Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 4

Watchtower or Watch Tower
Please take note of a few things when referring to the Watch Tower Society or the Watchtower Society, derived from usage in JW publications:

Watchtower Society should be used when referring to administrative functions, specifically including:
 * Assets (radio stations, farms, factories, printeries, real estate purchased for such facilities) owned by the Society
 * The Society's legal department
 * International corporations ('legal instruments') used by the Society
 * Hosting Gilead/Missionary Schools
 * Production and shipping of literature

Watch Tower Society should be used when referring to evangelical functions, specifically including:
 * Donations to the Society (Insurance policies, bank accounts, stocks & bonds, real estate, wills, trusts.) *Note however that the Society instructs that annuities be directed to the Watchtower Society
 * Branch Offices
 * Construction work
 * Teaching programmes
 * Writing of literature
 * Organizing conventions, including renting of facilities
 * Operation of Society facilities

When referring to the following, context determines which should be used:
 * Headquarters
 * President (or secretary, etc)

Regarding publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, though there is some variation (mostly in first-person accounts): -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Literature published prior to 1986 is "published by the Watch Tower [Bible and Tract] Society [of New York]".
 * Literature published from 1986 to 2000 is "published by the Watchtower [Bible and Tract] Society [of New York]".
 * Literature since 2001 is "published by Jehovah's Witnesses".
 * Can be "Watchtower/Watch Tower [Bible and Tract] Society [of New York]", but never "Watchtower [Bible and Tract] Society of Pennsylvania".

Larson
Regarding the sentence: "Hence, neither the current president of the Watch Tower Society, Don A. Adams, nor the the current president of the Watchtower Society, Max Larson, is a member of the Governing Body." My understanding is that Larson is president of the New Work corporation, the organization delegated with organizing activities in the US, and therefore of no great notability. There are other organizations around the world overseeing matters in other ciuntries -- the ISBA in London, for example: the heads of these corporations are no more relevant than Larson, I'd contend. It is also confusing introducing this organization simply as "the Watchtower Society" without elaboration. I'd suggest deleting reference to Larson. LTSally (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else introduced Larson's name to the article.


 * For most of their existences, the same name was president of both PA and NY corp's. It might be interesting to note that since 2000 the two have had different presidents.


 * Larson is of arguable notability. I think Larson has actually had a Wikipedia article a few times over the years, but he need not be mentioned in this article unless/until he's appointed to the GBJW. At this time, I'm not interested in pushing for an article about him.


 * BTW, the WTNY owns USA real estate, but it's also the legally-designated "publisher" of most literature (whereas WTPA actually holds the copyrights).


 * --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of View
This article is like a commentary of R. Franz and Penton on the WT claims. This is POV for sure. Their opinions must not be given so much space in the article and must not be presented as the only truth of the case.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please indicate which specific statements of Franz and Penton you are disputing? Are you disputing the veracity of particular statements, or just arguing against statements made by former JWs?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the extensive use of Franz and Penton in the article. (Not to mention that Franz is actually self-published.) Such an extensive use of their comments makes the article look like a commentary.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 12 references from Penton, all from a single book, which is a specific study about Jehovah's Witnesses. There are 20 references from Franz, from two books; Franz was a member of the Governing Body and therefore would be expected to know details about its operation. Most of the citations of both these authors are plain statements about the Governing Body rather than the authors' opinions. If you believe such details about the Governing Body to be false as a result of the authors' status as former members of the religion, please indicate the specific article content. These details should be handled separately to concerns about the weight of those authors' opinions; however, there are only a small few instances where such opinions are stated in the article; this doesn't seem excessive to me, but is certainly open to discussion. The article also includes 20 references to Watch Tower Society literature from eight books in addition to various issues of The Watchtower.
 * Perhaps you meant that the article lends too much weight to those sources (which doesn't actually seem to be the case), as there doesn't seem to be much to your POV claim. Please present what you are actually disputing.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of Franz's books were self-published. Both also make extensive use of copies of documents to support claims. He is well-known as a former Governing Body member so has much information unavailable elsewhere and he has been interviewed by Time magazine, among others, which helps to provide assurance of his bona fides.


