember the “wicked man” in Corinth. Evidently he changed his way, and Paul later recommended his reinstatement. (2 Corinthians 2:7, 8) Consider also King Manasseh. He was very wicked indeed, but when he finally repented, Jehovah accepted his repentance.—2 Kings 21:10-16; 2 Chronicles 33:9, 13, 19.

1995 Disfellowshipping – A loving provision – 11. 1989 – Approved Associates not disfellowshipped. 12. 1989 – Sexual immorality 13. Normal husband/wife ties continue. Different for relatives who live outside the household – 1988 14. Elders – Firm but flexible -*** w88 9/15 p. 30 Christians—Firm yet Flexible *** Flexibility must also be shown in handling judicial cases in the congregation. Although the wrongdoing could warrant the disfellowshipping of a wrongdoer, what if repentance is shown? Jehovah set the proper pattern in his dealings with the people of Nineveh. God had told Jonah: “Only forty days more, and Nineveh will be overthrown.” Yet, when the people manifested repentance, Jehovah did not insist on following through with the announced destruction. He recognized that circumstances had changed. (Jonah 3:4, 10) Similarly, elders should delight in ‘forgiving in a large way’ where there is clear evidence of true repentance.—Isaiah 55:7. Maintaining a balance between firmness and flexibility

I don't feel that Penton's analysis, if that is really his conclusion, reflects the facts, if anything things softened up from 1983 or so, to 2010. 69.115.172.182 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Yet again, you are using this page to simply dispute the statement of a reliable source. On Wikipedia, reliable sources always trump the private opinions of Wikipedia editors. BlackCab (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Don Adams

I could be wrong, but I believe that the Wiki photo of "Don Adams," is actually that of Carl Adams, his brother who died a few years back.Natural (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, because he is living, unless the photo is public domain, some sort of permission might be needed. Wiki is very careful about the photos it publishes for that reason.Natural (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Clarification on how the Governing Body receives communications, and their close work with members on various Committees.

This is a needed clarification on how the Governing Body operates, to balance out Ray Franz's (sharp and biased, self-serving criticism). Because Ray Franz, is basically complaining about the way things are run by the Governing Body, and the anointed who are not on the Governing Body, are not complaining, it seems that there should be accurate information here about how communication does occur, rather than just on how it does not occur. Ray Franz is quick to complain and write about his complaints, but there is a channel of communication that works well, and there are anointed circuit and district overseers, whose reports do get back to the Governing Body. If a anointed member wishes to communicate with a circuit or district overseer, then their communications can be included to get back to the branch or to the Governing Body, if it is warranted. So there is an orderly pattern of communication, which is logical seeing how there are 7 million JW, and only 8 Governing Body members. Imagine if 10,000 anointed wrote to the Governing Body weekly, could they handle it? So, some information from anointed members does get back to the GB, and that suffices. Ray Franz has an issue with it, but he is long out of the picture anyway, why is he still writing about it?

The Governing Body, though, works closely with numerous appointed helpers on the various Governing Body Committees, most of whom do not profess to be of the anointed. Reports from traveling overseers, some of whom may be of the anointed, and from Branch Committees throughout the world, form a line of communication from which the Governing Body consult in making decisions and policies. Branch Committees have a certain amount of autonomy in making decisions for local branches throughout the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However Wikipedia articles depend on published reliable sources. Franz's statements were not a complaint, they were an observation pointing out the contrast between what WT publications claim and the way the JW leadershup really functions. BlackCab (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, please provide a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re your question about why Franz is still writing about it: you may be interested to learn that his writing days are over. BlackCab (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

