The Governing Body doesn't use the 2/3 majority vote, right?! At least not for the appointment of its members.

cj46

The Governing Body doesn't use the 2/3 majority vote,right? At least not for the appointment of its members? (Sorry if this is already clear and has been discussed already)

I've read a few times that there is a 2/3-majority-vote Rule of the GB, also when it comes to appointing new member for the GB.
But the official documents from the Austrian (Österreich) branch say otherwise: there is an unanimous vote when appointing new members to the GB! Maybe not for other voting matters but for membership.

(I assume because of the registration as a religion in Austria (and Germany) and thus the special public-corporate-structures of such religions, they have to publish all documents concerning the structure of the JW religion in Austria, on an Austrian website. The same also in Germany)

http://www.jehovas-zeugen.at/uploads/media/Verfassung.pdf

http://www.jehovas-zeugen.at/Rechtsvorschriften.43.0.html

In the first constitution [Verfassung] pdf on page 1 and 2 they write: "Die Leitende Körperschaft hat ihren Sitz in Brooklyn, New York, und besteht derzeit aus Personen aus verschiedenen Ländern, welche der weltweiten Gemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas vorstehen. Die Bestellung von Mitgliedern der Leitenden Körperschaft erfolgt durch Kooptierung aufgrund einstimmigen Beschlusses der Leitenden Körperschaft."

in englisch (googletransl): The Governing Body has its headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, and currently consists of people from different countries, which protrude the worldwide community of Jehovahs witnesses. The appointment of members of the Governing Body is made by Cooptation due to the unanimity [vote] of the Governing Body.

Anyone heard or read of the unanimous vote through other sources?

alanv

It was Ray Franz, an ex governing body member in his book Crisis of Conscience that told us about their two thirds majority rule. It was applied to importandt descisions like doctrinal change. It may be the same now or it may well be unanimous vote note. Maybe someone else can tell us.

DwainBowman

They want the sheeple to believe that everything is by unanimous vote, there by making it look like the spirit is really directing things!

When it comes to something as sick as a jd meeting, if the outcome is to Df, they always say it was unanimous. All that takes is for a discenting member to throw his arm up and give up!

Dwain

OnTheWayOut

As alanv states, it was Ray Franz' report that stated the 2/3rds majority. Many things could be different since 1980, and appointments could certainly now be different from doctrine.

Vidiot

DwainBowman - "They want the sheeple to believe that everything is by unanimous vote, there by making it look like the spirit is really directing things!"

Thing is, that kinda falls apart after you start looking at it logically.

x

If the decision really was "Spirit-directed", than anything resembling the democratic process should be unneccesary and redundant...

...however, a vote is still officially required, and can, in fact, skew the outcome of the decision, "Holy Spirit" notwithstanding.

x

Therefore, the fact that they vote at all ultimately undermines any claim that the decision is influenced by "Holy Spirit".