Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Control of intimate relationships among Jehovah's Witnesses Food for thought

C-178
1975-1997: The Difficult Years of the Watchtower Society
Randall Watters

In the late 1970s, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses silenced several people who independently concluded that the 607 BC chronology was wrong. e - 1914 AD e., on which the Watchtower’s teaching about its authority is largely based. When this information came to the attention of many members of the Bethel family in 1979-1980, and some began to discuss it with acquaintances, the organization began an extensive witch hunt to silence those who spoke about hiding important information.

Charles Taze Russell would certainly be shocked to see what the organization he founded in 1879 has become today. After humble beginnings, the Watchtower Society began to grow rapidly, especially beginning in the 1970s. The Watchtower magazine, which had a circulation of 6,000 in the 19th century, now has millions of copies in print.

Another beginning

It didn't start out that way. Russell did not want to create his own religion. At least in words (see Watchtower Magazine 1895:216, 1894:384, 1893:266). He wrote:

The attempt to make all men think alike in all matters culminated in the great apostasy and the creation of the great papal system, and thus the gospel, the one faith preached by Paul and the other apostles, was lost—buried under a mass of uninspired decrees of popes and councils. The unity of the early church, based on the simple gospel and built up by love alone, gave way to the slavery of the Roman church... Each new reform movement (for example, Protestantism) made the mistake of trying to create a creed large enough for its main promoters (The Watchtower, September 1893 years, p. 1572).

And on why organizations fail:

We have continually pointed out the desire of Christians for unity, showing that such unity is foretold in Scripture; however, the good results desired will actually be bad, because it will not be a cordial but a mechanical unity (The Watchtower, March 1893, p. 1504).

“Bible Students,” as they were called in those early years, could visit other churches and celebrate Christmas. However, now, five presidents and ninety years later, the Watchtower Society has changed beyond recognition. Flaunting more than five million active members and vast real estate, the Watchtower is a large corporation that carefully conceals both its financial records and its internal politics.

Skeletons in the closet

By the mid-1970s, some members of the Society began to doubt the accuracy of their chronology - in particular, their calculations regarding the “times of the heathens”. Trouble began when a small group of men were assigned to write the book Aid To Bible Understanding, a dictionary of biblical terms for Jehovah's Witnesses. Historical examination of the chronology of the “last days” has shown beyond doubt that the founding date, 1914 (supposedly commemorated by the invisible return of Christ), was merely the date of the outbreak of the First World War. This date was derived from a series of unrelated calculations by counting 2,520 years from the date of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BC. e. However, the harmony of the calculations was disrupted by the fact that, according to all historical data, Jerusalem was destroyed in 586-587. BC e., that is, a full 20 years later than the Witnesses claim. Moreover, the Bible gives no basis for speaking of “the times of the Gentiles” as lasting 2,520 years. Russell's dating and ideas were based on a misconception of history. Upheavals in the organization were inevitable. No matter how carefully the secret was guarded, sooner or later it would come out. The “crack” appeared in the 1970s, and the “dam” finally collapsed in 1980.

Most Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand the crucial role the date 1914 plays in the structure and teachings of their organization. Although Christ's return was originally expected in 1874 and 1914 was supposed to be the end of the world, modern Witnesses consider 1914 to be the date of Christ's return (although it was not officially announced until 1929). The Governing Body explained to the Witnesses that upon Christ's return, a "purification of the organization" began, which continued for 3.5 years, after which Christ judged the organization and finally, in 1918, chose it as his "faithful and discreet slave" so that during these last days to instruct humanity in God's truth. This same year was designated as the year of the invisible “rapture,” when dead Witnesses (including, it is believed, the early Christians) were resurrected and taken to heaven.

The idea of ​​the "one true organization of God" is chronologically entirely dependent on the correctness of the date 1914.

But that's not all. The election of another “class” of Christians—those who would live on earth but would not be born again or anointed by the Holy Spirit—was also based on this key date of 1914. Setting his expectations in 1935, President Joseph Rutherford sought an explanation for why so many people were joining the organization if the Bible (as he believed) said that only 144,000 would reign in heaven with Christ. He began looking for some kind of answer in the book of Revelation, and the passage 7:13-17 caught his eye. This was truly a gift of fate, since the answer found, apparently, also solved another serious problem - how to establish tighter control over local communities. Until now, the overseers of the congregations (called elders) had been elected, and many of them, to Rutherford's chagrin, had full authority in their congregations. The new interpretation of the passage from the book of Revelation made it possible to kill two birds with one stone. First of all, the “elders” mentioned in verse 13 now came to mean members of a special body of 144,000 believers (represented by the Board of Directors), rather than overseers of congregations.

Thus, the term "elder" was abolished, and all congregation overseers were stripped of their positions of responsibility. The newly appointed leaders were now called differently, “ministers of the partnership.” Of course, at the same time a new method of selecting these key people was introduced - now they were chosen by the Board of Directors! This meant that many former "elders" did not return to their positions, and Rutherford was given full authority over the appointment of leaders. Many former "elders" found this disgusting and, leaving the organization, carried others along with them.

According to Rutherford, the new understanding of Revelation 7:13-14 established a clear boundary between the classes of the "144 thousand" (anointed ones) and the "great crowd". Rutherford reasoned: Since the elders ask, “Who are these people of the great multitude?” - and John replies: “You know that,” - therefore, apparently, the decision about who is included in the great crowd can be made by the elders (144 thousand represented by Rutherford and his directors)! Rutherford then proclaims the great multitude to be an earthly class of believers who are not born again, but live forever under the leadership of 144 thousand "anointed ones", receiving full right to live only after being tested and purified for 1000 years. Through further consideration, the need for a Governing Body representing the “anointed ones” was established. Because...

1. The Bible was written for “anointed” Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit and will be in heaven with Christ (1 John 2:20, 27);
2. the members of the newly designated “great crowd” cannot be parties to the “new covenant” (i.e., the new covenant), and Christ cannot be their sole mediator (cf. The Watchtower, April 1, 1979, p. 31);

…it inevitably follows that the Bible was not written for the members of the “great crowd,” who will now forever have to trust the interpretations of the Governing Body, accepting them as “new light” and “food in season” (cf. The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587). What 1 John 2:27 says does not apply to these people: “...the anointing which you received from him is abiding in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you...it teaches you all things.” (NM). They were denied a supernatural relationship with God and the hidden influence of the Holy Spirit in their lives (John 14:15-27). The Governing Body clearly found itself in the role of “clergy” and the members of the “great crowd” in the role of “laity.” Thus, the truth comes from Brooklyn, not from the Holy Spirit.

Now we can appreciate the true significance of 1914. If this date is wrong, then the dates 1918 and 1935 are also wrong. If the year 1914 is incorrect, Christ did not return invisibly. If the year 1918 is incorrect, Christ did not appoint the Watchtower as his special prophet. If the year 1935 is incorrect, there are no class differences - all Christians are the same, they must all be born again (John 3:3, 5, 7), they must all partake of the bread and wine (John 6:53-54), and they must all have as their mediator not a man-made organization, but Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

The problems begin

Am I a robber that you came out with swords and clubs? When I was with you in the temple day after day, you did not raise your hand to me. But now is your hour and the power of darkness (Luke 22:52-53, NM).

The straw that ultimately broke the camel's back began to materialize in 1965. By this time, the third president of the Watch Tower Society, Nathan Knorr, had been wanting to publish a Bible dictionary for some time, later published under the title Aid To Bible Understanding. Initially, the collection of material for this publication was entrusted to the nephew of Fred Franz (the future fourth president of the organization), Raymond Franz. Then it became necessary to add four more people to work on this project. Thus a committee of five members emerged. Two of them, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle, subsequently joined the Governing Body. Edward Dunlap, Gilead's secretary, also prepared materials for this project.

In his book Crisis of Conscience (pp. 32-41), Raymond Franz talks about how he studied the chronology of the Society, based on the cornerstone of 1914 as the end date of the so-called. "the times of the pagans" - a period of time supposedly beginning in 607 BC. e. and lasted 2520 years. Franz writes how he instructed his secretary Charles Plauger to go around New York libraries and try to justify this date for the destruction of Jerusalem. However, no confirmation was found. On the contrary, the date is 586-587. BC e. became even more obvious. Subsequently, in 1977, a Jehovah's Witness elder from Sweden sent a collection of documents based on more than 10 thousand cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia and dating back to the era of ancient Babylon. Information from these tablets confirmed that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BC. e., and twenty years later. As Raymond Franz writes in his book: “... while working on the book, a lot of time and paper was wasted in order to weaken the persuasiveness of the archaeological and historical evidence, which revealed the incorrectness of our date - 607 BC. e. - and gave a new starting point, and therefore an end date different from 1914” (p. 40-41). Trying to find flaws in historical facts, Franz and his secretary even traveled to Rhode Island, to Brown University, to talk with Professor Abraham Sachs, an expert on ancient cuneiform writing. However, there was not the slightest chance that these facts would turn out to be wrong. However, since the remaining members of the Governing Body refused to reconsider their views on this issue, Franz felt obliged to withhold certain facts when writing the article for the reference book.

The above-mentioned Swedish elder was disfellowshipped for telling other Witnesses about his discoveries regarding the erroneous chronology of the Watchtower and its 1914 connection. He subsequently wrote a book called The Gentile Times Reconsidered(“Rethinking the Times of the Gentiles”), drawing on his letters to the Governing Body and his own stunning discoveries.

