Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Inaccuracies and proposal to merge

This article currently gives wrong or confusing information. The Governing Body of today was not created until the 70's. the article lists MacMillan and Covington, but they were dead or no longer in the Governing Body when it got its modern form. In fact, I have been doubtful for this article for a long time. The article now gives in fact very little interesting information, it is just discussing lots about the history and various (mostly critical) viewpoints. I will ask if the article can be incorporated in Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose any merger. The article is too detailed to be included as a section of that article. You give two reasons for merging it: (a) You don't find it interesting and (b) it discusses lots of history and critical viewpoints. Neither of those reasons is sufficient to cut it down to a paragrapg or two to merge with the Organizational Structure article.

Some time ago I raised the problem of spurious names and dates in the article. My thread was at [1]. There was never any response. I'm happy to cut that list back. LTSally (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Two "coterminous" bodies ... and the problem of historical revisionism

These two topics are entirely unrelated, so I separated them. Step 1. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Two "coterminous" bodies

Reduced to headlined point. Un-edited is in below thread at #historical revisionism. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam has added the line "In 1971 it was explained that the corporate board of directors and the religion's governing body were not precisely coterminous." I have asked him to clarify the statement; he responded by providing a link to Wiktionary that explains that the word relates to such documents as property leases terminating at the same time. This is not an explanation or a clarification. The word "coterminous" does not appear in the Watchtower libarary as having been used in any Watch Tower publication, so I'm puzzled by when and how the WTS gave this explanation. Considering the word has its roots in the words "co-" and "terminus", meaning expiring together, I have absolutely no idea of what AuthorityTam is trying to say. [...] Which still leaves the mystery of the claim that the board and the Governing Body were not "precisely coterminous". Since neither body has terminated, and nor is there a plan to terminate either body, the rationale for such an "explanation" in 1971 (whenever, and by whom, it was) remains a puzzle. If anyone can shed light in this, I'd be delighted. LTSally (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's link was to wiktionary, specifically Wikt:coterminous.
IMHO, Wiktionary's current "first" definition is actually the least common usage of the term.
The term "coterminous" is defined elsewhere with only two definitions:
1.) having the same border or covering the same area.; 2.) being the same in extent; coextensive in range or scope.
For example, a group's ethics committee may or may not be coterminous with its rules committee (in that the two committees may or may not be composed of the identical list of committeemen). An obvious example of non-chronological "coterminous" is that of Kings County, New York, which is coterminous with the New York City borough (and former city) Brooklyn. By comparison, Xico, Mexico is a city which is not exactly coterminous with the Mexican "county" Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.
Consulting more than one dictionary can sometimes help an editor to attain clarity regarding what may have previously seemed to be a mysterious puzzle. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless an obscure word is directly related to an article topic, it is generally better to use a more common word rather than supplying a wiktionary link to the obscure word for its own sake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow; "coterminous" is an obscure word? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A google search of a word for a specific number of occurrences is irrelevant to the issue (though the results are significantly less than similar searches for common English words). The fact that you felt the need to supply a link to wiktionary reflects that you realise the term is not broadly used enough to require use in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the first entries in the search results are about the definition of the word, meaning that people are usually asking what the relatively obscure word means.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

historical revisionism

Copied entire above thread to date (next will winnow above thread to relevant point). --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam has added the line "In 1971 it was explained that the corporate board of directors and the religion's governing body were not precisely coterminous." I have asked him to clarify the statement; he responded by providing a link to Wiktionary that explains that the word relates to such documents as property leases terminating at the same time. This is not an explanation or a clarification. The word "coterminous" does not appear in the Watchtower libarary as having been used in any Watch Tower publication, so I'm puzzled by when and how the WTS gave this explanation. Considering the word has its roots in the words "co-" and "terminus", meaning expiring together, I have absolutely no idea of what AuthorityTam is trying to say.

Reading through decades of Watch Tower Society literature, it is patently obvious that the concept of the governing body was made up as it went along. In 1944 the occasional references to the "governing body" meant nothing more than the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. In 1955 they drew a veil over the concept, describing it as "closely identified" with the board of directors. In 1971 Franz gave a speech in which he stated forcefully that the society was just an agency used by the faithful and discreet slave class (in other words, it answered to him rather than the other way round). In October the decision was made to take the seven directors and add four other men and call that group the Governing Body, with capitals. From that point some furious historical revisionism occurred, trying to convince the faithful that the Governing Body had existed since 1884 and had somehow been responsible for decisions that had always been attributed to the president. When Russell developed his doctrines, did he consult with a governing body? If he did, who was it? When Rutherford sacked the majority of the board of 1917 was he working with the governing body or opposing it and acting independently, rebelliously? When he gave the green light to the publication of The Finished Mystery, unknown to the board, was he working with it or again opposing it? If, between 1971 and 1975 the governing body made decisions but it was powerless to enact them because the president was still in control, what power did the governing body really hold?

