All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Charles T. Russell Era (1879-1916)

Date: late 1800's. Okay, July 1879 if you want to be picky.

Current Religious Views: many apocalyptic leanings, prompting the origin of several major eclectic religious groups claiming that God had rejected the mainstream Christian Churches for their apostasy in the fourth century, and that He has now chosen a new prophet, a spokesman, a faithful messenger to re-educate the world as to the truths of the Bible, long-lost and unattainable by any normal human being. To gain eternal life, man must listen to the new gospel of this messenger(s). This century sees the birth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Adventism and its various offshoots (including Jehovah's Witnesses), Christian Science, Christadelphians and other smaller groups, each one claiming a modern-day prophet and new or once-forgotten revelations to the populace, many of whom we find shopping for new ideas, yet disenchanted with the churches.

Scenario: A young man who can't understand theology from a historical development point of view begins to feel that he is the "Seventh Messenger" (Rev. 3:14) given to the Body of Christ, which he believes (as did most every generation of Christians before him since the time of Christ) is living in the "last days" of man's dominion over the earth. Borrowing from many current theological ideas around him, including an "invisible" return of Christ (a la Adventists), the prophetic nature of the Great Pyramid in Egypt and other occult symbolism (i.e., Masonry, astrology, numerology, etc.), and a variation of the "Gentile Times" theory (a la George Storrs and others), he also denies the historical interpretations of Scripture such as the Trinity, hell as a place of punishment, and the existence of the soul apart from the body. Not finding much sympathy for his views in other religions, he starts his own. The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence becomes its mouthpiece, first printed in July, 1879.

Peculiar Opening Beliefs: The time of the end began in 1799, Christ returned invisibly in 1874, 40-year harvest period ending in 1914 with the complete overthrow of man's rule (Armageddon) replaced by God's rule, and numerous minor oddities regarding intelligence, black men, miracle wheat, numerology, and the size of men's brains. Perhaps nothing unique to the day except some of his particular prophetic dates.

Things Russell Would Currently be Disfellowshipped (excommunicated) For: Anti-organizational teachings, celebrating birthdays, Christmas and holiday observance, military involvement tolerated, not draining blood from food, considering self to be the "faithful and discreet slave," selling "Miracle Wheat," dabbling in the occult and signing his own books.

Joseph F. ("Judge") Rutherford Era (1916-1942)

Date: 1916, death of C.T. Russell

Developing Religious Views: Russell is still the "Seventh Messenger," but let's not get too carried away with that! In fact, let's take down his pictures, re-examine his dates, wear loud clothes, drink a lot, and basically be obnoxious iconoclasts that invite retribution. Let's separate ourselves from those Bible Students who remain loyal to Russell, and don't like our new bombastic style. We'll do that by scorning the cross, changing our name to Jehovah's witnesses, eliminating "pagan" influences like the pyramid and numerology, slamming the churches, and broadcasting hate messages against the Catholic Church and League of/United Nations door-to-door and by radio. Let's make Prohibition our enemy, refuse to fight for our country, and court Hitler's favor.

Scenario: Russell dies in 1916, with express wishes as to how his work would be continued. Rutherford attempts a hostile takeover of the Watchtower presidency, using his knowledge of legal procedure to buffalo his way into power, successfully. The "standfasters" remain loyal to Russell and thus several breakaway groups are formed, such as the Dawn Bible Students, etc. who still hold to Russell and his beliefs. (Several of these groups are still in existence today). Rutherford has an identity crisis (people were not prone to worship him), and begins a slow, political process of eradicating all traces of Russell-worship. He even goes so far as to change the basic message of the Bible from the simple gospel (the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) to that of "Jehovah's Sovereignty." (Imagine Rutherford saying: `You see, God has this court case going, and, like, the devil says he's trying to pull one over on mankind, and since there are so many angels in the audience, it's kind of embarrassing to him to be accused like that... I can relate, of course... so God's got to let it all hang out and prove to everyone He's not so bad after all... Kind of like my own situation!) So God's on the hot seat, and so is Rutherford for taking over this organization. That's the REAL universal issue!