 * There is one point of view, clearly expressed as such, by Franz, in the closing sentence of "History", and the section on his views of the Faithful and Discreet Slave concept (in which again he provides a unique insight). Otherwise it seems straightforward and factual, with the one caution that much of the "1980 headquarters purge" section relies primarily on Franz's account. Other books have subsequently reported on this as well, however. From your response to Jeffro, it sounds as if you don't have doubts about the truthfulness of of his statements. Possibly a Watch Tower statement may be found to balance Penton's claims in the third paragraph of "2000 and beyond". Are you able to find any? I don't see that this article expresses a point of view. LTSally (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll have to work on that little by little. Let’s begin with the formulation of the Governing Body. “The origins of the Governing Body are unclear”. What does this suppose to mean? The origin of the Governing Body is clear, it's the institution of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Society, who had increased spiritual authority after Rutherford’s death. In the seventies, the size and the spiritual authority of the GB was expanded and the President of the Society was considered equal to the other members on a biblical basis.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Vassilis. I've missed you! The origins of the Governing Body are unclear because the WTS has repeatedly redefined the Governing Body. Was it the board of directors, as claimed in 1970? Was it a body that existed in 1884, even though Russell -- president of the society -- apparently was unaware of its existence and never referred to it? Did it take executive action in 1942, as claimed in the 1972 Yearbook? Or was it the body that was established in 1976, a body that had little connection with the seven directors of the society? You have expressed an opinion. Please back that up with some proof in the form of a reference. LTSally (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The formal creation of the Governing Body isn't especially unclear, so perhaps the statement about the origin could be reworded to more accurately reflect that the Governing Body in its current form was developed in the early 70s (and Watch Tower literature began capitalizing the term from 1972 onward when referring to the modern corporate Governing Body), but that the term had previously been used more arbitrarily.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sally for your wellcome, this is very kind of you. But sadly, due to my busy schedule, you won't see me often. Today is a holiday here, and nobody works. Jeffro, I like your proposal, but I want first to study the article of WT 1970, 755-762.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No discussion in more than a month on the supposed breach of neutrality. The fact that no one has attempted to address the supposed issue suggests there is no issue. Are we safe to remove the tag? LTSally (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a point of view issue and problem with the statement: "This renders the vast majority of anointed Witnesses powerless to contribute to the development or change of doctrines.", and affects neutrality. "Renders powerless" is wording that makes it appear that anointed Jehovah's Witnesses feel that they are somehow 'disinfranchised'. Which would not be true. Anointed Jehovah's Witnesses have literally 'zero' interest in obtaining 'power' to contribute to the development or change of doctrines.

Those who claimed to be part of the organization (such as Raymond Franz) do not wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses any longer. Therefore, he would not be able to speak as "an anointed Jehovah's Witness". He may be one of Jehovah's anointed ones as Saul was, but he is no longer a Witness. His and others desire for 'anointed members to obtain power' would be meaningless, since he and others do not speak as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Speaking as an anointed member of Jehovah's Witness, the statement would be more accurate to read: "Anointed Jehovah's Witnesses look to and support the Governing Body as their decision making body" or similar wording. This can be stated, because in a recent WatchTower this very point was covered and discussed by anointed Christians worldwide at the congregational level on August 30, 2009. On that date, active Witnesses met and studied the article in more than 100,000 congregations, that we are in agreement and support the Governing Body (June 15, 2009 WatchTower, page 23,24) Airelon (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase you object to is a reasonable reflection of a statement made by James Penton. His discussion (p.211) refers to "an idealized diagram of the theocratic organization of Jehovah's Witnesses", and he comments: "As will be noted, it gives significance to the supposed role of the 'faithful and discreet slave' class. This class, however, as a class, plays no part in the governance of the organization and most of its members are relatively powerless. It is true, of course, that all those who actually govern the organization must be part of it, as has been noted earlier. But, in fact, their authority stems from other factors." (emphasis in original).