As noted above, the date of 1914 is the basis for some of the key teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, such as the organization's election in 1918 to the role of the "faithful and discreet slave" and the division of the organization into two classes in 1935. To undermine the credibility of 1914 as the date of the invisible return of Christ was to completely destroy the authority of the Governing Body. Henceforth they could no longer be considered the “appointed channel” of communication (essentially, an intermediary) between God and unregenerate people. In this case, Bible-reading members of the organization would have to accept that all true Christians will be with Christ and must be born again, as Jesus insisted (John 3:3, 7). They would not need to be taught by anyone, be it a person or an organization, for 1 John 2:27 states that they will be taught by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself promised in John 14:16-26. The camel's back began to break under the weight of the “straw” of historical facts.

Over the next few years, it seemed as if there were no consequences. However, in reality, a tough mess was brewing. Changes in the structure of the organization had given even more power to several key members of the Governing Body, and they would never allow their authority to be undermined by such dangerous facts. Any discussion of the topic was officially prohibited, but individuals within the organization—especially at Bethel, as the Witnesses call their headquarters—continued to ask questions. At the time, only a few Bethel employees knew about what had happened, but they told those who asked about it.

By 1979, information about the newly discovered circumstances had reached the ears of several members of the Spanish-speaking community of Jehovah's Witnesses in New York. The Governing Body became aware of this around the time of the 1980 Memorial. The Chatterboxes were called to special committee meetings held after hours in the secluded rooms of the printing plant at 117 Adams Street. Chris and Norma Sanchez, who had helped translate the New World Translation from English into Spanish and who had spent many years at Bethel , being dedicated servants, were accused of “conspiracy against the organization” and insulted in the presence of other people. Even Governing Council member Dan Sidlik made offensive remarks. They were branded “leeches”, “cancers” and “worms”, after which they were given several hours to collect their belongings in complete silence and leave the Control Center. From now on they were deprived of communication. The Sanchez couple appealed the decision, but their appeal was instantly rejected. Their presence in Brooklyn posed too great a danger - their secrets could become public and blow up the entire organization from within.

Other Witnesses - translators Nestor Quilan and his wife, as well as Rene Vasquez - were also found guilty and disfellowshipped. The local elders, who initially believed their words, later rehabilitated themselves by reporting them to the Services Department, the “right hand” of the Governing Body. The members of the Bethel family as a whole knew nothing of this, and many remain ignorant to this day, innocently believing the explanations of the Governing Body that a conspiracy had been discovered against Jehovah's organization, and that all these people were apostates and "spiritual fornicators", "mentally ill " and "depraved". They had no idea that the real problems were just beginning.

The Governing Body's response to the private Bible study was as follows:

1. Find all those who doubt the Society's interpretations.
2. Do not allow other Witnesses to listen to them.
3. To vigorously promote one's own teaching that there are two classes of Christians, one of which (the anointed ones) is subject to being born again, while the rest must rely entirely on the fickle interpretations of the Watchtower organization.

The reign of paranoia

If any doubt has crept into your heart about Jehovah, his Word or organization, try to quickly remove it before it grows and kills your faith... do not hesitate to ask for the help of loving congregation overseers... They will help you find out what caused your doubts, the source of which there may be pride or wrong thinking. ...try quickly to curb your tendency to complain and be dissatisfied with the way things are done in the Christian congregation... Get rid of everything that feeds such doubts... (The Watchtower, February 1, 1996, pp. 23-24).

Naturally, many members of the Bethel family became emotional when they heard what had happened to their Hispanic brothers, and even shed tears at breakfast. Meanwhile, the Services Division was hastily gathering any possible pretexts to disassociate Raymond Franz, because they believed that he and Edward Dunlap were plotting against the organization. Lee Waters of the Service Division even stated, “They [the “renegades”] have been preparing the ground [for attacks on the organization] for years.” Although Lyman Swingle stood up for Ray Franz and saved him from being disfellowshipped (Lyman was aware of everything related to 1914), Franz was put under surveillance and subsequently disfellowshipped on the grounds that he had lunch with his boss, the former Jehovah's Witness (see Time, 02.22.1986, p. 66). Edward Dunlap was disfellowshipped after members of the Governing Body tried to persuade him to turn a blind eye to the facts and support the existing view for the sake of unity. In the coming months, dozens of people left the Bethel family or were disfellowshipped because they apparently “knew too much.” Members of the Bethel family regularly heard announcements of new “apostates,” but few were aware of recent events.

Meanwhile, several dozen members of the Bethel family continued to meet regularly for Monday night Bible study after the Watchtower family study. They used different Bible translations and biblical commentaries. Of particular interest were Paul's letters to the Romans and Galatians, which revealed a much better and deeper understanding of life and relationship with Christ than was allowed to Jehovah's Witnesses. However, the fear of being exposed and deprived of communication prevented many from sharing their discoveries with others. Participants took Watchtower magazines with them to secret Monday meetings in case some spy knocked on the door.

"Salvation by the Law" according to Schroeder

At a meeting of Bethel family elders on May 29, 1980, Albert Schroeder (the authority figure of the Governing Body) said, referring to those who question the absolute authority of the organization's leadership:

Everything they teach ignores the structure that we have created all these many years.

Many Witnesses in the Command Center were also beginning to understand that Christianity was not a religion based on laws and regulations (unlike the Law of Moses), but a relationship with Jesus Christ, and that Christians were led by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians:

I am executed on a stake with Christ. And it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me... after all, if righteousness is through the law, then it turns out that Christ died in vain (2:20-21, NM).

If you are led by the spirit, then you are not under the law (5:18, NM).

It is important to understand that the word “law” in the New World Translation (and any other Bible) often refers not to the Law of Moses, but to any system of laws and regulations imposed on Christians. This is the heart of the gospel that blows the Watchtower to the ground: Are we saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone, or, like the “Judaizers” in the first century, must we also abide by the rules and requirements of the organization? (Gal. 5:1-4)

The Governing Council of Jehovah's Witnesses could no longer tolerate such doubts. The Bethel family heard harsh responses, such as this from Albert Schroeder at the same elder meeting on May 29, 1980:

Not only do we serve Jehovah, but we are also under the direction of our “mother.” Our “mother” has the right to set rules and regulations for us... There are 28 topics in this book, which is called Branch Organization Procedure; and among its subsections are rules and administration. It has 1,177 rules and regulations...it is a streamlined, streamlined organization and we are expected to follow its rules. If anyone feels that he cannot obey the rules and regulations now in force, such a person should leave and no longer participate in progressive work.

Some have fallen away from the organization rather than from the Bible, arguing that there is no need to obey the law... This great program of organizational procedure brings together the heavenly and the earthly.

What medicine will this “well-functioning” mother organization prescribe for those who believe that a person is saved not by obeying the laws of the organization, but by faith in Jesus Christ?

At the peak of the Governing Body's paranoia over dissent among members, an article was published that further emphasized their view of two classes of Christians. In the illustration for this article, the "three rebels" (apparently Ray Frantz, Ed Dunlap, and Reinhard Lengtat, co-authors of Aid To Bible Understanding) were identified as number 6 and called a "stranger," a "thief," and a "mercenary"—apostates and false shepherds ( The Watchtower, July 15, 1980, p. 26.

Intimidation tactics

While Ray Franz was away, the Society's leadership created a special committee to collect testimony from his close friends and acquaintances and to extract from his private conversations anything that could be used against him in the context of the problems described above. Over the course of two weeks, committee members intimidated many members of the Bethel family and recorded their statements on tape. Then Ray was suddenly called back to Bethel and forced to listen to the tapes in front of the Governing Body. Raymond Franz was stripped of all privileges and expelled from the organization. Over the course of several decades, he held a variety of positions of responsibility and traveled around the world visiting branches. But it didn't change anything.

Other members of the organization were subjected to hours of intense interrogation. The Watchtower committees compiled a list of ten questions to ask anyone who was suspected of talking about the situation in the Governing Body. Many were expelled from the organization simply because they could not in good conscience accept and teach some of the Witnesses' teachings. Those expelled are treated as “spiritually dead” and are not even allowed to talk to them. Many themselves left under a plausible pretext - only so that they would not be deprived of communication.

Over the next weeks and months, I noticed that members of the Governing Body did not choose their words when slandering and vilifying such people. They were called “spiritual fornicators,” “mentally ill,” and “madmen.” They were said to follow “demonic teachings.” At one committee meeting where a couple with many years of dedicated service were disfellowshipped, a member of the Governing Body called them “fools” and “liars.” One Bethel employee, Randy M., had his phone calls routed through the Services Department so his outside contacts could be traced. Members of the Bethel family even denounced their friends on suspicion of apostasy. It is important to understand that only a few of them understood what was really going on - the Governing Council kept everything under a veil of secrecy and in every possible way denigrated those who were expelled from the organization.

As stated earlier, some members of the Bethel family organized their own Bible studies to understand the Scriptures independently of Watchtower dogma. Their activities were soon discovered and they were told to stop meeting unless they conducted studies using the Society's publications. On April 30, 1980, Karl Klein of the Governing Body publicly stated:

If you feel the urge to “apostate,” develop a hobby and avoid idleness to escape such thoughts. Stay away from in-depth Bible study to understand the meaning of the scriptures.

Another Governing Body member, Lloyd Berry, spoke to Bethel family elders on May 29, 1980:

When we talk about law, we talk about organization. We need to seek this law with all our hearts. Jehovah does not give interpretation to individuals. We need a guide, and that is the “faithful and discreet servant.” We should not gather in groups to discuss views that are contrary to the “faithful and discreet servant.” We must respect the source of our instruction. We must be like a donkey - be humble and remain at the trough - and we will not eat any poison.