President of Society, 1976 did not exercise complete control over doctrines

This statement supposedly by Penton and R. Franz, would be incorrect if they made that statement. It contradicts the statement in Wikipedia main JW page that Fred Franz was the organizations "chief theologian". N. Knorr had authority in certain things, but delegated authority on doctrine and writing and other aspects of the organization. Even though he might have had the final say, to a certain extent, it doesn't seem as if he exercised his authority in the matter of everything that was printed in the Watchtower and in doctrine. It seems as if it was truly delegated. Probably, a clarification would help on this statement. It might have been more true during Rutherford's time, but in Knorr's time, that had pretty much passed, as to the extent that Wikipedia states it here. Natural (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Raymond Franz and James Penton claim that until January 1976, the president exercised complete control of doctrines, publications and activity of the Watch Tower Society and the religious denominations with which it was connected—the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. Natural (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

This page is not a place to discuss your viewpoints. If you have a source that contradicts the statement, itself drawn from reliable sources, please provide it. BlackCab (talk) 04:50, 17 September

2010 (UTC)

Knorr's vice-president, Frederick William Franz, became the religion's leading theologian,[58]

^ Franz, Raymond (2007). Crisis of Conscience. Commentary Press. p. 72

Despite the fact that there is a reference stating that Knorr had the final word, it is apparent that he wasn't in charge of creating doctrine and that office was for the most part delegated, as was the writing, which he really didn't get so involved with. Knorr was an administrator and organizer rather than a one man show. Rutherford was different.

Natural (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Thus, he once visited a member of the Writing Department in his office and stated: “Here is where the most important as well as the most difficult work takes place. That’s why I do so little of it.” Knorr wasn't heavily involved with writing, which is where doctrine was elucidated. Natural (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Editing the article

Please forgive, I new to editing here. I am not 100% sure if this is where we place the information for the editing the article.

My sugesstions:

1 History

• - The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses oversees the worldwide activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This body assumes the responsibility of the spiritual oversight of Jehovah’s Witnesses, supervises the interests of “kingdom work”, and the teaching work received by Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide, the appointment of spiritual overseers, producing material for publications and conventions, and the administering its worldwide branch office staff and leading. – 1994 and 2008 Watch Tower indexes.

• - The body establishes the Memorial date. - The Watchtower , February 15, 1990 page 15.

• - Wikipedia might want to include: The body consists only of dedicated baptized male members who have a heavenly hope and represents the entire “Faithful and Discreet slave” of anointed ones (members having a heavenly calling.)

• - “…The body of elders entrusted with the spiritual oversight of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses today.” – The Watchtower, November 15, 1972 page 704.'

• - “…The responsibility to oversee the teaching of the worldwide congregation. – (Matthew 24:45)” – The Watchtower, September 15, 1995 page 30.

• - The term “although” seems to imply there is some type contradiction. Oxford Dictionary defines it as a conjunction, meaning in spite of the fact that; even though…

• - “The Governing Body meetings are held each week, usually on Wednesday.” – The Watchtower, May 15, 2008, page 29.

• - The Watchtower, January 15, 2001 page 28-31 reference the October 1, 1971 Annual and uses the term – [“legal instruments”]

• - The Watchtower, December 15, 1975 page 28-31 references the October 1, 1971 Annual and uses the term – [“administrative agency”]

• - There is no mention of Hayden C. Covington (Society’s legal counsel) stepped aside as a director. This was so all the directors and officers of the Pennsylvania Corporation would be of members with a heavenly hope. He was replaced by Lyman A. Swingle on the board of directors, and Frederick W. Franz was elected vice president. – 'The Watchtower, January 15, 2001 page 28-3.'

• - Oxford dictionary defines the term “capitalize” as “take the chance to gain advantage from.” I feel this term is suggestive trying to ascribe an interpretation of motivate behind the phrase.

• - I am curious, I would like some clarification on whether Wikipedia tolerates these types of quotations, if it an article was say on the Roman Catholic Pontiff? The quotations seem in my humble opinion out of place. If Wikipedia does decide to leave them, could the nice hard-working editors here please consider referencing information, on the source Raymond Franz (e.g., “a former member of Jehovah’s Witnesses?”) Otherwise anyone can write just about anything, on nearly anything.

If Wikipedia decides to still permit referencing Raymond Franz (a former member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and open critic on Jehovah's Witnesses) in this article, I would politely request that it does repeat his information as de facto.