Peculiar Opening Beliefs: Millions Now Living Will Never Die (at least, up until the Judge's death), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (oh, yeah, and Moses, too) will appear at our conventions soon and since we certainly don't want them at Bethel, we'll put them all up three thousand miles away in California in my own mansion there. Just so no one gets suspicious about the house, I'll put their names in the deed to the house, but they'll have to prove to us who they really are before they get MY room!

Things Rutherford Would Currently be Disfellowshipped For: Signing his own books, beer parties at Bethel, aggravating everyone in sight.

Nathan H. Knorr Era (1942-1977)

Date: 1942, death of the "Judge."

Developing Religious Views: No blood transfusions for Witnesses or their parakeets, everything is satanic including crosses, religious jewelry and gifts from worldly relatives. You can practically get disfellowshipped for looking at a church. Smoking banned in 1973, but it's still okay to be an alcoholic elder. Fred Franz becomes the resident seer at Bethel, enticing the brothers in the steam rooms at Bethel with his Bible topics and fascinating all who listen to his absurd sermons. Franz was largely responsible for the 1975 fever, which practically had people being disfellowshipped for NOT believing 1975 was going to be the end!

Scenario: Charming or charismatic leaders are out, android presidents are in. Knorr, about as lovable as pea soup, is voted in and makes up for his lack of charm by expanding the business of organization. Birth of the NEW WORLD SOCIETY: "God's Organization." Gilead Missionary School sends out students all over the world, Knorr gives them a one-way ticket to ride, leading to depression and suicide for a few who wish to return. Bethel (Watchtower headquarters) slowly envelopes Brooklyn Heights, greatly aggravating the residents there, who are quite unappreciative of all the howdy-doody clones swarming the neighborhood (please, at least the muggers are for real!) The Watchtower becomes big business, with billions in property. Profit margins on publications rise as high as 500 percent, which "only covers the cost of printing."

This is the age of "discovery" in the Watchtower, where a spirit of free thinking allowed many within to re-examine the foundation for their beliefs. This age later "ended" with the Franz Incident of 1979-1980, where the Governing Body reached the point where their only recourse to those digging up the skeletons in the closet was to NUKE the closet! No one would ever discover the faulty foundation of Watchtower chronology if they could not TALK about it without fear of being disfellowshipped, or so they thought.

Peculiar Beliefs: Sodomites will/won't/will/won't be resurrected, the early Christians had a rotating Governing Body (sounds kinky), blood is an "organ," thus no organ transplants, either. Rape is only excusable if the victim screams LOUD, you can't/can divorce your husband if he's gay (depending on what he does, exactly), oral sex WILL get you disfellowshipped, at least for awhile, but in the final analysis we really don't want to know (well, we do, but we must pretend we don't).

Things Knorr Would Currently be Disfellowshipped For: Nothing, I think he's still in charge!

Frederick W. ("Freddy") Franz Era (1977-1992)

Date: 1977, loss of his buddy, Knorr, who dies of cancer. Franz eludes actual leadership out of choice and "posterity."

Developing Religious Views: "Doubt" is practically the antichrist! Lobotomies are in, loyalty and spying will upgrade you from poor publisher/bad reputation to most-favored status. Witnesses must report all infractions of other Witnesses, even if it means stealing hospital records of secret abortions, etc... even if it means losing your job or getting sued! Troubled by our incessant changes in doctrine? Get a hobby to keep your mind off apostasy. 1975 was your fault, not ours. WE NEVER SAID THAT! (about any date).

Scenario: Homosexuals infiltrate the Governing Body and let go but not disfellowshipped.  Ray Franz disgraces himself and the rest of the Governing Body by denying their collective infallibility, is dismissed and set up for disfellowshipping. Spying Watchtower goons follow him down south and can catch him in nothing, so finally disfellowship him for having dinner with his boss, an ex-Jehovah's Witness! Ray Franz writes his self-apologizing Crisis of Conscience in 1983, and the entire Christian world holds their breath waiting for him to accept the Trinity, which he never does.

Governing Body fears getting busted for not paying sales tax when Jimmy Swaggart VS. State of California goes to court, so God wants them to offer their literature free of charge (but with a time-delay sales pitch for contributions). But God only wants them to do this in certain countries, because He doesn't like to pay sales tax there.