This is just a small part of the shocking things that could be seen and heard in the Control Center. Put yourself in the place of one of those Bethel elders who have only recently begun to understand the meaning of real Christianity - and now imagine yourself listening to these blasphemous statements, which clearly contradict both the entire content of the letters to the Romans and Galatians, and the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who said: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32, NM).

Response from the Governing Body

Although the Governing Body does not comment directly or in detail on the events of 1979-1980, for fear that the rank and file will ask too many questions, the pages of the Watchtower in the 1980s appeared many articles that addressed sensitive topics (freedom in Christ, the authority of the Governing Body, and the “two classes” doctrine). But I want to warn you that the level of maturity of these answers can come across as comical!

Then Jesus asked the twelve: “Perhaps you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, to whom should we go? You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:67-69, NM).

Authoritarian religions (often called “cults”) often present believers who wish to leave with an ethical dilemma. The fear of what awaits you if you leave the organization is ingrained into your mind, and therefore any attempts to resort to common sense or critical thinking are likely to make you feel guilty for even daring to question the leadership.

“Where should we go?” is a common cliche that the Watchtower uses to cleverly replace Jesus with the organization as the object of Jehovah's Witnesses' devotion. However, Peter's words meant that he was willing to pay with suffering for the privilege of following his Lord Jesus.

Over the past 2,000 years of Church history, people who feared God more than men have repeatedly had to separate themselves from corrupt religious structures. In cases like these, when loved and respected people and organizations turn out to be bad, we may face a crisis of conscience. Resisting vice almost certainly means being ostracized and rejected, perhaps even losing close friends, spouse and children. The future may seem empty and meaningless. However, this very moment of departure can be the beginning of a new life - especially if it is accompanied by prayer, deep reflection and serious education. Don't despair! At this very moment, thousands of people are experiencing the same thing as you. If you're experiencing these nagging doubts, know that you're not alone.

When you meet the friendliest people you've ever met, who introduce you to the most loving group of people you've ever dealt with, and when their leader seems like the most inspiring, caring, compassionate, and understanding person you've ever met you've had a chance to communicate, and then you find out that this group sets goals for itself that you never even dreamed of achieving, and it all seems too good to be true, maybe it really is too good to be true! Don't give up on your studies, your plans and your hopes in order to chase the rainbow - Jeannie Mills, former member of the Jim Jones People's Temple, killed a year after 911 of her fellow believers committed suicide or were killed in Jonestown on November 18, 1978 ).

Life by Law and Life by Grace

Once, in a conversation about the mystery of human relationships and the misfortunes that people inflict on each other, Watchtower circuit overseer Floyd Kite jokingly told me that “half of us are here to test the other half.” As a devoted Jehovah's Witness, grateful to God for the organization, I was determined to belong to the “half” that tested the other. As a Bethel elder and overseer, I kept a close eye on the behavior of others. However, the study of Galatians and Romans, which I became interested in at Bethel, changed my life and opened my eyes to truths that were unheard of for us, but not for the Christian Church.

There is nothing wrong with the very idea of ​​living according to the Law. Yahweh gave Moses and the people of Israel the perfect Law. Subsequently, Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). This means that the requirements of the law were not erroneous, outdated or excessive. Jesus came not to say that the Law was too difficult to keep, but to set the bar even higher. This is exactly what He did when He summarized the Law into two commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 5:20; 22:35-39). He said: “On these two commandments hangs the whole Law...” (22:40, NM).

Jesus' death on the cross delivered us from the yoke of slavery of the written Law (Col. 2:13-15). But, interestingly, He set an even more absolute standard in return. He went further and explained how the intentions of the heart can violate God's requirements, even if you outwardly keep the Law. In other words, Jesus showed that we must strive to fulfill the principles underlying the Law. By preaching such a perfect standard of conduct, Jesus set such a high standard of faith and commitment that fallen man could never have reached it had it not been for the grace of God.

For example, according to Jesus, it is not only the act of adultery that is a sin, but also the lustful desire itself (Matt. 5:27-28)! It is a sin not only to steal, but also to covet someone else's property or someone else's wife. Marriage is not only sacred—divorce can make a person an adulterer in the eyes of God (Matt. 5:31-32)! You must pray for your enemies and do good to your persecutors (Matt. 5:38-40, 43-46). Why, then, is it better to be a Christian than an Old Testament Jew?

The difference is that God gave Christians a new birth and a new nature (1 Pet. 1:23). The “seed” of righteousness was sown into us the moment we were born again. God comes and dwells in us (through the Holy Spirit), enabling us to participate in His holiness (Rom. 8:9-11). Jesus made this possible through His death and His resurrection (Heb. 9:11-15). We are redeemed and declared righteous. Jesus then uses the “seed” placed in us to sanctify us and make us mature Christians. He wants us to live in accordance with the new nature given to us. We die to the old corrupt nature of fallen flesh (2 Pet. 1:3-4). If it were not for this new birth and the grace that accompanies it, we would suffer a condemnation greater than that of the Law of Moses, because the requirements of Jesus are higher and broader than those of the Law of Moses. Jesus said we must be perfect (Matt. 5:48).

We can only hope to be “perfect” if we live according to our new nature (Gal. 5:16-17). We must be born again (John 3:3-7). How often do we see that religious people, by their old nature, try to conform to some artificial rules of behavior imposed by some religion or church, and think that they have thereby achieved holiness. However, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that if we try to justify ourselves by following laws or rules, we are still under condemnation and Christ is of no use to us (Gal. 2:15-21). It is not the old nature, but the Holy Spirit that makes us capable of doing truly righteous deeds.

Christ made no concessions to our weaknesses and did not lower His demands. He expects us to allow the indwelling Spirit to dominate our lives. And to the extent that this happens, we will be able to meet His perfect requirements.

Although Jesus makes no concessions, He is rich in mercy and forgives us when we fall short. He knows that along the way we sin many times (Heb. 4:15-16). He points us to perfection. We must always keep before our eyes the image of how He wants us to be, and not some closer and more achievable goal. However, He knows that we will grow up and die without achieving perfection (Phil. 3:12-14).

It's extremely depressing at times! This means that we can never completely stop on our Christian path. We climb a “mountain” that is too high for us, and along the way God does not arrange “stop camps” for us, although He gives us the opportunity to stop for a while to gather our strength and move on. Then, at Christ's return, He will finish His work in us, making us perfect in the blink of an eye (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:51-53).

Randall Watters, former Jehovah's Witness
as President of Free Minds Inc.
has been helping people who have become victims for 20 years
authoritarian religious groups.

Printed with abbreviations. The original article is on the website

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the collective body that exercises theocratic leadership of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses on a worldwide scale. The number of members of the Governing Body is variable (eight as of 2013), and its chairman changes annually. Located at the headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in New York, which consists of various administrative departments, agencies and services that assist the Governing Body in carrying out its functions and overseeing all legal bodies of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Story

The actual work of the Governing Body began in 1971. Until then, complete control over creeds, publications, and religious communities (initially Bible Students and later Jehovah's Witnesses) was exercised by the president of the Watch Tower Society. Although publications of Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned a “governing body,” for many years it was not clear who they were or what their role was. In most cases he was identified with the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society.

On October 20, 1971, four more joined the seven members of the Watch Tower Society's board of directors in what became known as the expanded Governing Body. The Watchtower magazine of December 15, 1971, first used the term “Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses” to mean the specific group that governs a religious organization and explained its role. In 1976, organizational changes in management significantly expanded the powers and rights of the Governing Body. This year, six administrative committees were formed to oversee the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the world.

Authority

Jehovah's Witnesses are deeply convinced that their organization is theocratic, that is, led by God through Jesus Christ, and the Governing Body is not the highest leadership, but a “faithful and discreet servant” (Matt.) in the hands of Jesus, through which he carries out this leadership . Although the term "governing body" is not found in the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the early Christians were supervised by apostles located in Jerusalem, and this is taken as the biblical basis for the modern Governing Body, whose functions and scope of authority should be based on Bible.

The principle of theocratic leadership adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses requires that the Governing Body may at any time appoint those it deems necessary to any position in any region. At the same time, the Governing Council is authorized to act by making certain personnel appointments, regardless of the recommendations of local communities.

The Governing Body makes decisions regarding doctrinal and organizational matters that are binding on all Jehovah's Witnesses and their structures. However, these decisions are not dogmatic, but may change over time depending on circumstances, and this is considered normal practice. Such changes, including on fundamental issues, are not perceived by Jehovah's Witnesses as evidence of the failure of the Governing Body or the defectiveness of its judgment.

Members of the Governing Body do not hold administrative positions in the legal bodies of Jehovah's Witnesses, but focus on theological and other matters related to caring for the spiritual needs of believers. To ensure that the dissenting opinion of an individual does not paralyze the work of the board, all decisions of the Governing Council are made not unanimously, but by a two-thirds majority.

Structure

The Governing Body itself is not a legal entity, but operates through the legal associations of Jehovah's Witnesses and directly appointed representatives - members of branch committees in various countries and traveling overseers. To carry out administrative functions, the Governing Body has six committees, each of which includes some members of the Governing Body and their assistants (in 2010, the total number of assistants was 23 people, who do not necessarily classify themselves as anointed, while the members themselves The governing body must necessarily belong to this group). In turn, under the direction of these committees are various departments and services of the main administration of Jehovah's Witnesses. The main ones are: service department, computer department, writing department, art department, translation department, sound recording department, training center, a construction department, a legal department, a public relations department, a publishing complex, a dispatch department, a hospital information service, and a number of agricultural farms. Each of the six committees is coordinated by one of the members of the Governing Body.