 * His point is that although, in a chart published in the WT 1 Jan, 1977, page 16, the hierarchy is portrayed as (1) God (2) Jesus (3) faithful and discreet slave class (3) Governing Body etc, the slave "class" as a group actually plays no part in the governance of the organization. The Governing Body clearly meet and make decisions; the slave class does not. Do you claim that he is wrong in that assertion? Your suggested wording is not "more accurate" in dealing with that specific issue. It simply raises another one. The issue of support for decisions by the Governing Body is not mentioned in the article. And the fact that 100,000 Witnesses studied the article recently does nothing to change that. The Watchtower says what the Governing Body wants. If the Governing Body writes that all Witnesses, including anointed Witnesses, support them, then that's what people answer at Watchtower meetings. There is clearly no scope at meetings to discuss this openly or express a dissenting view.


 * I'm not suggesting that rank and file, or anointed, Witnesses, do not support the GB. I'd say the vast majority do. But that section of the article deals with one of the quirks of Witnesses, where a group of people, unconnected around the world, are said to play a part in establishing doctrine, yet the facts say otherwise. My original wording in that paragraph says much the same, but a little less bluntly: "In practice the Governing Body seeks neither advice nor approval from any anointed Witnesses other than high-ranking members at Brooklyn Bethel when formulating policy and doctrines or when approving material for publications and conventions, leaving most anointed Witnesses relatively powerless." I don't know whether you find that less objectionable. LTSally (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments of one editor who claims to be a member of the 'anointed' are not necessarily representative of the views of all members of that group (membership of which is almost entirely subjective anyway). However, it does not seem necessary to use wording such as 'renders powerless' in favour of more-neutral wording, and the point is still clear that the bulk of the self-proclaimed members of the 'anointed' have no role in determining doctrine without that phrase.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can help to clear things up. The issue is that Penton fundamentally misunderstood the diagram printed in the Watchtower (Jan. 1, 1977, p. 16) as a chart of authority, a kind of "org chart". He admits as much when he says "The Watchtower's chart fails to include within it much of the structure that is basic to the administration of the Witness community" -- because it is not that kind of chart (administrative structure). Rather, the chart represents the concept that the Witnesses call a "channel of communication", which has been explained numerous times in their publications (see Revelation Climax, chap. 3, p. 16; also w86 5/15, p. 13, paragraphs 15-16, All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial, p. 9, paragraph 16). The witnesses believe that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave Class" participate in this channel by their preaching in their local area. The Governing Body is seen as part of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave Class", just like head and feet are part of the same body (The apostle Paul gave the same argument, see 1 Corinthians 12:14-31). October 12, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.239.39 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You clear nothing up. In the hope that they I would gain more information on this "channel of communication", I have looked up the three references you cite, Revelation, W86 and SI, and find only references to God using the FDS as a "channel for giving spiritual nourishment", "channel for giving spiritual light" and an ambiguous reference in the SI book to "God's prophet on earth" receiving a message from Christ, possibly through angels. Those statements may be enough for you to believe it as a religious article of faith, (something which the Watchtower would describe in any other religion as credulity and blind faith) but in an encyclopedic terms this is vague and contains no information. In dealing with the relationship between the GB and the FDS, none of those references provide a word of detail on how 10,000 geographically dispersed individuals transmit the information they've received from Jesus to their spokesman or representative, the Governing Body in Brooklyn. Can you provide a reference for your claim about members of the anointed participating in the chain of communication by preaching in their local area? I spent more than 20 years in the organization and I have to confess that's a new one! If this information is to be added to the article it has to have a reliable source. Can you provide it? LTSally (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, again, we are running into POV issues. The problem is one of inference through poor word choice usage. According to Wikipedia's article on neutrality guidelines, an inference can cause problems with point of view and neutrality.  What the article is then doing, is expressing the opinion of one author. His point of view. An author, who it can be demonstrated has an emotional bias against Jehovah's Witnesses.  Therefore, in the end, the wikipedia article is expressing the bias against Witnesses.  And since his is the only opinion that is being expressed, not only do we have a PoV issue here, we also have an undue weight issue with this article, since the opinion of ex-Jehovah's Witnesses are the only opnions that are sought for understanding of this issue.