Even the Governing Body finally tires of Fred Franz, exiles him, yet in the end was the only GB member who knew exactly what he was doing. Dies in exile.

Peculiar Beliefs: Anything taught by Freddy.

Things Franz Would Currently be Disfellowshipped For: Listening to secret motivational cassette tapes that he never let out of his sight. Otherwise, he was too smart to be disfellowshipped. Besides, he invented disfellowshipping.

Milton G. Henschel Era (1993 - 2003)

Date: 1992, upgraded from vice to President at the death of Fred Franz.

Developing Religious Views: The Governing Body, no longer driven by a single personality, begins to show more conservative stance on certain matters, primarily public relations issues and legal implications. Increased legal pressure to appear "normal" in their views of college education, school sports and personal hobbies begins to affect how articles and books are written. Holidays not blasted for being pagan as before, psychiatrists allowed, college education not blasted, kids can actually engage in school sports if it "doesn't go to their head." DOUBT is still the antichrist, however.

Scenario: The most money, property and followers they've ever had, but also showing signs of reaching their final peak. Appear to be at the top of the cycle, with a roller-coaster ride ahead, according to the pattern of other similar sects. Growth slowed down to 1-2% in the U.S. in the last couple of years, though booming in countries which are as yet naive as to their history and tactics, such as eastern Europe and Asia. Finally throw out their "1914 generation" teaching with the October 15 and November 1st, 1995 issues of The Watchtower, which was one of their main playing cards. But Simon says, "It's no thang," while older Witnesses know better. Many may leave (on crutches!). Dozens of breakaway groups begin to form in 1996.

Peculiar Beliefs: That they really are "God's organization," after all of this!

Things Milton Would Currently Disfellowship For: Dissension at Bethel, shortly to come. Why? A loss of respect for the leadership.

Typical Pattern of Exclusive Sects:

Stage 1: Charismatic leader develops a following of those disenchanted with mainstream religion. Followers suck up religious fervor and exclusivism like a drug, get heady with pride and a sense of meaning (for once in their lives). Tremendous energy for evangelism and growth.

Stage 2: Change in leadership or internal scandal, leading to a degree of disenchantment among some in the organization. The Watchtower has survived this "cleansing" several times, but due to their place in the wash cycle, the stains may not come out this time.

Stage 3: Physical growth in size, followers and bank account dictates a more conservative stance in order to gain respectability and more acceptable forms of power and control - transforming them from a radical, apocalyptic group into a familiar religion that causes people to say, "I didn't think they were a cult." It is at this point they achieve their greatest unity and power.

Stage 4: The "collective consciousness" of the rank-and-file members reaches the point where they "know too much," and the leadership cannot use the same heavy-handed techniques and motivations they previously used for fear of losing control, and so feign honesty and a spirit of "openness" regarding their past methodologies. (Proclaimers, anyone?) Generally, this happens when they have played all their cards, so-to-speak. No more excitement can be generated.

Stage 5: For lack of unifying causes and the organization's inability to goad the crowd once more, they get bored and restless, looking inward. Without a demonic enemy that must be opposed at every step, they become like normal people outside, and are no longer afraid to speak negatively of their leaders, whom they no longer respect. Dissension, division and fragmentation are not far off.

Related Articles:

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

 

 

 

 

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Reviewing of A History of Jehovah's Witnesses: From A Black American Perspective

Here is one book that is written from a unique perspective. It is entitled, A History of Jehovah's Witnesses: From a Black American Perspective by Firpo Carr, Ph.D. (Scholar Technological Institute of Research, Inc., 1992). The author is a black Jehovah's Witness from South Central Los Angeles who claims to have a Ph.D. and is a full-time pioneer. His parents say he was a child prodigy. Carr says he is completing his doctoral work in theology, but does not say where (the Watchtower forbids a Witness to study at formal theological schools. It also unofficially forbids the writing of a book like this!).