• Committee of Coordinators is responsible for the coordinated and effective work all other committees involved emergency situations, natural disasters, outbreaks of persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and other similar issues. This committee includes all the coordinators of the other five committees and the secretary, who is also a member of the Governing Body [ ] .
• Service Committee supervises the preaching activities of Jehovah's Witnesses, the ministry of traveling overseers, pioneers and the activities of meetings. He oversees the interaction between headquarters, branches and congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, reviews annual reports on preaching activities, selects candidates for training in the Gilead School and assigns graduates of this school to further service [ ] .
• Writing Committee oversees the writing and translation of all materials published in The Watchtower and Awake! , as well as brochures, books and booklets, monitors the preparation of notes for speeches and scripts for theatrical productions. This committee answers questions related to doctrines, morals and specific problems in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses [ ] .
• Educational Committee is responsible for the training program at the weekly meetings and annual conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses, and heads various schools (Gilead School, Pioneer Ministry School, Kingdom Ministry School, etc.). In addition, this committee monitors the preparation and publication of audio and video products [ ] .
• Publishing Committee Responsible for printing, publishing, and sending literature to congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world. In addition, this committee is in charge of monetary donations, printing presses and property that belongs to legal associations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world [ ] .
• Personnel Committee recruits volunteers to serve at Jehovah's Witnesses headquarters and branches throughout the world. He monitors the physical and spiritual condition of Bethel employees [ ] .

Compound

The Governing Body's work as the highest governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses began in 1971, when The Watchtower announced that "the Governing Body is composed of eleven anointed Witnesses of Jehovah." The original members of the 1971 Governing Body, all now deceased, are highlighted in the third column of the following lists. New members of the Governing Body are appointed by the Governing Body itself only from among men who consider themselves to be of a special class

America has legalized sodomy. And she said that the whole world should also follow her example. Those who do not listen will suffer greatly. Sodomy was elevated to the rank of official geopolitics of the largest power in the world, and its numerous, also very powerful allies. The American White House was covered with a rainbow. The stamp of the sin of Sodom officially fell on the leadership of the United States, and, accordingly, on the entire system.

Sodom crept up unnoticed?

“...I will give all this to you if you fall and worship me,” Satan said to Jesus. The fallen one offered to fall. Jesus did not fall. "Get behind Me, Satan", - answered Jesus. According to the meaning, in our simple language, Jesus’ answer meant: “Get out!” This is the only answer that is due to the father of lies.

However, not all Christians respond to Satan in this way. Many, at his offer to fall, wonder: “What will you give me in return, and what will I get?..” And they fall, worship Satan. And their fall is very great.

The spiritual fall of Christians and the worship of Satan is expressed in many matters, but, above all, in collaboration with politics. They betrayed Christ and cozied up to politics as best they could. They agreed with her in everything, like the most disgusting harlot.

And so, politics, fed up with their possession, decided to “have more variety in entertainment.” Namedniona demanded that Christians now become literal sodomites...

It's time for judgment to begin for Christians...

Western so-called Christians were alarmed. They saw that the time had come when persecution would fall on them if they did not join the common worldwide sin and depravity. But this was the last thing they wanted. They are used to reigning. They have grown soft in a “democratic” state. And suddenly - on you! You must either be a sodomite, or, as a last resort, “not condemn” the bestial debauchees. If not, then – “economic sanctions”, for starters. And then you’ll get hit on the head...

Such is the sad fate of all who tried to combine loyalty to Christ and “cooperation” with politics. The devil’s mockery of those who, instead of God, worshiped him, truly knows no bounds.

In America itself, society is now divided. Many churches and religious associations have said “yes” to legalized debauchery. They gave in, caved in to the Sodomite policy, agreed, approved of it.

But there are also churches that do not want to support Sodom. For this they risk being accused of all grave sins against “freedom and democracy.” They really faced the threat of liquidation and closure.

It has been reported that some American Protestant pastors who do not agree to submit to New Sodom have already announced that they are preparing to “go underground.” They say that they may now be banned from operating as before, openly, officially, and their licenses and then their church buildings taken away. And they are ready for such a turn of events. We can rejoice for them and applaud their determination to remain faithful to God.

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is not going underground.

As facts show, the Governing Council of Jehovah's Witnesses is not one of these faithful Christians.

“A prudent slave” - agreed with the state policy of disgrace.

His motivation is clear. After all, if he speaks out against the ideology of Sodom, then his activities can also be shut down, up to the confiscation of all property and real estate. And he just built himself a new excellent “garden city” in Wallkill! And in general, this is not why the Governing Council created its world religious empire, and undertook such a grandiose construction and economic project in order to lose everything for the sake of some “trifle”.

And so, on the official website of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, “spiritual food in time” appears:

“Although the Bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not encourage hatred of homosexuals, or homophobia. On the contrary, Christians are called to show “respect for all” (1 Peter 2:17, Modern Version).

…Should Christians respect all people regardless of their sexual orientation?

Without a doubt. The Bible says, “Honor people of all kinds” (1 Peter 2:17). Therefore, Christians are not homophobic. They treat all people kindly, including homosexuals (Matthew 7:12).”

This is what the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization write. They write like a snake, craftily and cunningly. Their florid answer is quite likely to confuse many who are superficially familiar with the Holy Scriptures.

For comparison, let's look at the words of the Pope on the same topic: “If a person is homosexual, but seeks the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?”

As we can see, the Vatican is much more restrained in its responses than the Governing Council. If the Pope limited himself to “I do not condemn,” specifying that “if” a homosexual “seeks the Lord and has good will,” then the Governing Council simply orders his children to respect all homosexuals, generally mentioning their relationship with the Lord. And as proof, they also cite words from Holy Scripture! Even the Roman high priest did not demonstrate such impudence.

Well, the time has come when you need to say directly who you are and who you serve. And the “prudent slave” said that he served politics. For a long time he pretended to be a disciple of Christ. But now he has come out of hiding. The material wealth of an ilask from power is more important to him than Divine principles.

Yes, Christ's disciples are instructed not to judge anyone. But not condemning and RESPECTING are fundamentally different! Following the logic of the Governing Body, disciples of Christ should respect, for example, blasphemers. Really?

And secondly, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses itself does not in any way fulfill the words from the Epistle of Peter about treat “all with respect” (1 Peter 2:17, Modern Version).

How, for example, does he treat representatives of other religions, including the Pope? Sincerely? Is it that, out of great respect, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses call the Pope and the entire church clergy “a man of sin, the son of perdition”?

How do Jehovah's Witnesses relate to those who oppose their false teachings and who have broken with their organization? With respect? “They are the dregs of society,” said one official representative of the Witnesses organization about those who left the organization for spiritual reasons. The whole world knows how cruelly and inhumanly the organization of Witnesses treats those expelled for the truth, those who pointed out its false teachings. And the words of Peter "Honor all kinds of people" Jehovah's Witnesses do not remember at all in this case. And even more so, they forgot the words from Matthew 7:12: “So in everything, whatever you want people to do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” But in connection with homosexuals, the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses cited these words of Jesus. A purely American, political approach: Interpret the laws and the Bible in a way that is beneficial.

The “discreet servant” respects homosexuals, not because the Apostle Peter teaches so. Peter does not call for respect for the Sodomites, since he himself called them wicked. It was the White House who ordered charity for homosexuals. And the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses obediently carry out the orders of their ruler. And a suitable text of Scripture will always be found. With their ability to get out!

"The Bible does not encourage homophobia", Rook told the council. Homophobia - literally translated means fear, disgust of homosexuality, not only of homosexual people, but also of this phenomenon itself. And so, the “prudent servant” broadcasts that there is no need to be afraid of the sin of Sodom, the Bible, they say, “does not encourage.” Monstrous lie! The Bible just directly calls for hating sins. “However, the good thing about you is that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”(Rev. 2:6).

By listening to false teachers, you can go far away from Christ. And millions left, victims of those who sold out to the authorities and religious leaders who bowed to the devil.

The Lord teaches to separate a person from his religion. But homosexuality is not a religion. This is man himself, the inner essence of man. The willful violator of God's laws must be told who he is. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wicked people, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”(1 Corinthians 6:9,10).

When a person is in religion, then he still believes God, somehow strives for holiness, respects God's laws. Differences in the views of people of different religions, but who fear God, come down to issues of understanding individual Biblical texts, which have no fundamental significance for salvation .When believers do not focus on the letter, but strive to understand the Spirit of Scripture, then they are brothers in Christ, even if they are in different denomination churches.

It is useful to ask: How does Holy Scripture actually treat homosexuals? Does it really respect them? Whatever the case! The Apostle Paul, for example, calls homosexuals and lesbians “in company” crazy, having fallen into shameful error. “...They know the righteous judgment of God, that those who do such things are worthy of death; however, not only do they do them, but they also approve of those who do them.”(Rom 1).

“...The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, condemning them to destruction, turned into ashes, setting an example for future wicked people,”- says the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:6).

That is, a long time ago and the White House, and Supreme Court The USA, and the Roman archpriests, and the Hands of the Council of Jehovah's Witnesses, Sodom and Gomorrah are shown as an example of what will happen to those who teach to support and respect the wicked.

Nikolay Var

Control of intimate relationships among Jehovah's Witnesses.

A lot has been said and said in various sources that in religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses exercise control over the daily lives of ordinary believers. Everything is under control: free time, entertainment, watching television, reading literature, using the Internet, dating, education and thinking.