 * I quote Wikipedia's own standard:


 * "Bias


 * Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." - Wikipedia Neutral Point of view


 * Look at the statement (I will include some of your own comments from the overall quote: "is discussion (p.211) refers to "an idealized diagram of the theocratic organization of Jehovah's Witnesses", and he comments: "As will be noted, it gives significance to the supposed role of the 'faithful and discreet slave' class. This class, however, as a class, plays no part in the governance of the organization and most of its members are relatively powerless. It is true, of course, that all those who actually govern the organization must be part of it, as has been noted earlier. But, in fact, their authority stems from other factors."


 * "To use phraseology such as "idealized" and followed by the word "supposed role", denotes a problem with POV. When he states "This class, however, as a class, plays no part in the governance of the organization and most of its members are relatively powerless." is only the authors point of view. It's his opinion, the authors opinion that the class does not play a part in the governance of the organization. That's all.  It is not remaining neutral, and denotes a problem with neutrality.  It can be demonstrated that Jehovah's Witnesses feel otherwise.  Not only through articles that the Governing Body prepares through the WatchTower magazine.  But if an interview with only one anointed Witness out of all 10,000 contradicted the authors claims, then it shows the authors statement to be a point of view.
 * It is not at all merely the author's point of view that most of the 'anointed' are "relatively powerless". It is a plain fact that most of them have no input into doctrine. Whether they agree with the situation, or whether such a thing may be good or bad are points of view, but their lack of authority is a bare statement of fact.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This point of view is taken from reading one article from the WatchTower on the part of the author. Therefore, since this is part of his evidence by which he comes to his conclusion, any further WatchTower articles that comments further on the topic would be admissable for reviewing the topic. This is not a matter of "what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe" versus "what does the WatchTower state".  By making the statment are virtually powerless, the article is inferring a sense of disinfranchisement onto anointed Jehovah's Witnesses.  Therefore, to call them "powerless" with associated phraseology of "supposed" that denotes they are disinfranchised, and denotes POV.  It is a matter of inference in the article through phraseology.


 * The question then becomes: "Do Jehovah's Witnesses, who are anointed, 1) Seek Power to make changes, and 2) Are they powerless to make changes?"  The answer to the first question is a definite no.  Again, the recent WatchTower of June 15, 2009, page 23,24 prepared by the Governing Body, in a discussion regarding individual annointed members of this class who view themselves as "individual domestics" -
 * "They do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special insights beyond what even some experienced members of the "great crowd" may have. (Rev. 7:9) They do not believe that they necessarily have more holy spirit than their companions of the "other sheep" have (John 10:16).  They do not expect special treatment; nor do they claim that their partaking of the emblems places them above the appointed elders in the congregation." "The Faithful Slave and It's Governing Body" (June 15, 2009) WatchTower, page 23,24

.
 * This article was discussed on August 30th, 2009 in all 100,000 + congregations worldwide, and the anointed members of the congregation were in complete agreement. I would argue that this was not only an explanation from the WatchTower on the belief system of Jehovah's Witnesses?  But also would be classified as journalistic reporting as to the reported statements of individuals who are anointed Jehovah's Witnesses.  If only one anointed Jehovah's Witness agrees with that statement by the Governing Body, then James Penton comments are proven to be point of view, and only his conclusion.  Therefore, the answer to point number one is that is reasonably and easily demonstratably that even some anointed Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT seek to be the individual that has the power to make changes.
 * Agreement by "only one" member of the (non-GB) anointed with the Governing Body does not discredit Penton's statement. (A logical fallacy analogous to saying that if one apple from a box of apples is good then none are bad.) Indeed, if only one does not agree with the Governing Body, then Penton's statement has merit. I haven't yet read the rest of the rant below, but may have additional comments later.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which, in actuality, is besides the point, since again, it's a question of the phraseology that is being used here to support a Point of View. The point of view of James Penton.


