A post on the issue of whether the WTS allows its adherents to vote churned some reaction from the object that passes for my brain. If the subject has previously been explained, I hope that you will forgive me.
The WTS seems to vacillate in its application of who the term "ambassador" applies to, the 'anointed, 'or the 'Great Crowd'. Note this comment in the Nov. 1st 1999 WT, 'Questions From Writing'…..sorry - 'Readers'.
....the apostle Paul referred to himself as an "ambassador" representing Christ to the people of his day. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ Jesus is now the enthroned King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, and they, like ambassadors, must announce this to the nations. Ambassadors are expected to be neutral and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries to which they are sent. As representatives of God’s heavenly Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses feel a similar obligation not to interfere in the politics of the countries where they reside.
The same year in the WT 4/15, this was stated:
Why is Paul’s expression "ambassadors substituting for Christ" such an appropriate one for anointed Christians? In ancient times, ambassadors were dispatched mainly during periods of hostility to see if warfare could be averted. Since the sinful world of mankind is alienated from God, he is sending his anointed ambassadors to inform people of his terms for reconciliation, urging them to seek peace with God
A problem rears its ugly head. Who really is an ambassador? The anointed? The Great Crowd? The guy who puts the eye in the You Know teddy-bear? One can hear the wheels of Writing grind and turn like Mick Jagger's aging libido as the 'envoy' class makes its bi-annual appearance in the magazines. Note please the comment in an article published the same year.
Whether we are anointed "ambassadors substituting for Christ" or are envoys with earthly hopes, we should never forget that this is Jehovah’s work, not ours.I see no note in the ‘Questions from Readers’ alluding to ‘envoys’, only ‘ambassadors’, or have I missed something?
Can 'envoys' vote if need be, or is this privilege only open to an 'ambassador' who is getting his tail end kicked by an Third World dictator in a polyester suit?
....I'll be the monitor, you be the janitor...