Carr attempts to document similarities between the Black Muslim movement and the Watchtower movement. He argues that Wallace D. Fard, founder of the Black Muslims, was influenced by the teachings of J.F. Rutherford, second president of the Watchtower Society. He quotes the book Elijah Muhammad: Religious Leader by Malu Halasa: "Though Fard may have embellished or exaggerated the details of his life, the origins of his teachings were not quite so mysterious. The Nation [of Islam] drew its principles not only from the Koran but also from the Bible, books about Freemasonry, and the philosophy of Joseph F. ('Judge') Rutherford, leader of Jehovah 's Witnesses." (Emphasis added by Carr)

Yet Carr remains unconvincing in drawing parallels between the Watchtower and the Nation of Islam. Aside from the strict monotheism of both religions as well as their revolt against the churches of Christendom, there appear to be few similarities. So what's the point? Carr begs the question. Interestingly, Carr does quote a few of the passages from The Watch Tower in C.T. Russell's time regarding the ridiculous views of the black man they held, such as how the black man would slowly turn white (sound like the Mormons, anyone?) After quoting a number of these and attempting to excuse Russell's ignorance, he says:

Shamefully, critics have misquoted this passage from the Society's literature in an attempt to misinform people, particularly blacks, who are interested in the teachings of the Bible as understood by the Witnesses. (See "Blacks and the Watchtower," Bethel Ministries Newsletter, July/August 1988, page 1, column 3, pp. 1 & 2.)

The only shame belongs on the organization who would print such racist nonsense in the first place! The claim of "misquoting" by Carr does not stand up, nor does he demonstrate how my article is a misquote. Carr attempts to answer why there have been no blacks on the Watchtower's prestigious Governing Body, yet does not answer the question. His most astounding claim is that there WAS a black man on the Governing Body-William K. Jackson! Picking myself up off the floor, I wondered how he came to this conclusion, having known Bill Jackson from my six years at Bethel (1974-1980) and he was as white as a sheet with no black features whatsoever. Carr's only defense was that Bill Jackson "openly stated that he was black." That is news to all of us who worked at Bethel. Perhaps Carr needs a second book to correct the incredible fantasies in his first one, if the Watchtower doesn't disfellowship him first.

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Ted Jaracz' Influence On The Rest Of The Governing Body

As yet there is no indication of any form of outright dissent within Bethel or the current leadership, but rumors are that GB member Ted Jaracz is the hard-line boss squelching all reform at present. He is in charge of the organization's "storm troopers," the Service Dept. One dissenter writes:

There is a big philosophical split between the Writing Dept. and the Service Dept. - liberals versus conservatives. The Writing Dept. (was) headed by GB member Lloyd Barry, who I've heard mixed reviews about. I've been told by people who know him that he's fairly hard-line or fairly soft-line. I suppose it depends on one's point of view. Ted Jaracz heads up the Service Dept. and those who have commented about him are unanimous that he's a hard-line (omitted). The other GB members call him "The Boss" and they aren't just making fun. Barry and Jaracz, and of course their respective departments, have major disagreements about how JWs should behave and how the JW organization should be run. The nasty, hard-line approach of the last 20 years is due almost entirely to Jaracz' dominance.

A couple of weeks ago when I was in New York I took some time and took the Bethel tours. While there I contacted the author of the Creation book. Naturally, I took him to task for the misrepresentations in his book, but was able to keep him talking for 1 1/2 hours. At the end, he told me that he (presumably this reflects the attitude of the Writing Dept. generally) was quite unhappy with how the elders in general don't follow the advice given in The Watchtower. It was surprising that he would admit this but no surprise that the Writing Dept. feels this way. It also shows the great gulf between the liberal and conservative camps, because the elders don't act just on what's in The Watchtower but on what they get from COs and in private letters from the WTS directly to elders. This all comes from the Service Dept. So whenever there are conflicting directions from the Writing Dept. in The Watchtower and from the Service Dept. via the CO and direct letter channels, naturally the elders will follow the privately-given instructions. This is how the elders have ended up with the extreme nastiness and conservatism of Ted Jaracz. The amazing thing is that the Bethel people like this author don't seem to understand this. They seem to think, in the usual JW fashion, that God will fix everything in due time. So this lunatic attitude on the part of the leading WTS "thinkers" filters down to the JW community and sets the tone... In my opinion we're going to see some big cracks open up within 2-3 years after 2000, with increasing unrest until then.