However, very little attention has been paid to control in the sphere of intimate relationships between husband and wife. But it is precisely on this issue that Jehovah’s Witnesses can be said to have “outperformed” everyone. Perhaps for the first time in history human history this religious group took on the role of "prosecutor in the bedroom", controlling not issues of morality, but issues of how husband and wife should have sexual intercourse, what to allow each other during lovemaking and games, how to excite each other, how and by what methods achieve orgasm, etc. etc.

The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses in their publications, with the obsession of a maniac, analyzes all kinds of sex and classifies them. At the same time, some types of intimate relationships are recognized as “normal”, i.e. acceptable from a biblical point of view, while others are “immoral”, i.e. not biblically acceptable.

The problem, however, is that in God's Word there is no gradation of "moral" and "immoral" sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

The Bible, Proverbs 5:18, 19, gives the following “instructions,” so to speak, on this matter:

18 May your fountain be blessed; and be comforted by the wife of your youth,

19 With a kind doe and a beautiful brimstone: let her breasts intoxicate you at all times; delight in her love constantly.

It seemed to the OSB management that this was not enough and they decided to install " new order"in the intimate relationships of spouses, trying to organize a sexual revolution in reverse.

For this purpose, a text was brought to light from the letter of the Apostle Paul to Romans 1:26,27, in which he condemned homosexual relations. But these verses were explained in such a way that it turned out that oral sex (i.e. caressing the genitals with the mouth) and anal sex (i.e. using the anus during intercourse) are not permissible between husband and wife, because only homosexuals have such intercourse with each other.

Let's look at this Bible text:

26 Therefore God gave them over to shameful lusts, for their women exchanged their natural use for something unnatural;

27Likewise, men also abandoned the natural use of women and became inflamed with passion for one another, men for men, doing what was indecent and receiving within themselves the full retribution for their error.

It is clear that, as noted above, these words refer only to homosexual relations, but not to sexual relations between husband and wife; there is not even a hint of such relations here.

This issue was first discussed in detail in an article from the December 15, 1969 Watchtower (pp. 765, 766). In this article, such sexual relations between husband and wife have been thoroughly discussed. As Raymond Fretz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, writes in Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 3, “This undoubtedly made the elders even more sensitive to reports of such facts; it is quite possible that this is why this report of such facts appeared in the first place.” behavior of people in their own bedroom."

What R. Frenz means in this quote is that the Governing Body began to receive letters from local congregation elders who began to communicate very intimate things about the marital relationships of others.

Frenz reports that in 1972 the Governing Body was forced to deal with a case, he writes:

An issue...that caused considerable discussion concerned a Witness couple from California. Someone saw certain books and photographs of unusual sexual activities in their bedroom (I don't remember if we found out exactly how the person who saw and reported this gained access to the marital bedroom). Investigation and questioning of local elders discovered that in their sexual relations this couple actually practiced more than just ordinary sexual intercourse. The elders' letters reached Brooklyn, and the Governing Body had to discuss and decide what action to take against these couples.

Until the morning when these letters were read to us, none of us, except the President, had any opportunity to even think about this situation. However, a few hours later the decision was made, and the couple were deprived of communication. This decision later became an official policy applicable to all those participating in such sexual activities. (See: The Watchtower, English - 1972, December 1 - pp. 734-736 text at the end of the article).

Please note that in just a few hours a decision was made that would later turn into a tragedy for thousands of families of Jehovah's Witnesses. Subsequently, events developed very dramatically. There are no areas left in the life of Jehovah's Witnesses in which the SB Society, as the “all-seeing eye” of Jehovah God, could not intervene. Frenz explains it this way:

The published material was understood and applied as follows: usually the spouses believed that if such phenomena arose or existed in their marriage, regardless of whether they occurred by mutual consent of the spouses or on the initiative of only one of them, they were obliged to report this to the elders (in in the second case, the spouse from whom the initiative for such actions did not come had to notify the elders about everything, even if the spouse on whose initiative this happened did not want to tell it). If someone did not report what was happening, this was seen as an unwillingness to repent and led to a decision to disfellowship. The conviction that exclusion cut him off from the only organization in which salvation was possible, as well as from friends and relatives, weighed heavily on the man, driving him to submission, despite the fact that he had great difficulty confessing or reporting such things to an elder.

Following this 1972 decision, the OSB was inundated with a wave of legal committees in which elders heard reports or confessions of sexual activity. It was a shameful practice of interfering in the most intimate sphere of any person's life. Frenz recalls in his book:

At these hearings, women experienced the excruciating shame of being questioned by elders and answering questions about the intimate details of their sex lives within their marriages. Many marriages in which one spouse was not a Witness went through serious difficulties because the non-Witness spouse protested what he considered an unlawful invasion of privacy. Some marriages have broken up

This is the tragedy that I spoke about above: “some marriages broke up.”

How many such divorces have there been due to inappropriate sexual relations between husband and wife? Probably hundreds or even thousands of marriages. This conclusion can be reached on the basis of a memorandum to the Governing Body dated August 9, 1976, from a staff member of the Main Directorate who handled correspondence:

“A lot of problems have arisen as a result of this policy, often in families with non-believers [i.e. i.e. a non-Witness] husband. The wives refused to allow their husbands to excite them in this way or to stimulate their husbands in this way. As a result, marriages broke up.”

It is interesting how Frenz describes this situation:

Over the course of five years, a huge number of letters arrived, most of them asking where in Scripture the basis was given for Governing Body members to interfere in the personal lives of people in this way, and saying that the published arguments put forward in defense of the adopted policy did not seem to them sufficient compelling (the main scripture on which this policy was based was Romans 1:24-27, which deals with homosexuality; the letter writers indicated that they could not understand how this passage could be applied to heterosexual husband-wife relationships ). Other letters, mostly from wives, simply spoke of their embarrassment and uncertainty about the acceptability of pre-coital play with their husbands.

Then he told absolutely amazing things that help to understand the slavery Jehovah’s Witnesses are in and how defenseless they are from insolent intrusion even into their bedroom:

A note from a member of the Society's service department dated June 1976 recounts a telephone conversation with a seminar instructor (for elders). It states that the instructor called to inquire about one of the elders attending the seminars who had admitted to engaging in illicit sexual activity with his wife: Brother [insert instructor's name] discussed the matter with him in detail to determine whether the act in which he participated was oral intercourse. The [instructor] advised that, under the circumstances, he should speak with the other members of the committee. It happened that two committee members were present at the class, and [the instructor] came over and talked to them. Now [the instructor] would like to know what else needs to be done... [He] was advised to write a full report of the incident so that in the future, when he encounters similar things, he will know what to do and will not have to make any more calls.

This shows to what extent the investigations into intimate details went and to what extent the headquarters was in charge of the whole situation. Letter after letter reveals that people felt obligated to God to keep the elders informed of any deviation from the norm adopted by the Governing Body. A man in a midwestern state who admitted to deviating from the Governing Body's decision regarding his marriage relationship with his wife was informed by the elders that a letter about this would be written to the Society; he himself also wrote cover letter. Eight weeks passed and he eventually wrote to Brooklyn again, saying that "the waiting, the anxiety and the excitement are becoming almost unbearable." He said that he had been removed from all duties in the congregation, including praying during the meeting, that "almost every week I lose something for which I have worked or prayed for thirty years." He begged for a quick answer, saying:

I need to somehow ease my mind and find out what my position is in Jehovah's organization.

The whole horror of this situation lay in the fact that the person himself did not understand that his devotion to Jehovah God could not be connected with devotion to an organization that itself violated all conceivable and inconceivable moral and moral norms.

Here is a copy of the letter from the Service Department of the Society, taken from the book by R. Frenz "The Crisis of Reduction". The author of the letter, according to Frenz, was Merton Campbell from this department.

To the congregation's elders council

... Jehovah's Witnesses through ... for ...

Dear brothers!

We have a copy of a letter dated July 21st from the California meeting committee in which they write about issues concerning J...

Please let us know if any elders have given incorrect advice regarding oral sex. If one of the elders of the congregation told married people that it was okay for them to engage in oral sex, then on what basis was such advice given? If incorrect advice has been given, state whether appropriate steps have been taken to correct the misunderstanding of the matter by those to whom the advice was given, and whether the elders are in agreement about what the Society's publications say in relation to oral sex.

If any of you, brothers, as elders, gave anyone advice that oral sex was acceptable as love play before the actual act, that advice was wrong.

Thank you for your attentive attitude to the issue presented. May Jehovah's abundant blessings be upon you as you strive to live up to your responsibilities as elders.

Your brothers

Copies: to the legal committee

Meetings...

Jehovah's Witnesses, California

These were the instructions the congregation elders received. But this was not enough, in their “zeal” for the insane “purity” in the congregation, some elders went so far as to believe, as Frenz writes, that “the Governing Body should have gone further in condemning unnatural acts between spouses, including among them some positions during sexual intercourse."

However, not all elders reached such a degree of slavish servility before the Governing Council; there were those who thought and tried to change the situation. One elder wrote to the Governing Body (from Frenz's book):

Since Jehovah has explained in detail in Leviticus 18, as well as in other chapters, everything concerning sexual behavior, why does he not give any instructions to married couples regarding acceptable and unacceptable forms of intercourse? Is it not natural to assume that Jehovah would do this if he wanted to open this very personal and intimate sphere to the views and opinions of the “judges” or “elders” of Israel so that appropriate measures would be taken against the criminals?