AuthorityTam's recent edits indicate that neither Maria Russell nor Hayden Covington were really members of the governing body despite having been members of the board. Why? Because (a) in 2009 The Watchtower decided that only males could be members of the Governing Body and (b) The Watchtower in 2001 decided, rather belatedly, that the Governing Body had always consisted only of anointed Christians, which Covington evidently didn't consider himself. Bottom line is this: Confusion reigns. Because they changed the rules as they went along, applying them retrospectively, it meant people who had been deemed to be members of the Governing Body were now not, and worse, that the Governing Body of past times had in fact been overridden, ignored and bypassed by presidents who didn't think it was worth consulting! A bit of a mess, really.

Which still leaves the mystery of the claim that the board and the Governing Body were not "precisely coterminous". Since neither body has terminated, and nor is there a plan to terminate either body, the rationale for such an "explanation" in 1971 (whenever, and by whom, it was) remains a puzzle. If anyone can shed light in this, I'd be delighted. LTSally (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam's edit was intended to added refs and pre-1971 names.

Prior to that edit, the article referred to a 'changed view in 1971', a conclusion likely based on this:

• 1970 Yearbook: "So really the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania."
• 1971 Watchtower 12/15 p. 754: "The governing body over all these theocratic congregations is whole-souled behind this evangelizing work...it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work"

Those ideas don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Consider analogy: How many family businesses have dad=president, mom=vp, jr=secy, sis=treas? Yet the business serves the family, not the other way around. Again, thats AN ANALOGY.

As a clearly defined concept, GBJW starts at 1971. A little history is useful, the pre-1971 names useful. ...But it seems tiresome and disingenuous to use this article as just another "christmas tree" upon which to hang a bunch more anti-Rutherford stuff.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues 2010-03

The bloviation in sections Reorganization and Headquarters purge seems:

• Heavily reliant on Ray Franz as the only "source" for many facts

Franz is used as a source at two points in the "Headquarters purge" section. The rest of the section is drawn from three other sources. In the "Reorganization" section Franz is cited as a source for three points, which is reasonable considering he was a member of the Governing Body and well placed to note what was happening. There are two other sources for that section. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Duplicated in other articles, where it makes more sense
• Of questionable relevance in this particular article

Based on your comments in this thread, I'd be dubious of accepting any claim of yours that content of the article is "of questionable relevance". But go ahead, raise any content you think is irrelevant. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, some details...

• Penton's 1997 observation (...'most in their 80s and 90s'...) is now of questionable relevance; by 2010 only two GBJW members are over 75.

I agree. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ray Franz's abundant claims must be more plainly labeled as such, or removed.
  

I don't know what "abundant claims" you refer to, but if any contentious statements are in the article and sourced to Franz, there's no problem in identifying him as the source of them. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Most of "Faithful and discreet slave" section should be at Faithful and discreet slave article instead, with a link from this section.

Disagree. The Governing Body claims it represents the faithful and discreet slave class. A discussion of the relationship between the two, including a critical assessment, is appropriate in this article. LTSally (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some discussion is appropriate. Most of the current section is overkill parked here at this article, especially considering the existence of a separate article entirely devoted to the subject. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sullivan neither resigned nor was removed. Eleven months before he died, he moved to the Wallkill facility and so did not attend GB meetings (held in Brooklyn) for those last months. Thus, someone (not me) referred to Sullivan as an "active" GB member until 1973. If Sullivan had sufficiently recovered, he would have rejoined the meetings of the body of which he was still a member. Knorr also convalesced at Wallkill, only it was from January 1977 until his death in June 1977, mooting the issue of "active until year".

Either he was a member until he died, or he wasn't. Is there a reference stating that he "would have rejoined the meetings of the body of which he was still a member"? If so, I'd be happy to move it back to the other section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan was a GBJW member until his death in 1974. In September 1973, Sullivan resigned only from the Watch Tower board of directors, likely so that the 1973 annual meeting could elect his replacement. After his resignation from the board, Sullivan was still listed as a GBJW member.