Jaracz, however, is one of the youngest of the GB members. Perhaps before his light fades away his rule will be toppled, much as happened to Knorr in 1975. All it really takes is a change of assignment, a tactic used at Bethel to move people in and out of key positions. Sometimes your greatest danger is from those you work alongside.

 Ted Jaracz v Jack Barr - Governing Body Showdown

Barbara Anderson describes:

And Jack Barr, whom we considered a personal friend, was a kindly man but walked in Barry’s shadow and did his bidding. Unfortunately, he was weak—not the proverbial “iron fist in a velvet glove,” but a “limp fist ...”. Barr’s dispositional weakness became evident during a time when Lloyd Barry was out of town and it took three senior writers to put enough pressure on Barr, as next in command, to keep the factory press room from capitulating to Ted Jaracz’s orders not to print the April 8, 1992 Awake!, which contained material Jaracz did not support, although he was out of line by making such a demand. The job assignment of each Governing Body member was clearly delineated and Writing Department editorial decisions were not Jaracz’s business, just like decisions of the Service Department, under Jaracz’s command, were not the affair of Barry, Barr or Klein.

Ted Jaracz And Mental Health Counselors 

Barbara Anderson describes 

Another topic discussed in that Awake! was a strange occurrence commonly known as “repressed memories” and that subject did not sit well with many influential Witnesses. From what Lee said, and corroborated by personal letters from survivors of abuse and from their therapists, many Witness victims reported having memories of events of abuse which happened years before when they were children. The dependability of these “memories” became a center of debate and controversy among mental-health professionals, and, also, within the Watchtower organization. At headquarters, the congregations are supervised by the Service Department. It was men from this department, directed by Governing Body member, Ted Jaracz, who generally spoke in negative terms to elders who asked about the repressed memories anomaly. In fact, I was told Jaracz was a proponent for the Against Repressed Memories organization. It was not until Harry proved the Against Memories organization had been discredited by investigators that no more was said on the topic. 

Ted Jaracz And the United Nations Scandal

Barbara Anderson describes:

It used to take about seven months, counting from the time a WT staff writer received a magazine article assignment until the printing of the actual WT or Awake!. Accordingly, we can assume that this UN/NGO matter was in the works from the beginning of 1991 or before. Whose idea it was, I have no way of knowing, but I will say that there had to be many people at the very top of the organization who were deeply involved. Although only the Governing Body Writing Committee (at that time made up of GB members, Barry, Barr and Klein), was required to authorize the writing of the articles on the UN, Ted Jaracz also had to know about this UN/NGO business, because one of the signatures on the UN/NGO agreement was Robert Johnson, who was in the Service Department, which department Ted Jaracz directs. Bob was and still is a very important man in the Service Department, and Bob Johnson takes his marching orders from Ted Jaracz. 

Ted Jaracz And Child Abuse Policy

Barbara Anderson describes the day the helpers to the Governing Body were announced:

Later, I came to call that day ‘Black Wednesday’ because, if you will, just imagine the disappointment of the men who were not chosen! From the moment all the “mature overseers from the great crowd who have gained a wealth of ability and experience” in Bethel read that Watchtower in their rooms, they were anxiously awaiting the announcement to see if they were going to be one of the ‘selected few’ assistants to the Governing Body, and no more so than the senior writers in the Writing Department where I was assigned to work at that time.
On that special day in April, Joseph Eames, Robert Pevy, and Gene Smalley were appointed to be assistants to the Governing Body Writing Committee. Later on when I arrived at work, many of us were saddened by the behavior of some of the men who were not asked to be part of this privileged group. As an example, John Wischuck, senior writer, who held one of the most important assignments in the Writing Department as a Watchtower magazine compiler, was so upset he didn’t do a lick of work. He spent his day going from office to office with coffee cup in hand lamenting over his rejection and receiving soothing words from his peers.
Harry Peloyan was visibly upset because he wasn’t chosen. He went to Lloyd Barry and asked him face-to-face why he wasn’t appointed. Lloyd said that Ted Jaracz blocked Harry’s appointment. And Harry knew why. It was because of his doggedness to get the Society’s sexual child abuse policies changed. 