 * As to your statement


 * "And the fact that 100,000 Witnesses studied the article recently does nothing to change that. The Watchtower says what the Governing Body wants. If the Governing Body writes that all Witnesses, including anointed Witnesses, support them, then that's what people answer at Watchtower meetings. There is clearly no scope at meetings to discuss this openly or express a dissenting view"


 * is meaningless, and again, shows a problem with POV. If you are examining the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses from an outside, neutral viewpoint, then one would have to acknowledge that the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are such that active interviews with Jehovah's Witnesses reveal that they do not believe in expressing dissenting views against those with a measure of authority in the congregation of any type.  Therefore, they do not seek power, ergo, they do not feel disinfranchised and to use wording to others that could indicate this indicates a problem with POV.


 * "What if we are tempted to murmur because of having doubts about certain teachings that Jehovah’s people hold in common? Then let us not be impatient. The ‘faithful slave’ may eventually publish something that answers our questions and clears up our doubts. It is wise to seek the help of Christian elders. (Jude 22, 23) Prayer, personal study, and association with spiritually-minded fellow believers can also help to remove doubts and can deepen our appreciation for the faith-strengthening Bible truths we have learned through Jehovah’s channel of communication." - "Focus on the Goodness of Jehovah's Organization" (July 15, 2006), The WatchTower, page 22


 * Therefore whether they had a venue to do this or not, is pointless, and would not be used. In order to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, one must answer a series of questions, in which the person states that they of their own free choice - believe that the channel used by Jehovah God, is that of the faithful and discreet slave, and will work in cooperation with it. (Assemblies and Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses, at the end of any Baptism talk).  One cannot become a Witness, unless one agrees with the statements that are made in the WatchTower that the Governing Body has written.


 * To point number two. Are they powerless to make changes?  When one looks at the entire belief system of Jehovah's Witnesses as explained through the WatchTower, again, the answer would be no - they do not feel that they are powerless.  Therefore, to call anointed Jehovah's Witnesses 'powerless', would be an issue wherein the article is inferring the power that they feel they possess.  It would be an article trying to infer some sort of power struggle.  The article thus loses neutrality; the aim of Wikipedia.


 * The entire belief system is not being examined on a neutral basis. James Penton is coming to one conclusion, based off of one chart.  Jehovah's Witnesses belief system through the WatchTower states that if they as individuals felt they had a concern and point for concern organizationally that either Jehovah or Jesus felt could be made in the organization as a whole, they would pray to Jehovah regarding the matter.  Their belief system is such that they feel that if Jehovah felt the point was an issue that needed corrected, then Jehovah would move those on the decision making body of the anointed class, namely, the Governing Body, to make the necessary change. If the change was not made, then Jehovah's Witnesses feel that Jehovah does not feel the matter is of enough concern to cause the necessary changes, through Jesus, to the Faithful and Discreet slave class, since the belief system mentioned in the 1977 WatchTower demonstrates that they believe that believe that Jehovah God and Jesus Christ are actually making the decisions.


 * "Jehovah has great love and concern for his anointed ones and watches over them carefully. (1Ch 16:22; Ps 2:2, 5; 20:6; 105:15; Lu 18:7) David recognized that God was the one who chose and appointed His anointed ones and that it was God who would judge them" - (Anointed) Insight of the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 114


 * "Anointed Christians also treasure their privilege of approaching Jehovah in prayer through Jesus Christ." - "Jehovah's Great Spiritual Temple" (July 1st, 1996) WatchTower, page 18, par. 16.


 * "Albert Schroeder, a longtime member of the Governing Body who recently finished his earthly course, wrote: “The Governing Body meets every Wednesday, opening the meeting with prayer and asking for the direction of Jehovah’s spirit. A real effort is made to see that every matter that is handled and every decision that is made is in harmony with God’s Word the Bible" - "Loyal to Christ and his Faithful Slave" (April 1st, 2007), The WatchTower, page 24.