• - Weary of the source; he is not official information source of the Watchtower Bible and tract society organization.
• - Additionally shall we consider: What are his motives? Would he be embittered after his termination from the Governing Body and removal from Brooklyn headquarters.
• - His statement are found offensive to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do we want to being offending millions of people on wikipedia?

• - o 1.1 Reorganization [“organizational readjustments”]
• - o 1.2 Headquarters purge [Removal vs purge?; relevancy to this article?]
• - o 1.3 Helpers
• - o 1.4 2000 and beyond [since 2000]
• - • 2 Committees
• - • 3 Representatives

4 Relationship with "faithful and discreet slave" [Relationship with the "faithful and discreet slave"]

• - The December 12, 1993 Watchtower highlighted scriptures: Philippians 2:3, 4; Matthew 24:45-47 providing a reminder that humility is a required of the members of the Governing Body of worldwide congregation. – The Watchtower, December 12, 1993, page 22 paragraphs 10-15.

• - • 5 Governing Body members [members?]
• - • 5.1 Current
• - o 5.2 Deceased

5.3 Resigned [members removed from the governing body]

• - 1994 Watchtower Index under: Franz, Raymond V, reads “termination of service as member of the Governing Body and Bethel family” and lists “Announcements”, Our Kingdom Ministry, August 1980, page 2, "Raymond Victor Franz is no longer a member of the Governing Body and of the Brooklyn Bethel family as of May 22, 1980." A case of removed/terminated vs. resigned.

• - Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©Watch Tower, 1980 on page 258 “Ewart C. Chitty resigned…”

--Anaccuratesource (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I had edited my statements. Some one had re-adjusted it back to the original. Therefore I wished some them be removed. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you observe a little more closely the way Wikipedia works rather than listing a series of notes on changes you want. Note that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable published sources and Franz's books are among those. And the risk of offending Witnesses is of no relevance here. A statement that meets normal Wikipedia policies and which is based on those reliable sources may be added here, despite the possible affront it may cause to members of the religion. BlackCab (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Additional remarks by the Watch Tower Society to a Wikipedia editor would constitute original research and would be unusable. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone like to translate that into English? Or maybe my repeated comments about original research need translating into a language this person can understand? BlackCab (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is BlackCab so rude always? BlackCab, please remember, be polite. you have turned into something of a bully on Wikipedia.Natural (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

The "Someone like to translate that into English?" is certainly unwarranted. However, it is not entirely clear what specifically is being suggested. Many of the 'suggestions' are already in the article in some form. Complaining about the word capitalise in the sense of 'trying to gain an advantage' is particularly odd, as the word is clearly used in the article in the typical basic sense of converting an initial letter to uppercase. If Anaccuratesource still has concerns about the article, perhaps the editor could start with a section containing a clear suggestion for their greatest concern and deal with it before proceeding to the next rather than providing a long list of what seems to be minutia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Governing Body and the faithful slave class is not referred to as a prophet of any kind today.

Unless the editor here has an issue. I've never heard or read of the Governing Body referred to as God's prophet or the "faithful and discreet slave class." This 1972 is not the terminology that is used today. So, to use a 1972 article to try to highlight this pet-peeve of a certain editor, is a little misleading.Natural (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

The sentence, which is properly sourced, says that the GB describes itself as the representative of the faithful and discreet slave class, who act as God's prophet. I'm not sure what "peeve" you think is being expressed here. It is a fairly fundamental teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The 15 November 2009 Watchtower (page 14) describes the Governing Body as the representative of "the faithful and discreet slave".

