First time they publicly admit this or not?

TimDrake1914

I came across this on the newest WT Study Edition for 7/15/15 pg. 9 par. 14:
"They remember when congregations had a congregation servant rather than a body of elders, when countries had a branch servant rather than a Branch Committee, and when direction was given by the president of the Watch Tower Society rather than by a clearly established Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Is this the first time they publicly admit to this? Given how they explained during the "faithful and discreet slave" revision a couple of years ago that the slave has always been closely associated with the governing body, wouldn't this statement contradict that? I mean, they've always been trying to give the appearance that the GB has always been in charge, but to me, this statement would directly contradict that idea. Anyone else know of other sources where this reality is actually admitted to?

Garrett

Im pretty sure you can find this information in the big green proclaimers book but I may be wrong.

fastJehu

*** w02 10/1 pp. 18-19 par. 6 Cultivate Obedience as the End Draws Near ***
In the first century, when the issue of circumcision arose in 49 C.E., the governing body of that early slave class prayerfully considered the matter and came to a Scriptural conclusion. When they announced their decision by letter, the congregations obeyed the direction given and enjoyed God’s rich blessing. (Acts 15:6-15, 22-29; 16:4, 5) Likewise in modern times, the faithful slave through its Governing Body has clarified such important issues as Christian neutrality, the sanctity of blood, and the use of drugs and tobacco.

Finkelstein

Nothing new really, its just reiterating what was going on at the top leadership of the organization at one time , now they have been given new light so the GB that exists today is the designated FDSL.

More people in charge means greater spiritual strength and integrity by their assumption.

William Penwell

I seemed to recall that was the reason they gave us when they went to a Governing Body in the 1970's.

steve2

Nice to know they haven't completely disowned their recent and more distant history - but the selective published excerpts that make it through for mindless consumption in the Watchtower study are misleadingly sanitized.

Vidiot

Finkelstein - "More people in charge means greater spiritual strength and integrity by their assumption."

From what I've come to understand, the real reason was to prevent the increasingly weird speculations of one individual (i.e. Fred Franz) from dictating the Org's entire theology, particularly after the 1975 embarrassment.

By instituting a Governing Body, any new changes to policy/doctrine now required a supermajority vote to be approved (67% or greater), thusly ensuring that 1975-style-embarrassments (that ostensibly result from fundamentally flawed ideas being introduced and enforced) would be unlikely to repeat themselves in the near future.

However, I think a strong argument could be made that this decision is now coming back to bite them on the ass; it's become pretty obvious that a religion's survival in the Information Age now requires a considerable amount of progressive reform*, and requires that reform to occur at a much faster pace than it would have back in the 20th Century.

From what I can see, the GB's fundamentally conservative nature and now-firmly-entrenched decision-making structure (particularly towards - what would be to them - radical change) makes this considerably difficult, if not impossible.

x

* among other things, abandoning apocalypticism, creationism, homophobia, Biblical innerrency, exclusivity, etc...