Ted Jaracz On The Secret Child Abuser Database 

BBC Panorama devoted an entire program to the problem of child abuse in Jehovah's Witnesses. This section of the transcript is Jaracsz being 'doorstepped' by the program producer Betsan Powys:

 
BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): It was a long conversation and we asked if he'd be prepared to answer the same questions on camera. He refused. So it was back to America and back to a Jehovah's Witness convention in Tulsa. We'd been told we'd find a member of the Governing Body here. Ted JARACZ is one of the men responsible for the church's child protection policy. For more than two months we've been asking them for an interview. We want answers to some simple questions. Why do they keep their database of suspected pedophiles secret? Why don't they report all allegations of abuse to the police? Why do they send children back to the arms of their abusers? They refused to talk to us. But here at last we had our chance. Mister JARACZ, tell me about the database. How do you justify keeping a list of people, men in some cases who have confessed to pedophilia, but you have not reported them to the authorities. What justification is there for you to keep that list?

TED JARACZ (MEMBER OF THE SUPREME GOVERNING BODY OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES): You know, you're from Britain. You have a privacy law. You have a directive from the European Union. You observe that, don't you?

BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): So when allegations of abuse are made, is it alright to keep them private?

TED JARACZ (LEADING MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES): I think you were answered. That question was answered strictly to your satisfaction.

BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): Can you answer it now?

TED JARACZ (LEADING MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES): I'm not going to repeat. I'll just tell you exactly and you will see it in writing. It is all in print. You know the Bible says "Do not go beyond the things that are written."? We don't go beyond the things that are written.

BETSAN POWYS (BBC REPORTER): And that was that. No doubt, no second thoughts. Just a simple belief that Jehovah will sort it out, a belief for which others, younger and more vulnerable, may continue to pay a price.

BILL BOWEN (JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ELDER 1984-2000): They're living in denial, denial of what's happening to their children, and it's not a matter.. you see, if they accept that, then they accept that there is a problem. So rather than admit that there's a problem, they will just let children go on and continue to be molested and not do anything about it.

Gene Smalley And Blood Policy

Although not on the Governing Body, Smalley is the Watchtower expert on blood and dictates what medical treatment is permissible  for over 7 million people.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/medicine/gene-smalley-and-the-watchtower-s-blood-transfusion-doctrine.html

The Jehovah's Witness blood policy dictates that any of the so-called four primary components are banned. Read why one Medical Doctor thinks this is arbitrary nonsense and not in line with current medical science:

http://www.ajwrb.org/6-15-04.shtml

The author Dr Muramoto is a staff neurologist, lead physician, and a member of the Regional Ethics Council, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon.

Kerry Louderback-Wood, an attorney who lost her Jehovah's Witness mother as a consequence of Gene Smalley's policy writes here on the little known fact that Jehovah's Witnesses DO accept blood therapy in certain circumstances.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/medicine/jehovahs-witness-accept-blood-–-a-little-known-fact.html

Join the discussion online about Gene Smalley and the Watchtower blood policy that has killed thousands here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/131789/1/Gene-Smalley-and-the-Watchtowers-Blood-Transfusion-Doctrine

All About The Watchtower Governing Body

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Grows Old

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

The Governing Body's Famous Sayings of the 80s

Watchtower Presidential Era Summaries

Fred Franz Discredited the Concept of a "Governing Body"

Photos of the Governing Body

Most Wanted Watchtower Leaders - For Crimes Against Humanity

The First Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Author
Topic: Leo Greenlees, Read 992 times
Kiwi

Newbie
New Zealand
Posts: 12
Since: Apr 4, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 6:30:29 AM 

I seem to remember something on the board about Leo Greenlees being removed from Bethel & the GB. Can anyone give me information about this. Is he still allive and where?
Liberated

Junior Member
Posts: 26
Since: Mar 25, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 9:59:22 AM 

Leo Greenlees was on the gb when Ray Franz was and is now deceased.
I don't know about his being removed from Bethel.
Edited by - Liberated on 12 May 2001 11:36:58
outnfree

Master Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 260
Since: Mar 26, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 10:17:52 AM 