There are not frequent references to the governing body as a 'prophet', so it would be sufficient to say that their literature has called them a 'prophet' rather than does.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The 15 December 2007 Watchtower (page 28-20) claims the 'faithful slave' class represents "Elijah the prophet".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but just to clarify: the disputed sentence refers not to the Governing Body as a prophet, but the faithful and discreet slave class. The GB claims it represents that prophet "class" and source of "new light". BlackCab (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; however, there also are not frequent references to the 'slave class' as a prophet. That said, neither is it a claim that has been specifically retracted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, and this is not in reference to any particular edting issues, Jehovah's Witnesses today don't think of or refer to the faithful and discreet slave class as a prophet. It's not in JW current literature, since I don't know when, the two references R. Franz has are 1972 and 1959, I don't know if there are any references since then, but the faithful and discreet class as a prophet, are the way of Jonadabs. It's no longer used or current in Jehovah's Witness lingo.Natural (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Accuracy of R. Franz statement about N. Knorr questioned

Is this statement accurate, Knorr in overriding and failing to consult with directors

Did Knorr override and fail to consult with directors, and does Ray Franz in any way provide evidence or examples of that in his book? It seems as if that accusation has only been leveled on Rutherford. It was the first time I'd seen it in relation to Knorr. Natural (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Several biographers have written about Knorr's style of leadership that support Franz's statement. I'll dig up some other references. BlackCab (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but the specific issue is this,

Did Knorr override and fail to consult with directors,

Wikipedia currently gives that impression. It is very much unlike Knorr to do that, that wasn't his style, and it is probably an innacuracy, combining Rutherford with Knorr.Natural (talk)Natural

Edumnd Gruss, you know he is an opposser, says about Knorr's style, he depicts Rutherford very negatively, that Knorr was a moderate man, not monarchial or dictatorial. I'm sure you can find some negative references about Knorr if you look hard enough, but the totalitarian thing that they try to pin, or monarchial thing, they attribute more to Rutherford, not to Knorr, who was more moderate and tended to do things with the directors, rather than otherwise, especially as the decades progressed from the 1940s and 1950s.Natural (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

December 1, 1993 p. 18 par. 18 Examples of Humility to Imitate

18 The third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Nathan H. Knorr, also showed that, prominent as he was among Jehovah’s people, he did not feel exalted because of his position. Although he excelled in organizing ability and in public speaking, he had great respect for what others did. Thus, he once visited a member of the Writing Department in his office and stated: “Here is where the most important as well as the most difficult work takes place. That’s why I do so little of it.” Natural (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Knorr was an organisation man, a natural backroom boy who worked hard to make the movement a more efficient missionary machine. The movement grew greatly in numbers during his leadership.

Knorr strengthened the educational work of the Witnesses by setting up the Theocratic Ministry School in each congregation and introducing a range of textbooks and educational products to help members carry out doorstep ministry more effectively. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/history/history.shtml Natural (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Please stop changing statements based on sourced material because you disagree with them. Franz, who was certainly in a position to know, lists several occasions on which Knorr, like Rutherford, ignored the directors of the WTS (then deemed to be the governing body) to do as he chose. BlackCab (talk) 11:05, 17 September

2010 (UTC)

Blackcab, you have to be more honest. Ray Franz had a strong viewpoint? He had no bias? Come on now. Natural (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Does R. Franz use term monarchial? I know Gruess used that term. Can you please provide a quote on it. Thanks.Natural (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz provides several examples, including the decision by Knorr to commission the NWT without the knowledge of the board of directors, to support his claim that he, like his two predecessors, often ignored the views of the so-called governing body. BlackCab (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The examples are fine, I would like to see them posted her to read them. But the question was, does Franz use the term monarchial? I might have seen that term used by Gruess, but don't think that Franz used that term. Is that a term that a Wikipedia editor coined for the paragraph?

The term is mentioned here in this sentence, and it is highlighted to another Wikipedia page, giving it more weight. Thanks, if he did use the term, please provide the reference. If not please provide the examples you are speaking of with Knorr above.Natural (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You have asked that very question before and I have answered it. The answer is yes: he devotes many pages of his first book to making just such a claim. BlackCab (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab, you're saying it is so is not the type of evidence that holds weight anywhere, anymore than my saying it is so does. I'm saying, can you provide references that you can post here, so we can see some examples on these things. Thanks. Natural (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Yes, but does he use the specific word Monoarchial and can you provide the quote?