Apparently, their point of view had its effect over time and after 5 years the Governing Body returned to this issue again and decided to change the policy on deprivation of fellowship due to the notorious “inappropriate” relationships in marriage. According to Frenz, it went like this:

The bulk of the incoming letters never reached the Governing Body, but were handled by the "letter desk" or service department employees. However I am sure that different members The Governing Body must have known, quite possibly through personal contacts and conversations, that many of their authors felt that they were unsolicited intrusions into the privacy of others. When the matter finally came up again (after about five years), the disfellowshipping policy was changed, and as a result the Governing Body removed itself from dealing with people's intimate lives. Once again I was tasked with preparing material for publication, this time about a desired change. It gave me great satisfaction personally to be able to admit, albeit in a vague way, that the organization had been wrong all along.

The February 15, 1978 Watchtower published an article by Frenz on this issue, which stated, in part:

However, further careful consideration of the matter convinces us that, in the absence of clear instructions in Scripture, in these matters the spouses are themselves responsible before God and that these intimate details of marriage are not within the control of the elders of the congregations, and the elders cannot exclude anyone. or from the organization on that basis alone.* Of course, if a person wants to ask the elders for advice, the elder will review biblical principles with that person, acting as a shepherd, but not seeking to control the marriage life of the person who asked for the advice.

Of course, this is not about justifying any sexual activity that people engage in. We simply feel a keen sense of responsibility to let Scripture guide our lives and do not want to take a dogmatic position when there is no sufficient basis for this. We also express confidence in the desire of Jehovah's people as a whole to do everything as for him and to reflect all his fine qualities in all their activities. We wish to leave judgment in such intimate marital areas in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to make the right decision.

However, another 5 years after this, in March 1983, the OSB, in fact, returned to some of the previous provisions on “unnatural sexual intercourse.”

The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, although it stated that elders should not “control” the personal marital affairs of members of the congregation, nevertheless made it clear that persons engaged in what it called “ unnatural sexual intercourse" or justifying it, cannot occupy the position of elder or have other "advantages" assigned by the Society. It was also said that this "may even lead to disfellowshipment." In the Russian edition of this "Watchtower" for December 1, 1984, the article "Honor marriage as a God-given structure!" It said:

What can be said about sexual activities between spouses in a marital relationship? Elders should not pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. Spouses, however, must consider the Bible in their lives. Those who wish to “walk in the Spirit” should not ignore the biblical references to the opinions of God. It is also good to develop a hatred of everything that is unclean in the eyes of Jehovah, including clearly perverted sexual practices. Spouses should act in a manner in which they can maintain a clear conscience, in while they give exclusive attention to the development of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5).

What is the situation, however, if one of the marriage partners desires or even demands that his or her spouse engage in obviously depraved sexual activity? The above facts show that porn refers to illicit sexual behavior outside the marriage arrangement. If a marriage partner coerces a perverse act, such as oral or anal sex, in a marital relationship, then this would therefore not provide a biblical basis for divorce, which would give both the right to remarry. Although such a situation would be distressing to a believing marriage partner, his efforts to adhere to Bible principles will be blessed by Jehovah. In such cases, it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the issue frankly, remembering in particular that sexual intercourse should be something noble, pure and an expression of tender love. This must certainly exclude anything that might upset or harm the marriage partner (Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7).

As has already been said, it is not the job of the elders to “control” the intimate marital affairs of spouses in the congregation. However, when it is known that any member of the congregation engages in or openly advocates deviant sexual acts within marriage, such a person would certainly not be above reproach and therefore would not be qualified for special benefits such as serving as an elder, ministerial servant, or pioneer Such conduct and defense of such conduct could even lead to disfellowshipment. Why?

Galatians 5:19-21 mentions many vices that are not included in pornkya, but which would make a person unfit to live in the Kingdom of God. This includes “uncleanness” (Greek: akatarsca, meaning dirt, depravity, depravity) and “indecency [unrestrained behavior, NM]” (Greek: aselgeia, meaning debauchery, revelry, shamelessness). Both pornkya and such vices, when they become gross, can be a reason for disfellowshipping a Christian congregation, but not for a scriptural divorce. A person who shamelessly advocates shocking and disgusting sexual acts would be guilty of rampant behavior or lewdness. A person with such inclinations could, of course, even descend to the point of committing pornkya. Then there would be reason for a Scriptural divorce. How should all Christians strive to avoid and fight against all such “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:24, 25).

However, these subsequent changes in the Society's policy did not lead to the significant increase in legal hearings that accompanied the initial adoption of this position. This may not have happened due to the fact that the elders' fervent efforts to investigate these issues had already brought quite bad consequences,” Frenz comments on the situation.

Moreover, in the book “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock” (a manual for elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses), on page 142 it says the following:

While a body of Christians cannot give guidance regarding all sexual matters in relation to the marital bed, individuals can be counseled that they should be kind, loving and considerate in their intimate relationships, as in all other aspects of the Christian life. to each other (Eph. 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7).

Everyone should have hatred of all perverted sexual activities (Lev. 18:22, 23; Ps. 96:10; Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 5:3, 10-12; Col. 3 :5, 6).

Persons should be strongly exhorted to act so as to maintain a good conscience, and the marital bed should be undefiled (Heb. 13:4; w1-XII-84, pp. 20-23).

Although perverted acts are wrong, this does not mean that a person who engages or has engaged in such acts in his marriage necessarily loses job benefits.

If the elders become aware of such behavior, they have to consider the following: Was the habit recent or ongoing, or is it something of the past and definitely broken? Does this person support this behavior as an appropriate way of life? Is his mentality characterized by remorse? If he sincerely repents and the situation is generally unknown, then he does not necessarily need to be deprived of official benefits.

What does this mean in practice? This means that Jehovah's Witnesses who engage in oral or anal sex in their intimate relationships will likely not face any legal action, but will receive "advice" on what they should do in their intimate relationships. , as well as proceedings on such issues: how, how much, when, what do you feel, what do you think about it?!

From the book Take Heed, it appears that ministerial servants, pioneers, and elders may lose their privileges simply because someone enjoys performing oral sex on his wife and she does not mind.

Moreover, if the designated appointed ministers still do not repent of the fact that they like it, and, God forbid, they tell someone else about it that it is pleasant, then they cannot avoid expulsion from the congregation, unless legally committee, they will not repent of their sinful behavior, which consists in the love of a certain “uncleanness” or in Greek: akatartsa (filth, depravity, depravity) and “indecency” or in Greek: aselgeia (licentiousness, revelry, shamelessness), as this follows from the interpretation of the OSB Galatians 5:19-21:

19But the works of the flesh are obvious, these are fornication, uncleanness, lascivious behavior, 20idolatry, spiritualism, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, quarrels, divisions, sectarianism,

21envy, drunkenness, carousing and the like. I warn you about such things, just as I warned you that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

It follows from this that at present the OSB does not widely apply the practice of expulsion from the congregation due to some “unacceptable” intimate relationships in marriage, but nevertheless this mechanism itself is still in operation, and no doubt it is sometimes used in practice to control the personal sphere of ordinary members of the organization and suppress their sense of self-worth.

For the elders of the congregation, the rule still remains: an elder who uses these methods of sex in his practice is not fit for office benefits and must be removed. However, in practice this is almost impossible to apply, because many elders do not think about this order at all, many ignore it, and many do not even know.

I remember one time when I asked a brother at a District Congress to emphasize in his speech that oral sex outside of marriage is fornication, the circuit overseer who heard this asked in surprise: “And how is oral sex within marriage also bad?”

That's it! It turns out that even the appointed traveling overseers do not understand what is said in the textbook for elders, that if “he sincerely repents and the situation is generally unknown, then he does not necessarily need to be deprived of official benefits,” i.e. translated: “if he does not repent and continues to engage in “perverted sexual acts” with his wife, then he must be removed as an elder or circuit overseer!

Many people do not understand at all that “perverted sexual acts” (from the textbook “Listen”) mean oral and anal sex, and not such perversions as bestiality, homosexuality or something else, even more vile. All this is called by its proper name both in the textbook and in the publications of the Society, but when, in the same sources, it speaks of “perverted sexual acts,” then this is exactly what is described in Romans 1:26,27 as homosexual, and therefore as it is said - “that you do this to your wife, for this God gave you the appropriate organs, so use them, but not in the same way as these homosexuals... This is the kind of “moralism” that sounds behind the “scene”.

I often ask myself the question: “Why does the Watch Tower Society need to control even intimate relationships in marriage? Unfortunately, I come to a disappointing conclusion: the goal of the Society’s leadership is to instill in its members such devotion that control becomes possible, not only at the level of thinking, but also emotions, feelings, hormonal secretions. The Society needs this type of “faithful servant” who would be controlled not only in the field of “field service”, but also in the area of ​​his reproductive abilities, turning them on and off on command in some publication of the Society. , for example, in the magazine “Awake!”, one name, which would serve as a signal for deactivation. All this will make it possible to create a mobile army of “zealous servants” not burdened with unnecessary searches for the truth, but ready to accept it in its ready-made form and in any area of ​​their lives. Accept it resignedly and weakly, like sterilized “sheep”, suitable only for shearing and “serving” for the benefit of their owners.

The members of the Governing Body probably had certain moral preferences when they made all these decisions about controlling sex life in marriage, but having similar views on what is acceptable in my marriage, I cannot impose any behavior on anyone else in this marriage. personal area.

But most importantly, I find no biblical basis for considering such actions in marriage to be sinful. This is a matter of personal preference, of course, with the obligatory consideration of the partner’s opinion. Therefore, it is much more important to adhere to the biblical principle of Eph. 5:28-29:

28In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself,

29For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but, on the contrary, nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ did the congregation.

Therefore, the control of intimate relationships in marriage among Jehovah’s Witnesses is unbiblical control, and is harmful not only to a person’s freedom, but also to his ability to love his marriage partner as his body.

