Thanks, everyone. Okay, let's concede for the sake of my question, that as far as the WTS is concerned there was a GB in the 1st century and there is one now. The scriptural validity of the GB is another but good point.But if the WTS says that their GB today is a continuation of the GB in the 1st century, why is the seeming pattern of a unanimous vote in the 1st century not being followed by the GB of today?OH, I have the most current WT-CD and have searched all statements about the GB and voting. Nada. This policy lives through word of mouth from Bethel insiders, in good standing or not (Ray Franz). This having been done in Russell's era does not explain why they did not follow the pattern of the 1st century of animous votes.Evidently, not the same for the GB, Gadget. I have been told that the elders don't all have to agree, but they have to support the majority's decision. Duh! That means they must work to make the decision succeed. Not the elder bodies I know about. Man, some have had such big disagreements that the activities of the congregation were locked up and the WTS had to send in outside elders to break the roadblock. Then, dissenting elders were told to support the WTS or be removed.
Is this similar to a judicial committee where only 2 of the three need to agree to be able to df someone? The other elder who disagrees is required to agree with the other 2 for the sake of unity and so a unaminus vote is acheived. Is this the same for the governing body, giving written evidence of unanimus decisions for the sake of unity?
Blondie (still looking on the WT-CD)