Natural (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz, Crisis of Conscience, pg 78: "The facts ... clearly show there was no governing body in any factual sense in the 19th century during Russell's presidency, none in the 20th century during Rutherford's presidency, and there has been none in the sense described in this same Watchtower article during Knorr's presidency. It was an impressive-sounding picture presented but it was illusory, fictional. The fact is that a monarchical arrangement prevailed from the very inception of the organization (the word 'monarch' being of Greek origin and meaning 'one who governs alone', also defined in dictionaries as 'one holding preeminent position and power'. That the first president was benign, the next stern and autocratic and the third very businesslike, in no way alters the fact that each of the three presidents exercised monarchical authority." --BlackCab (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement on Election of Elders - condemning those - not accurate

This statement in the article, could use an edit in wording. A year later, in an article condemning those who supported the democratic election of congregation elders

The 1944 Watchtower par.32 is used as a reference. Those who supported the democratic election of elders were not condemned.

The 1944 Watchtower stated,

Because congregations have overlooked this fact, they have fallen to the idea of independent local democratic rule of a congregation over its own affairs and elected so-called "elders" "deacons" "bishops," etc. to office by vote of all members of the congregation. This is contrary to the Theocratic rule. Such rule takes note of a visible governing body under Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, and it lays upon such governing body the duty to make appointments of special servants in the local congregations of companies of Jehovah's faithful witnesses.

The word condemned, then, is a matter of viewpoint or judgement, rather than fact. In the same sentence it refers to the local congregations, who may have been practicing this, as companies of Jehovah's faithful witnesses.

side note

pp.34 - speaking of the 1st century and drawing a parallel with the then exiting governing body, the same article stated, That governing body was not made up of perfect men, and none of them were infallible.Natural (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Some decisions of the Governing Body are put into print in various forms

This is an innaccurate statement -

erning Body meetings are held weekly in closed session.[18] Watch Tower Society publications provide no details of the agenda or decisions of meetings

Decisions of the Governing Body are printed in the Kingdom Ministry, or announced at Bethel. Not all decisions might become public knowledge, but many do. Natural (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

JW publications do not present an exhaustive list of Governing Body meetings, such as the minutes of those meetings, and that seems to be what the sentence is meant to convey. Clearly members would ultimately be made aware of decisions that result in new rules, procedures or doctrines to which they are supposed to adhere, and it is unlikely that readers would think the sentence in question suggests otherwise. However, there may be any number of other decisions, discussions or debates—some mundane and some otherwise—that are not given any coverage in their publications. For example, no mention of the disagreements about doctrinal changes relating to Sputnik, the 'generation', and 'signs in heaven' were ever mentioned in JW publications, though they were re-related by R. Franz.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To state that there is no public agenda of the Governing Body is true. To state that no decisions of the Governing Body are announced is not true. Many decisions of the Governing Body are announced at annual meetings, Gilead meetings, and in the Watchtower, as well as the Kingdom Ministry. A few examples were provided here, but there are many more.

Separate issue --

You have to be honest, Ray Franz lashes wherever he will. He looks for things to criticize and finds them. His work may have had some relevancy at certain dates prior to 1979. But, it should be noted, that a lot of the history he gathered for his book was from the documentation developed by Gruess, who wrote about the four presidents in the 1960s. It wasn't relevant after the expansion of the Governing Body int the early 1970s and after the Governing Body formed committees in the mid-1970s. He is reiterating Gruess's complaints in the 1960s, which may have had some validity in Rutherford's time, but had much less validity in Knorr's time, especially after 1970. Franz is re-complaining about issues that for the most part had long-been resolved in the early 1970s. Natural (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I haven't read any of Franz's books, but from the history it is obvious that Franz wrote of events up until the early 80s. JWs would also most likely have denied the problems Franz wrote about even at the time, and the claim that the information is simply outdated is not neutral. Please indicate a neutral third-party source that confirms that Franz's statements are outdated. Additionally, it is inherently argument from silence to suggest that there have been no more recent GB decisions that have not been released.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Many Governing Body Decisions are made known to public of Jehovah's Witnesses

This line maybe needs clarification,

Watch Tower Society publications provide no details of the agenda or decisions of meetings

The Watchtower publications may not state, this was a decision by the Governing Body on this date, but with many decisions of the Governing Body, they are made known at Bethel by announcement, in the Watchtower, or announced at the Annual meeting or Gilead Graduations. Not every decision will be published in print or by mouth, but many decisions made by the Governing Body are made public to the Jehovah's Witness or Bethel community.