_____________________________

Questions From Readers

● Recently in the news there was a court decision ruling that oral copulation by adults is no longer punishable by law in a certain state. Would such practice therefore be solely a matter for individual conscience if engaged in by a Christian couple within the marriage arrangement?—U.S.A.
It is not the purpose of this magazine to discuss all the intimate aspects of marital relations. Nevertheless, practices like those involved in this court case have become quite common and have received significant publicity. Even young children in certain schools are being informed of these things in sex education courses. We would therefore be remiss as regards our responsibility if we held back Scriptural counsel that could aid sincere Christians in their efforts to follow a course of purity calling forth the Creator’s blessing. Unusual sexual practices were being carried on in the apostle Paul’s day and he did not remain silent about them, as can be seen in reading Romans 1:18-27. We are therefore only following his good example in considering this question here.
In discussing sexual practices, the apostle provides us a principle that helps us to reach a right conclusion. He refers to “the natural use of the female,” which some were abandoning in favor of what is “contrary to nature,” thus satisfying “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “working what is obscene.” The apostle specifically deals with homosexual practices, condemning such. But the principle is stated—that the satisfying of sexual desires can be “natural” or can be “contrary to nature”—applies just as well to the question under consideration.—See also Leviticus 18:22, 23.
The natural way for a married couple to have sexual relations is quite apparent from the very design given their respective organs by the Creator, and it should not be necessary to describe here how these organs complement each other in normal sexual copulation. We believe that, aside from those who have been indoctrinated with the view that ‘in marriage anything goes,’ the vast majority of persons would normally reject as repugnant the practice of oral copulation, as also anal copulation. If these forms of intercourse are not “contrary to nature,” then what is? That those practicing such acts do so by mutual consent as married persons would not thereby make these acts natural or not “obscene.” Are we being ‘narrow’ or ‘extreme’ in taking such a position?
No, as seen by the fact that several states of the United States have for long had laws against precisely such practices, classifying them as forms of “sodomy”—even though those engaging in them are married. Because of this legal usage, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary includes in its definition of “sodomy” this: “carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal or unnatural carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex; specif: the penetration of the male organ into the mouth or anus of another.” Of course, dictionaries and state laws differ but our position is based primarily upon God’s Word the Bible. Yet such worldly evidence serves a certain purpose, one corresponding in principle to what the apostle said at 1 Corinthians 5:1. There he showed that the sexual relations of one member in the Corinthian congregation were of a kind condemned even by people of the pagan nations. So, the application of the term “sodomy” in modern times to the mentioned forms of copulation shows that we are not unreasonable in saying they are not only “unnatural” but grossly so.
However, since marriage is of divine origin, our conscientious stand on marital relations is not founded on or ruled by worldly views. Therefore the overruling of some state law and the declaration of oral copulation (or similar unnatural copulation) as ‘legal’ does not alter our Bible-based position. In a world of decaying morals we can expect that some law courts may succumb in varying degrees to the growing trend toward sexual perversion, just as some of the clergy and doctors have done.
It is not our purpose to attempt to draw a precise line as to where what is “natural” ends and what is “unnatural” begins. But we believe that, by meditating on Bible principles, a Christian should at least be able to discern what is grossly unnatural. In other areas, the Christian’s individual conscience will have to guide, and this includes questions regarding caresses and ‘love play’ prior to intercourse. (Compare Proverbs 5:18, 19.) But even here the Christian who wants to produce the fruits of God’s holy spirit will wisely avoid practices that approach, or could easily lead one to fall into, unnatural forms of copulation.
What if certain married couples in the congregation in the past or even in recent times have engaged in practices such as those just described, not appreciating till now the gravity of the wrong? Then they can seek God’s forgiveness in prayer and prove their sincere repentance by desisting from such gross unnatural acts.
It is certainly not the responsibility of elders or any others in a Christian congregation to search into the private lives of married couples. However, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong . Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are 'caught in the snare of the Devil.' (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons will fully show disrespect for Jehovah God's marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous “leaven” that could contaminate others.—1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.
What of Christian women married to unbelievers and whose mates insist on their sharing in such grossly unnatural acts? Does the apostle’s statement that “the wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does” give a wife the basis for submitting to these demands? (1 Cor. 7:4) No, for such husbandly authority is only relative. God's authority remains always supreme. (1 Cor. 11:3; Acts 5:29) The apostle, furthermore, was speaking of normal sexual relations, as the context indicates. True, refusal to engage in unholy acts may bring hardship or even persecution on a wife, but the situation is the same as if her husband demanded that she engage in some form of idolatry, in misuse of blood, dishonesty or other such wrong.
Millions of married couples throughout the earth, both in the past and in the present, have found that unselfish love brings joy and full satisfaction, for both partners, in marital relations, without resorting to perverted methods. Realizing that a corrupt world is soon to be wiped away, we can think on the words of the apostle Peter, who wrote: “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah.” Yes, this is not the time to be slipping into, or letting others beguile or pressure us into, unholy practices just to satisfy selfish passion. Not if we truly cherish our hope of living in the fresh, clean new order now so near. (2 Pet. 3:11, 12; Jude 7) So, Christian married couples can keep ‘the marriage bed without defilement,’ not only by refraining from fornication and adultery, but also by avoiding defiling, unnatural practices.—Heb. 13:4.

December 12th, 2016 , 07:44 pm

I offer my commentary and additional data regarding the question and answer on the public page of Jehovah’s Witnesses on VKontakte (JW NEWS). As usual, there were half-truths, bordering on lies and built on manipulation.

This one, quite competent and interesting question and the “answer” of SI administrators from the public.

I have some questions here. Why are all Governing Body members US citizens? Why doesn't an anointed one from another country become part of the "faithful and discreet servant"? Was at least one member of the Governing Body a citizen of another country? Please answer. Thanks in advance!

Yura
_______________________________

JW News Answer: The question about citizenship is not entirely accurate. Members of the Governing Body (GC) reside in the United States because our headquarters is located there, but we do not know whether they all have American citizenship or reside in the United States under other conditions.

By origin, RS members belong to different countries. In our publications, detailed biographies of RS members are often published after their death, so it is difficult to say anything about the origins of current members. Of those currently active, it is known that Jeffrey Jackson was born in Queensland (Australia), and Gerrit Loesch is from Austria.

* Carey Barber - England;
* John Barr - Scotland;

* Karl Klein - Germany;
* Lyman Swingle - USA;
* Frederick Frenz - USA;
* Albert Schroeder - USA;
* Theodore Jaracz - USA;
* George Gangas - Türkiye;

It is also worth noting that some of those GC members who were born in the United States spent a significant portion of their lives in other countries serving as preachers (pioneers or missionaries) or traveling overseers."
.

_____________________________

COMMENT:

Please note that the questioner asked the question EXTREMELY PRECISELY - about US CITIZENSHIP at the time of taking office as a MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BOARD. We are talking specifically about CITIZENSHIP (as a status) and MEMBERSHIP in the Governing Council of the SI.

By analogy, ONLY US CITIZENS can be the President of the United States (by law). But the leaders of the SI position their organization as “international”, and the leaders in the Governing Council as representing the “spiritual” interests of ALL SI, regardless of country or nationality.

Therefore, when representatives of the SI begin with the fact that “the question about citizenship is NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE.” What's "inaccurate" here? Everything is written in the question very clearly, in my opinion. Moreover, it was CITIZENSHIP (status) that was mentioned both times, and not “where they were born”, “where they grew up” or “where they worked”.

And if the SI would have stopped after writing the following line, then it would have been more or less relatively honest: “Members of the Governing Body (GC) live in the USA, because our headquarters is located there, but do they all have American citizenship or live in the USA under other conditions, we do not know."

But the SI continues to prove that they are “international” with “international leadership”. And they begin to describe the origin and even countries of “work” BEFORE the Governing Body or generally serving in the Headquarters in Brooklyn (New York, USA), thereby “casting a shadow over the fence.”

We'll have to disperse this shadow a little and show something.

Let's start with the fact that formally, until 1971, the SI did not have any Governing Council. The main power belonged to the President of the Society, and this president was elected in a narrow circle of his “colleagues” from the Board of Directors of legal entities in the USA. If they were all checked, it would appear that they would almost all be of American or Canadian origin.

So, the Presidents of the Society.

William Henry Conley - the first formal president (even BEFORE Charles Russell) - from 1981 to 1984. Born in the USA. Link to English Wiki.

Charles Taze Russell is considered the founder and is known to most SI as the "first" President of the Society (they are almost unaware of Conley's existence). He was president of the OSB from 1884 to 1916 (until his death). American by birth. Link about it in Wiki.

Joseph Franklin Rutherford - known to SI as the "second" president of the OSB. Served as president after Russell until his death in 1942. American by birth. Link about it in Wiki.
.

Nathan Homer Knorr was the "third" President of the OSB until his death in 1977. American by birth.

Frederick William Franz was the fourth President of the OSB from 1977 to 1992 (until his death). American by birth.

Milton George Henschel - fifth President of the OSB from 1992 to 2000 (not until his death). American by birth.

It must be said right away that after the death of Frederic Frenz, the role of the President became more of a “nominal” one. And yet - in the English Wikipedia there are many times more details about these OSB presidents than in Russian-language articles.

Now about the SI Governing Council. Formally, it began to function only in 1971, in a composition different from the “board of directors”.

Let's try from this time in the early 1970s and see what is known from foreign language articles about origin or citizenship (at the time of the formation of the SI about members of the Governing Council in the past).