"The Governing Body", 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pages 257-258
The [1974] Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses consists [note the present-tense] of eleven brothers, all anointed of God. They are as follows: Frederick W. Franz, Raymond V. Franz, George D. Gangas, Leo K. Greenlees, John O. Groh, Milton G. Henschel, William K. Jackson, Nathan H. Knorr, Grant Suiter, Thomas J. Sullivan and Lyman A. Swingle. [...] T. J. Sullivan, who has been a faithful and beloved brother and director of the Society for approximately forty years, had found it necessary to resign [his directorship] on September 5, 1973. [Note the past tense] This he did due to physical handicap, mainly his sight, failing health, and his age being eighty-five years. As Brother Sullivan wrote in his letter: “It seems beyond my physical capacity to meet the very heavy requirements of a director of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Under the circumstances therefore it seems entirely in accord with Jehovah’s will . . . that this resignation take place as soon as possible.” [emph added]

A more encyclopedic question might have been: Is there a reference stating that Sullivan resigned or was removed from the GBJW? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying a suitable reference as requested. Given that you clearly understood the request, it was unnecessary for you to complain about how it might alternatively have been requested. Questions at Talk pages don't have to be "encyclopedic".--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Unnecessary complaining and counter-complaining is unseemly. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Currently, the section Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Watch Tower Society board members says, "Though the Governing Body was formally defined in 1971, the term was also applied to board members of the Watch Tower Society prior to that time." That needs to be rephrased to better reflect their publications' actual statements, and clarify that the "application" of the term was not the enumerated names in that section (unless it was, then that can be ignored or added in footnote maybe)

As noted below, that's going to be a challange because of the Watch Tower Society's rubbery definition of the governing body that changed over time. Feel free to explain it better, but please avoid adding further synthesis. If the society can't get its story straight, there's no requirement for Witnesses do do it for them. LTSally (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I only intended that wording as a starting point, in place of the patently unnecessary distinction between the Watch Tower Society board members of Jehovah's Witnesses vs. the Bible Students (which included misleading information about the Bible Students (all?) becoming known as JWs). The wording can definitely be improved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Primarily, wording should discourage the natural inference that the "GB" term was applied to named individual directors before 1971. Unless it was, which I don't think happened; for example, did any article ever state or strongly imply, "Macmillan/Van Amburgh/Riemer was a member of the gGoverning bBody of Jehovah's Witnesses."? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Moot following move to Watch Tower Society#Directors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding Covington and Mrs. Russell, the "subsequently" more than implies that they had been considered members of a religious governing body during their directorships. Please source or remove.

It was you who, through a process of synthesis of published material, have singled those two out as not ever having been part of the governing body on the basis of WT articles in 2001 and 2006. When Maria Russell and Hayden Covington were members of the board, they were — by the definition of the 1943 Watchtower and 1970 Yearbook cited in the article — part of the governing body. If you have a source to indicate that during their lifetime neither was considered to be part of the governing body (which was then the board), or that both were later explicitly deemed by the WTS not to have been members, then produce it. Otherwise it should either be made clear with the use of the word "subsequently" that they were later deemed not to be members or, better, delete your original research. LTSally (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm happy to stipulate that Covington and Mrs. Russell were part of a (lowercase) governing body of the Watch Tower corporation. That is different from being part of "THE Governing Body" (capitalized) of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion.
Even if a 1970 JW publication stated that the 1970 board and the 1970 governing body were "really" the same persons, that was a practical acknowledgment of that snapshot in time; it didn't express theological doctrine or override that the two bodies were previously and subsequently described as "identified with" one another. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Moot following move to Watch Tower Society#Directors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope to look at these changes soon. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything to be gained by listing former directors of the Watch Tower Society on the Governing Body article? If there is dispute about whether these were part of the Governing Body, they are better listed under the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania article as directors. A list of Governing Body members should sensibly then include only those who were part of the body from 1971 onwards. That would avoid any need for private interpretation about whether some individuals were on the religion's governing body or not. And note, there was never a governing body of the Watch Tower corporation. It had a board of directors, which was always and continues to be identified as such. LTSally (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that directors are better listed at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, and that such a list/section would be a useful addition to that article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done following move to Watch Tower Society#Directors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)