So, it might be that the statement needs revision or to be edited. When I can, if it's necessary, I can try to provide some specific examples. Natural (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

January January 1, 1985 1/1 p. 12 par. 10 Unified In Publishing the Word of Jehovah When they heard of the governing body’s decision, members of the congregation in Antioch “rejoiced over the encouragement.” Similarly today, Jehovah’s Witnesses rejoice to learn of organizational decisions and clarifications of doctrine that promote the spiritual health of God’s people and the advancement of Jehovah’s work. (Compare Titus 2:1.) But it is no longer necessary for the Governing Body to write letters of instruction by hand and to circulate these by messengers traveling on foot. Modern means of communication and printing facilities in more than 30 Watch Tower branches around the earth have made it possible to convey “the good news of the word of Jehovah” to the millions of God’s people in a minimum of time. This is done principally through the Watchtower magazine.Natural (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The statement was drawn from Franz, a reliable source. The sentence refers to the lack of details of agendas or decisions that are made public. Occasional statements are made through the Watchtower or OKM, but the article you cited does not disprove the accuracy of the statement. Meetings are held behind closed doors, with no public coverage of almost anything they discuss or decide. BlackCab (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be your opinion or Ray Franz's opinion, others might have a differnent opnion and Jehovah's Witness literature presents a different version of that account. You really have no idea what percentage of decisions of the Governing Body reach the public of Jehovah's Witnesses.Natural (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

GB meetings are held weekly. As a long-time Witness, I know that next to nothing is publicly revealed about the agenda, discussion or decisions of those meetings. But it's not my view. Franz, who attended such meetings, is a reliable source. BlackCab (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting viewpoint. There is a lot that is reveled from decisions made in Governing Body meetings.

Maybe when you were a Witness, you didn't keep up with reading all of the articles in the Watchtower, because there are many announcements.

Example - In the June 15, 2015 Watchtower it was announced, that the training school for elders at Paterson, NY would be exapanded, according to a decision from the Governing Body. Instead of having only two instructors, the number of instructors would be increaed to eight, including two in Spanish. The announcement was first made at the 2009 Annual Meeting in October of that year. The decision had been made at a Governing Body meeting. Natural (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Here is another example -

a loving arrangement initiated by the Governing Body made a big difference. Announcements about a Kingdom Hall Fund were made in the United States and Canada. [An announcement both made and later reported in the 2003 Yearbook of Jehovah's. Witnesses.] p. 220

Maybe Ray Franz's choice of wording is not entirely accurate. While there might not be a public agenda made available to all GB meetings, decisions made by the Governing Body are often announced.

PS-Ray Franz wrote things from his own biased viewpoint. He should know, its true, but his motives weren't pure, there was self-justication involved, his books were not precisely worded for accuracy. Natural (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Could you please stick to the one section about a single topic rather than creating separate sections for the same discussion point? See Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Some decisions of the Governing Body are put into print in various forms. (And maybe not a full sentence for each section heading??)--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, your comments or examples would constitute original research if included. BlackCab (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging or derogatory comments should be edtited

leaving no decisions to any so-called "governing body".