 * "Those holy ones for whom God’s spirit pleads are Jesus’ anointed followers, with a heavenly hope. But whether you have a heavenly calling or an earthly hope, as a Christian you can have the help of God’s holy spirit. Jehovah sometimes gives a direct answer to a specific prayer. At times, however, you may be so distressed that you are unable to put your feelings into words and may only be able to beseech Jehovah with unspoken groanings. In fact, you may not know what is best for you and might even ask for the wrong thing unless you pray for holy spirit. God knows that you want his will to be done, and he is aware of what you really need." - "Jehovah's Spirit Leads His People" (September 15th, 1992), The WatchTower, page 16


 * "Like David of old, elders, whether of the anointed or the “other sheep,” pray to Jehovah: “Your spirit is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” (Psalm 143:10) And Jehovah hears their prayer. By means of his Son, He grants them His spirit, and Jesus uses this means actively to lead his disciples on earth. Naturally, all elders must submit to Christ’s “right hand” of control, guidance, and direction, which he exercises by means of the spirit and the spirit-begotten members of the Governing Body." - "Christs Active Leadership Today" (August 1st, 1987), The WatchTower, page 19, paragraph 14.


 * Therefore, the way the article stands at the moment? It is leaving out that very key belief of the Witnesses, from the 1987 WatchTower.  If you quote only part of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, and come to a conclusion regarding that belief based only on a segment of that belief, instead of the belief in it's entirety?  Then there is an issue.  With the 1987 article, it would therefore be more accurate, and neutral to make the statement:


 * "Anointed Jehovah's Witnesses look to and are encouraged to support the Governing Body as their decision making body on earth" or similar wording. Such wording is not indicating that this belief is the true belief.  It is simply a neutral statement of what Jehovah's Witnesses themselves believe, since their attitude towards the governing body is what is under discussion with the statement we are discussing.  We are discussion a conflict regarding the Witness viewpoint.  Therefore, the witness viewpoint should be properly expressed.  Now if the statement is seperated that others see a conflict?  Then there would be no problem there.  But the phrase under discussion has a particular slant, as if trying to speak for anointed Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * Therefore, the statement could be corrected, and I suggest:


 * "Anointed Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged through the pages of the WatchTower to support the Governing Body as their decision making body on earth, as Jehovah's means of communication. If they have any matter of concern, they are encouraged to approach Jehovah about the matter of concern in prayer. Some who are not Jehovah's Witness are critical of this viewpoint." or similar wording.  But to use the phrase "they are powerless" is an attempt to speak for anointed Jehovah's Witnesses.  That's a problem with both point of view, ergo, neutrality.


 * Once again, the problem is one of inference through poor word choice usage. According to Wikipedia's article on neutrality guidelines, an inference can cause problems with point of view and neutrality.  In fact, this article contains a few other problems (Such as the criticisms not being located in a seperate category) that would need addressed in a seperate section, before the articles quality could be upgraded.  Thus, there is an "Undue Weight" issue within this article

Airelon (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note for starters that the sentence about powerlessness has been removed from the article. Hence much of your overlong, repetitive and circumlocutional comment is redundant.


 * I see no problem with adding a comment from the Watchtower about anointed Witnesses being urged by the GB to support them. I'm not sure that really addresses the issue, however. The section deals with the relationship between the GB and the FDS class, and specifically with the WT claim that the GB is the spokesman for the "class" of 10,000 anointed Witnesses. Both Penton and Franz make the point that although the GB "speaks" for this group of 10,000, it doesn't consult them when coming to doctrinal and other decisions. Despite what you read into it, there is nothing in that statement that suggests or implies that anointed Witnesses object to this or wish it were different. The June 15, 2009 WT article in fact supports the view of those two authors, and I'll add a reference to that to the article. It is the addition of contrary views that creates balance, not the deletion of opposing views. Your suggested wording seeks to simply eliminate the view of Penton and Franz.


 * Essentially the Watchtowers of June 15, 2009 and Sep 15, 1992 tell anointed members that if they have a viewpoint that differs from the current doctrine, they should tell Jehovah about it and leave it there. Through a means the WT has never stated explicitly, God will presumably detail the concerns of those 10,000 Witnesses to the GB, who may or may not act. This is my assumption only, and you may have a different assumption. Without an explicit statement from the WTS, however, nothing can be stated in an encyclopedia article as a fact on this matter.


 * You are wide of the mark when discussing bias when referring to Penton's use of the words "idealised" and "supposed" in his book. What counts is what ends up in the Wikipedia article, and his conclusion has been expressed fairly and with neutral language. You also make some false assumptions that (a) what is written in the WT has just journalistic validity or credibility, (b) that all anointed Witnesses agree with something written in the Watchtower and (c) the fact that it was "studied" in catechistical fashion in 100,000 congregations proves that it is true. In the end, it is just another view. The WTS can state its doctrine and viewpoint, and other commentators are free to make their observations on this. LTSally (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In reference to the June 15, 2009 and September 15, 1992 WatchTower, regarding the Governing Bodies position regarding what Jehovah's decisions regarding prayers he hears from the FDS? And your statement that it is an assumption, it is.  I could just as easily quote several WatchTower articles that support my statement.  I had figured that the points I had made were long enough.


 * I am not wide of the mark when discussing bias in referring to Penton's use of words, nor of Penton or R. Franz themselves. Both were Jehovah's Witnesses at one time.  That is a fact. They were then removed from the organization through a disciplinary action by Jehovah's Witnesses.  That is a fact.  Whereas Penton and R. Franz may argue the points of that action, and may themselves no longer wish to be Witnesses or not is besides the point.  Whether or not these individuals are viewed as 'correct' in their viewpoint or not, does not change the fact that those two facts alone speak to both of their neutrality and their bias which affect the article.  I could quote wikipedia's own articles on this matter, but I think the point stands.


 * Again, the fact that only these authors viewpoints are peppered (Look at the referneces on the article for pities sake) says much to the weight problems this article contains. Their claims being heavily weighted and presented in this and other articles arises the issue of undue weight by two individuals, wherein at least there is the possibility of a proverbial 'ax to grind'.


 * Again, I reference Wikipedia's article on bias. We all have bias of one type or another.  Period.  It's a matter of identification, not whether or not it exists or not.  The problem arises with undue attention towards one bias, leading to the point of view problems. There are other scholars who have studied Jehovah's Witnesses who were never a part of the organization.  Bias is not about 'who is right' and 'who is wrong'.  Following neutrality and proper weight guidelines, such articles would do much to better balance the article.  Instead, the non WatchTower B&T references show at least 90% being quoted by these two individuals whose entire point and thesis is that Jehovah's Witnesses are 'false prophets'.  Thus, the extreme PoV problems.  The weight problems however, I leave to another subsection in this discussion.  But the weighting problem also speaks to the bias of these individuals, and any who contribute to the article's bias by only quoting their works.


 * Again, to the bias problems, I also recommend the entire article be rewritten. I'm not saying the article isn't getting close.  But to better follow quality standards of wikipedia, it would be better to have an overview of the Governing Body, and then any criticisms of the Governing Body to be contained in a separate subsection.  As it stands now, each section is peppered with references by only two ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. If this doesn't speak to Point of View problems, I don't know what would.Airelon (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct in noting the number of points in the article sourced to the works of Penton and Franz. You are wrong, however, to suggest that those comments are always critical, and therefore represents undue weight. Franz's book contributes much detail about the means of election to the GB, the procedures of meetings, the history of its development etc that are not found in any other publication. As a former GB member, he is well placed to write about this and it is entirely appropriate that those facts be added to the article. He is a reliable source. Where he is critical, he is noted in the article as the source of that criticism, thereby clearly labelling that point as a contention by a critic, thus satisfying Wikipedia's rules on articles remain editorially neutral. It seems to me that you have read WP:NPOV but have missed the point.


 * Penton similarly writes about some of the history as well, contributing detail not found in the WTS publications. He adds further detail about the 1980 purge of dissidents. Using only WTS sources would create a one-sided, biased article. I know of no other books that deal in detail with the Governing Body; if I did, I would have used those as well. If you know of any, please let me know and I'll add that information to the article.


 * I'm curious about your intentions regarding rewriting the article. Since you clearly prefer no input by Franz or Penton, it leaves just one source for your preferred view of the Governing Body. Given your suggested rewording above of just one section of the article, I shudder to think of the outcome. LTSally (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fascinating to me. It truly is.


 * For others that can join this white board discussion that is observable to all, I would like it pointed out, anywhere, where I stated that "I prefer no input by Franz or Penton". Anywhere at all.  Of course, it is possible that my comments can be edited.  But no where did I say anything of that nature.  What I said, and I quote:


 * "We all have bias of one type or another. Period.  It's a matter of identification, not whether or not it exists or not.  The problem arises with undue attention towards one bias, leading to the point of view problems. There are other scholars who have studied Jehovah's Witnesses who were never a part of the organization.  Bias is not about 'who is right' and 'who is wrong'.  Following neutrality and proper weight guidelines, such articles would do much to better balance the article.  Instead, the non WatchTower B&T references show at least 90% being quoted by these two individuals whose entire point and thesis is that Jehovah's Witnesses are 'false prophets'."


 * Franz and Penton both are both leading critical figures against Jehovah's WItnesses. I never stated that their comments should be removed.  That is, quite literally, putting words in my mouth (Which also speaks to somone's point of view and bias).  What I said, is that the non-Witnesses references, 90% of them are by two individuals who are critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, and are known for this.  All I DID suggest, was that I admit I freely have bias, and that I suggested other references by other scholars who are NOT ex-Jehovah's Witnesses be included AS WELL.  In fact, I suggested that the critical comments not be removed, but separated into a category by itself.Airelon (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As bias is not about who is right and who is wrong, this article is not about who is right and who is wrong. This article is about supplying encyclopedic information about the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses that is verifiable and reliable. It just so happens that the richest sources of information on the subject are the Governing Body itself, former members of the Governing Body and persons who have undertaken the subject in depth. More sources is fine, but reliability of sources is more important. As it stands, I see no problem with weight of sources based on Franz and/or Penton because nearly half of the source material comes from one source; the perspective of the Governing Body via its publishing arm known as Watchtower. Unless the information cited from these sources is refuted then what of it? Or, if information is disputed, then the dispute probably deserves equal treatment. So what is your point? If you have additional sources that add note to the article, then edit away. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Airelon, you remain fixated with the number of references drawn from Penton and Franz, but continue to ignore the fact that most of the facts sourced from them are simply matters pertaining to procedure and history that are quite neutral. I have, however, added to the article more information from the Watchtowers you and someone else mentioned that elaborates on the matter of anointed Witnesses refraining from "running ahead" of the Governing Body.


 * You say there are other reference works pertaining to the Governing Body by scholars who have no connection with Jehovah's Witnesses. I have already offered to track these down and add information from them in order to add further detail that would balance what you perceive as excessive critical opinion. If you can list some of those, I'll try to get them. The problem is that generally books about the Witnesses tend to be written by people who have left the organisation: Franz, Penton, Rogerson, Gruss, Grizzuti Harrison, Wills, Jonsson, Schnell, Botting etc. Those by authors who have never been in the organisation either predate the Governing Body or make scant reference to it. Still, give me a list and I'll do what I can; or add the information yourself. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Years active
The section listing past and present members of the Governing Body contains information which is misleading and needs to be more clearly defined. When Groh is listed as (1965-1975) and Sullivan (1932-1973), what do these dates refer to? Since there was no clearly defined Governing Body before 1971, they can't have been members of that body from the earlier of those dates. The list is preceded by the words "Years active". Active as what? LTSally (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone has edited the dates since the above message, but still failed to provide a source for this information. Please note that official Wkipedia policy at WP:PROVEIT allows the removal of information for which no reliable source is provided. If no source is provided for the dates in this section, many of which are either dubious or nonsense, I will delete it. LTSally (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)