In the Bible in discussing the debacle about circumcision in the early Christian community, the WTS states about what they consider the GB:

w98 11/1 p. 5 How to Solve Problems Peacefully

After a Scriptural discussion, the apostles and Jerusalem elders came "to a unanimous accord" not to burden uncircumcised believers unnecessarily but to admonish them "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication."

Yet former Governing Body member Raymond Franz in his book Crisis of Conscience reveals how a virtual coup against third president Nathan Knorr resulted in a new process for determining doctrine, a two-thirds majority vote of the Governing Body now being required for any doctrinal change to take place.

I notice that there is conveniently nothing in the WTS publications about this (if there is, tell me where, please).

I have known for some through Bethel contacts that this was true. It is noteworthy that nothing appears in writing since it would make people wonder. Why did the 1st century GB do things unanimously and the current GB only needs a 2/3 vote. I do know that elder bodies are supposed to be nominally unanimous in their selections of elders and MS.

I guess the other 1/3 weren't plugged into the holy spirit that day.

Blondie

WHAT first century GB? The older men in Jerusalem? I can't help but think that they were just the remnants of the Jewish faction, though christian, and spoke mostly for the jewish converts; they campaigned for circumcision and for observance of portions of the law.

Is the term GB used in the body at all? Even in the WT quote, the term GB is not used; instead it is:

When read in that way, it doesn't sound so much like the modern day to me; just one faction of the first century body of believers who wanted to influence what the christians needed to observe.  Their pro-Law bias is evident in wanting to preserve the ban of eating of animal blood and on circumcision. Later they influenced Paul to go to the temple for ceremonies involving young men in order to convince the Jerusalem christians that Paul was not in favor of abandoning the Law ( he of course was) and Paul went along with it, even though in Paul's letters he says that the law was taken out of the way by Jesus' death.

The idea that anything resembling a "Governing Body" existed in the first century is ludicrous  How long did it take for a letter to get from, say Greece to Jerusalem, six months?  And the reply, another six months.  The kind of control the WTBS exerts simply wasn't possible.  That's why Paul talked about the qualifications for an elder.  The guys running the local church had to be smart enough to make their own decisions without checking with somebody else. 

Can you picture that happening in the org today?

I don't have the CD-Rom here now, but something was written a few years back on this, blondie, in a Watchtower article, and probably in the Proclaimers book as well. If someone does some checking, it will be found. It was a text telling how, if there was no 2/3 majority, the question would rest till a later time, when it would be raised again. Also, it was like that at Russell's time. 

I'll do some checking myself, blondie, and some old-fashioned-looking-thru-the-magazines as soon as I get home this evening.

As for JC/Elder meetings, I had the great moments a couple of times of being the single vote / voice against the majority, but holding firm to my conviction and thus barring a unanimous decision, and after looong discussions being able to get the others along with me in my view, thus making a 360 degrees / U-turn. In a JC, I was told I could freely vote against the majority, or decide to leave, and they would then have to appoint a new member and run the trial once more.

In the long run, of course, there was no home run for the liberals, as I was finally kicked out of the good-old-boys'-club.    

the apostles and Jerusalem elders came "to a unanimous accord"

What may also need to be considered is the gov body's decisions are considered unaimous even though they are a 2/3 vote. The same or something simular may be the case back then, who knows, but it does raise an eye brow.

question:  was there a governing body in the first century? 

I've never come across that term in the scriptures. 

Yes, I understand that the Bible says nothing about a GB.  But the WTS thinks it does.  I am wondering how their GB in their 1st century made decisions unanimously (and they point to that as proof of God's backing) but in the 20th and 21st century the WTS GB only needs 2/3 and what SCRIPTURE they base it on (Old Hippie).  Traditions of men don't convince me, "that's how Russell did it, it was in his will." 

 

Good answer, mizpah.  Interesting name.

Blondie