The phrase "so-called" governing body has a derogatory tone to it.Natural (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz's point, accurately expressed, was that there was no governing body functioning through the eras of those presidents. The power was all theirs, so the claim in later years that a governing body directed the work is fallacious. BlackCab (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If Franz uses derogatory words, he can do so in his own literature. However, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be POLITE. So, derogatory comments would need to be edited to be polite. That is part of writing ethics. To be quite honest, taking anything from Jehovah's Witnesses aside, Ray Franz is not an ethical writer. He didn't disclose all the facts, but only the facts that suit him. He was definitly strongly biased in what he wrote and in part, he was unethical. That is an honest evaluation of his work. Everything Bryan Wilson says about apostates and apostate syndrome applies to Ray Franz's writings, from a secular point of view. His writings reflect a certain resentment against the Governing Body, and it seems, in some of what he wrote, that it was his way to "get back" at them. Also, there is nothing wrong with valid criticms, but R. Franz comes across extremely negative. His writings are not entirely balanced. Did R. Franz have any type of education beyond high school? Natural (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You seem to misunderstand the principle of politeness within Wikipedia. Editors are to be polite to other editors. However, Wikipedia is not censored and articles do not need to refactor source material simply to be 'polite'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem as if Wikipedia is requiring its editors to be polite, while it uses impolite speech on its main pages. If, in some historical context it is necessary to use impolite speech to quote, Clark Gable said these famous words, "Frankly my dear...." But in word-choice on Wikipedia, in this context, it isn't necessary to make the point. Respect all the way around is called for. This page is not "Ray Franz's view of the Governing Body" or "The RAy Franz page". Also, it is not "Criticisms of the Governing Body". It is a respectful page about the Governing Body. Any so-called Governing Body is rather disrespectful, unless the editor is trying to bring out that this was Ray Franz's personal summation of the idea.

Additionally, Rutherford and Russell, I don't think, ever claimed that there was a Governing Body. That term was used after Rutherford died. So, the sentence is making accusations where there really is not issue, and clarification is needed. Natural (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You are ignoring the point in your quest to denigrate Franz. The article states that WT publications have retrospectively claimed a governing body existed in the days of Russell and Rutherford. Franz argues that that is a false claim for the reasons he clearly explains. BlackCab (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Governing Body

This statement should be included on this page ---

The Governing body relies on God's Holy spirit for direction, Its members do not regard them-selves as the leaders of Jehovah's people. Rather, like all anointed Christians on earth, they "keep following the Lamb[Jesus Christ] no matter where he goes"-Rev. 14:4.

'relies on God's Holy spirit' is a theological opinion that presumes such a spirit (or its owner) exists, which is not an established fact and clearly not neutral. The only usable part of your desired text here is that the GB state that they do not consider themselves leaders.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray Franz is over-represnted in this article

The article seems to have too much of Ray Franz, there must be 20 or 30 references to Ray Franz in the article. Like someone went through his book, and just started interjecting statements from R. Franz into the article throughout.

It seems as if about 1/3 of the introduction is Ray Franz or his views.

Raymond Franz left the Governing Body in 1980, later claiming he was forced to resign over accusations that he had been promoting "apostate" teachings as "new understandings" in private conversations with other Witnesses.[15][16][17][18]

Governing Body meetings are held weekly in closed session.[19] Watch Tower Society publications provide no details of the agenda[20 Natural (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Feel free to provide additional third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Decisions by Governing Body

We've established very clearly that many decisions by the Governing Body are made public, although there is no detailed agenda and not every decision is announced. Evidence in Watchtower literature was presented which proves that, as a few examples. How do you suggest, then, editing the piece to accomodate that fact. Thanks. Natural (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I have reworded that section to remove any ambiguity. Franz (p.32) writes: "The fact is that even among Jehovah's Witnesses very few have any clear idea as to how the central part of the organization functions. They do not know how decisions as to doctrinal teachings are reached, how the Governing Body that directs all their activities worldwide conducts its discussions, whether decisions are consistently unanimous or what is done if there is agreement." You are correct that some decisions are announced in WT publications. Franz's point is more about the process of decision. Governments reach decisions and announce them, and the debates and votes are public and transparent. The Governing Body reaches decisions and announces some of them, but there is no transparency. This article makes the point in two short sentence. BlackCab (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Much improved!!Natural (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural