The Governing Body has NEVER claimed to be inspired…

by Alfred 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Billen76

    There were no "Governing Body" in 55. Those guys appeared in the 70'es.

    The article tells about the collective group of "annointed ones" as the organisation, which the "jonadabs" supports.

    Now "the organisation"/"collective congregation" also includes "the chiefs" (elders, ms aso.)

    Else you are absolutely right.

    It is all spin to fool our brains into believing, that nothing is something, and nobodies are somebodies.

  • wannabefree

    That is a great article ... nice find.

    Earlier in the article it is clear that the "Organization" considers the term "prophet" to by synonymous with "channel of communication".

    *** w55 5/15 p. 310 par. 7 Christian Channel of Communication ***
    the Word, who had personal access to the Living God's presence and who had heard Jehovah individually communicate living waters of truth out of his own mouth, was sent to earth to become the lowly man Jesus. The Word then became flesh to dwell among men as Jehovah's greatest prophet or channel of communication to convey priceless words of wisdom directly to honest men.-Ex. 33:20; Deut. 4:24; John 1:14.

    (That article has many jewels ... did you know that Jehovah's witnesses were holding conventions in the first century?

    *** w55 5/15 p. 312 par. 16 Christian Channel of Communication ***
    But finally, A.D. 49, at a convention of Jehovah's witnesses in Jerusalem, several older ones of the governing body showed from Biblical argument and by divine revelation that Gentiles need not be circumcised.)

  • wannabefree

    .... another note from what Alfred posted above ....

    Consider please paragraph 15 on page 305 .... progressively the writer subtly refers to what God's prophet-like organization publishes as "the word of God"

    *** w55 5/15 p. 305 par. 15 Jehovah's Channel of Communication ***
    15 The Bible clearly indicates that any particular divine message sent along the line of communication is itself officially referred to by God's servants as the "word of Jehovah." The expression "word of Jehovah" is used at least 252 times in the Scriptures and its corresponding phrase "word of God" appears 104 times. This legal term gives the stamp of authenticity to the many inspired revelations emanating from Jehovah as contained in the Bible. The expression fittingly identifies the origin of the line of communication. So hereafter when you read in the Bible the phrase "word of Jehovah," take immediate note that an important message of divine communication is being referred to.

  • 1975

    Alfred, how about being under the "influence of the Holy Spirit" like one who is under the influence of alcohol? I've always remembered this organzation as God's channel of communication.


  • BluesBrother

    I agree with Alfred

    But when you think of it, “spirit-directed” is actually more presumptuous than “spirit-inspired”.

    It gives a tighter form of direction definitions from

    "Inspire –verb (used with object)

    1. to fil l with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence: His courage inspired his followers. 2. to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): to inspire confidence in others. 3. to fil or effect with a specified feeling, thought, etc.: to inspire a person with distrust."

    Whereas "Directed" 1. guided, regulated, or managed: a carefully directed program. 2. subject to direction , guidance, regulation, etc.

  • Rabbit

    Marked ! This will be a handy 'little' item -- someday.

  • scary21

    Great thread ! .......thanks for the info..........Makes you THINK !


  • Crisis of Conscience
    Crisis of Conscience

    Totally agree with Rabbit. I'm marking this also.

    Thanks Alfred.


  • Scully

    The thing is, if they never claimed to be inspired or anointed or appointed or directed by god, then why bother listening to them?

    At some point, the seed is planted that they are worthy of following and being listened to more than any other dingbat blowing smoke out of their arse.

    They can't have it both ways.

  • FatFreek 2005
    FatFreek 2005

    Hi Alfred,

    Great find on that 1955 article. To give a little more perspective on that Freddie character you talk of (Fred Franz, who later became President of the WTBTS), the following is a snippet from the Society-embarrasing Walsh trial transcript. Keep in mind that your referenced article was only a year following the trial where Franz (below, answering questions from a trial attorney) is attempting to justify following the organization (meaning himself -- since he and Knorr were steering the ship) despite the fact that what they were teaching may be later revealed as un-truth.

    Q. You have studied the literature of your movement?

    A. Yes, but not all of it. I have not studied the seven volumes of "Studies in the Scriptures," and I have not studied this matter that you are mentioning now of 1874. I am not at all familiar with that.

    Q. Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ's Second Coming was in 1874?

    A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.

    Q. That was the publication of false prophesy?

    A. That was the publication of a false prophesy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophesy that was false or erroneous.

    Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?

    A. Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

    Q. You do not believe in the worldly armies, do you?

    A. We believe in the Christian Army of God.

    Q. Do you believe in the worldly armies?

    A. We have nothing to say about that, we do not preach against them, we merely say that the worldly armies, like the nations of the world today, are a part of Satan's Organisation, and we do not take part in them, but we do not say the nations cannot have their armies, we do not preach against warfare, we are merely claiming our exemption from it, that is all.

    Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?

    A.I agree that.

    Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

    A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erroneous and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

    Q. Unity at all costs?

    A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

    Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

    A. That is conceded to be true.

    Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?

    A. I think -- -- --

    Q. Would you say yes or no?

    A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.

    Q. Do you call that religion?

    A. It certainly is.

    Q. Do you call it Christianity?

    A. I certainly do.

Share this