I will primarily use Portuguese-language articles on these topics. From here.

So, the listing is in order from the article. In brackets are the years of presence on the OSB Governing Council.

Albert Schroeder (1974 - 2006) - born in the USA.

Carey Barber (1977-2007) - born in England. At the age of 16 he was baptized in Canada. At the age of 18 he began working in Bethel (country not specified).

Charles Fekel (1974-1977) - was born in the Czech Republic, which was then part of Austria-Hungary. His family immigrated to the United States when he was 8 years old. He was baptized in 1916 while living in the USA. I think that with citizenship it’s clear.

Daniel Sidlik (1974-2006) - born in the USA.

Evart Chitty (1972-1979) - place of birth not specified. But at 23 he was working at Bethel in London. Possibly English (or American) by birth.

Frederick Frenz (1972-1992) - see 4 OSB Presidents above. American by birth.

George Gangas (1971-1994) - was born in Turkey, but the Polish Wiki states that he is of "Greek origin". He and his family traveled to several countries over the course of several years (due to the First World War) - Greece, France, then emigrated to the USA, where he later began to communicate with Russell’s followers. At the time of baptism, he was already living in the USA. (Now compare with what SI wrote in the answer above).

Grant Suiter (1972-1983) - American by birth.

Guy Pearce (1999 - 2014) - born in the USA.

Hugo Riemer (1974 - [?]) - no information.

John Barr (1977-2010) - born in Scotland. At the age of 26 he began serving in Bethel (apparently in the USA), then he went to other places, and in 1946 he returned to the USA to Bethel.

John Booth (1974-1996) - place of birth is not indicated, but at the time of baptism he lived in the USA.

John Groh (1972-1975) - no information in the article.

Karl Klein (1974-2001) - was born in Germany, but when he was about 4 years old, the family moved to the USA). That is, he grew up and lived in the USA until the moment of baptism.

Leo Greenlees (1972-1974) - origin unknown, but served in Bethel Canada and RSD Headquarters in the USA.

Lyman Swingle (1972-2001) - American by birth.

Martin Pötzinger (1977-1988) - born in Germany. But he was already buried in the USA. Went through concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

Milton Henschel (1972-2003) - see 5 OSB President above. American by birth.

Nathan Knorr (1972-1977) - see 3 OSB President above. American by birth.

Raymond Frenz (1972-1980) - nephew of Frederick Frenz. American by birth. The most senior “apostate” who wrote two books, “Crisis of Conscience” and “In Search of Christian Freedom,” about the top of the OSB and the adoption of a number of decisions in matters of the destinies of people and creeds.

Thomas Sullivan (1972-1974) - lived in Canada before becoming acquainted with Russell's ideas. (we can assume that he was originally of Canadian origin or an emigrant).

Lloyd Barry (1974-1999) - born in New Zealand. I started with the Australian (English speaking) Bethel. He supervised the OSB branch in Japan for a long time.

William Jackson (1972-1981) - American by birth.

Theodore Jaracz (1972-2010) - American by birth.
____________________________
.

What is known about some of the current members of the SI Governing Council?

Samuel Hurd (RukSova member since 1999) - lived and served in the United States before working at Bethel. The only member of African-American descent in the entire existence of the OSB Governing Council. Apparently he is American by birth.

Jeffrey Jackson (RukSova member since 2005) - began pioneering in Australia.

Stephen Lett (RukSova member since 1999) - served at Brooklyn Bethel from age 18 to 22. Then he got married and served in traveling work (and before that as a special pioneer) until 1998, when he was returned to Brooklyn again. Apparently he is of American origin.

Gerrit Lösch (member of RukSov since 1994) - born in Austria. He served in Austria, including in the Austrian Bethel (in Vienna), and since 1993 he has served in Brooklyn (USA).

Anthony Morris (RukSova member since 2005) - began pioneering ministry in the USA. Apparently, he is an American by citizenship and has been for a long time.

Mark Sanderson (member of RukSova since 2012) is American by birth.

David Splain (member of RukSova since 1999) - origin is unknown, but for almost 19 years he served as a “travelling” in Canada. Apparently, he is either Canadian or American by citizenship (but it is not yet known for sure).
_________________________

So, what can we say about the accuracy of the SI response in the public (quite selective and incomplete)?

I quote (with explanation):

“It is known from those currently active that Jeffrey Jackson was born in Queensland (Australia), and Gerrit Loesch is from Austria. [doesn’t say anything about citizenship, but the places of birth are yes, they correspond]

We are aware of the backgrounds of the following deceased members of the RS:

* Carey Barber - England; [half-truth - at the time of baptism he lived in Canada]
* John Barr - Scotland; [says nothing about citizenship]
* Lloyd Barry - New Zealand; [Lloyd Barry started at English-speaking Bethel, in Australia, where the main language is English]
* Karl Klein - Germany; [half-truth. From the age of 4 he lived and grew up in the USA. All this BEFORE his baptism]
* Lyman Swingle - USA;
* Frederick Frenz - USA;
* Albert Schroeder - USA;
* Theodore Jaracz - USA;
* George Gangas - Türkiye; [half-truth. At the time of meeting the “researchers”, SI already lived in the USA]
* Martin Pötzinger - Germany. [says nothing about his subsequent adoption or lack of US citizenship].

Even worse, of all the members of the Governing Body, only “some” deceased leaders were chosen to answer, while the core was ALWAYS made up of Americans (plus SIs of English origin - England, Canada, Australia).

Another couple or three got involved with the German and Austrian mentality of origin.

Now the questions are: where are the Brazilians, Mexicans, where are the Japanese, where are the Russians, where are the Spaniards, where are the Italians, where are the Ukrainians, where are the Belarusians, where are the representatives of “Slavic” countries in general, where are the representatives of African countries, where are the French, where are the Poles, where are the other “nations” in the Governing Council of the SI since 1971 (I’m not even talking about the earlier period).

Okay, there are no Chinese or Hindus-SI (although this is strange, because in the USA there are both Chinese-SI and Indians, I think there are also by nationality). But for some reason, the top leadership of the OSB ALWAYS consists of ANGLO-SAXANS (USA, ENGLAND, CANADA, AUSTRALIA). One continuous Anglo-Saxon world of some kind.

This is despite the fact that the leaders of the OSB are rubbing in everyone that “for there is no partiality with the Lord our God” (2 Chronicles 19:7) or Romans 2:11: “For there is no partiality with God,” and also about the fact that how for “OVER 100 YEARS” in Russia or Ukraine, and almost all over the world, their “good news” has been preached by the “anointed ones”.

So, during this very time, God did not actually choose anyone other than the Anglo-Saxons to the top leadership of such an “international organization”? And why, in fact, did they all, apparently, receive American citizenship (at best, we can talk about double or triple citizenship)?

That is, logically, it turns out that in order to manage “spiritually” in the organization of God at the very top of the SI, you either need to be an Anglo-Saxon with experience, personally know one of the current members of the Governing Council or their close associates, it is almost necessary to graduate from the “School Gilead" (about 6 months) in English in the USA, prove your devotion to the interests of the cult for decades, and there is a small chance that you will get into the "higher echelons" of power in the cult. Don't you think all this is strange? Especially in light of the teachings about "anointed ones" in this organization?

Why was there not a SINGLE BLACK SI on the Governing Council before 1999? Were you of Asian origin? No, there were only white Americans. Is it not surprising to SI that the first black member of RukSov appeared several years before the appearance of the first mulatto president in the United States? It’s as if someone told the OSB leadership of politicians to “prepare the people.” But in the early stages, SI taught that in the “new world” blacks would all become “white” (don’t be surprised, this also happened to support racial segregation).

Also, based on the books of Raymond Frenz (who stayed in RukSov for about 9 years), I will add: almost all decisions on important issues after discussion there are decided by VOTING. Not “unanimous”, but a kind of “quorum” of the majority. So the Anglo-Saxons are like United Russia in the Duma. They ALWAYS have the majority. Even if some other opponent gets into the Governing Council and wants, for example, to reduce the role of interest in the United States or for the OSB to act more in the interests of another region, nothing will work. From the word "in general".

Moreover, any “oppositionist” in the Governing Council will be quickly thrown out, as they did with Raymond Franz, they will even go so far as to throw him out of the Organization altogether, along with supporters at lower levels. I have already published a post about Nestor Quilan, who served in Brooklyn, being of Puerto Rican origin, serving in Spain under the ban, which the Anglo-Saxons-SI, at the instigation of their leaders, simply quickly kicked out of Brooklyn in 1980 due to the fact that he did not want to "mortgage" Raymond Franz. Here is (translation of the article).

Still, for SIs who live OUTSIDE the USA or do not belong to the “European” branch of nations, the question remains - maybe, after all, Jehovah is some kind of God who is especially favorable to the Anglo-Saxons? He chose the Anglo-American World Power, He placed such a unique Center of “true religion” in the “unique” American state, He so wisely elects 90% Anglo-Saxons to the leadership of this religion and even provides them with the opportunity to obtain citizenship in the USA, the same the wise God helps persecuted SIs to obtain “political asylum” in the USA, and in general it is even easier to obtain a “visa”. What a loving, “just”, international God this is!

And now a couple of words to SI: you see, it will be extremely difficult for you at present to prove to people who have the Internet that you are not representatives of the “American cult” and that “God has impartiality.” It's very, very difficult. Apparently, “Satan himself” invented this very...Internet. Moreover, precisely as an “international” network. Good luck in your efforts to prove otherwise!

To other readers of this post: if you are associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, then show or voice these data and questions about "God's selectivity" in the Watchtower Society.