Leo Greenlees was a member of the GB, elected as a director of the NY Society around 1965, and is rumoured to have been removed because of his sexuality (gay). A search of the 1997 WT CD-ROM makes no mention of him in any publications after 1984 when he spoke to a group of friends getting a preview of the program that would be held the following day for the graduating class of Gilead.
I have no information as to whether or not he is alive or dead or where he is living. Perhaps others can help?
It is my understanding that Brother Greenlees was never disfellowshipped from the organization, merely removed from the GB.
(Now that I'm thinking about it, there may be something further on http:\\www.freeminds.org if you search.)
outnfree
AlanF

Senior Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 116
Since: Mar 7, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 10:36:33 AM 

Leo Greenlees was forced out of Bethel in 1984 for practicing pedophilia. Seems he was fooling around with a ten year old boy, got caught, and the parents complained to the Society. After a Governing Body session, Greenlees was told to get out. He ended up in some congregation and died a few years later, sometime in the late 1980s.
Ironically, the molested boy applied for Bethel service in the early 1990s, but was turned down because certain officials thought that he'd be too much of a source of information about Greenlees' perversion. No sense taking a chance on digging up that can of worms, eh?
The situation begs for clarification. Clearly, if Greenlees was caught molesting a young boy once, he must have done it before and must have molested plenty of other young boys over the years, because that's how molesters operate. The questions proliferate. Why didn't parents come forward before 1984? Why didn't elders who must have known something come forward and protect these children? Why did the GB not disfellowship Greenlees instead of simply removing him to some local congregation where he lived out his days unknown as a pervert? Clearly, Greenlees had committed fornication, so how did he get out of punishment for that?
These questions are extremely relevant to the current situation where the Society has been accused by William Bowen and plenty of victims of gross negligence and mishandling of child molestation. Is their negligence traceable simply to being overly focused on their 'preaching work'? Or does it have more sinister implications, such as a desire to cover up gross sexual immorality on the part of other Watchtower officials? I have little doubt that the coming Dateline TV program on JWs' mishandling of child molestation will provoke enough action by interested parties to shed more light on Greenlees and related things.
AlanF
 
TR

Master Member

Unites States of America
Posts: 812
Since: Sep 18, 2000
 Posted: May 11, 2001 10:46:46 AM 

The Leo Greenlees incident is the epitome of how the WTS has typically handled pedophilia cases. They could have made an example of Greenlees for the the rank and file JW's, but no, they swept him under the carpet to save face. This is similar to what the RCC has done. Now, we know how the WTS feels about the RCC, don't we?
TR
"cults suck"
Edited by - TR on 11 May 2001 10:49:29
SanFranciscoJim

Senior Member

Unites States of America
Posts: 63
Since: Mar 16, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 9:33:46 PM 

Here is an account of Leo Greenlees written by someone who knew him personally. I also personally know the author of this article and have every reason to believe it is 100% true.
* http://www.geocities.com/commonbondeast/nyc/bethel.html
-------------------------------------------------------
"At one time I thought that perhaps I was the only gay Jehovah's Witness in Canada, perhaps the world. This was not unusual, as most gay/lesbian Jehovah's Witnesses feel the same way. There is a conspiracy of silence on the subject, since these things were "not to be even mentioned" by a good Christian.
Percy Chapman and his companion Leo Greenlees were sent by Rutherford from London Bethel in 1936 to replace the rebel Canadian Branch Overseer, Walter Salter, who had started up his own group over the "elected elders" debacle. Percy was a mesmerizing public speaker of the old school (no voice amplification required) and with his Lancashire lilt of voice reminded me of Winston Churchill, flapping jowls and all. I can still remember the reverberating vibrato of his voice warning of the "vile depths of the abominations" and since I knew that homosexuality was "an abomination unto the lord" wondered if that was what he was referring to. It was not until later that I began to suspect the administration at Bethel was mainly gay.
I remember the shock at a district assembly in 1959 at Halifax, Nova Scotia where Percy Chapman, then the branch overseer of Canada was to give the main talk. Suddenly who should appear to replace him, but Brother Knorr, the President from New York. Percy Chapman just disappeared from sight. Later we found out that Brother Knorr had removed all responsibilities from Percy but allowed him to remain at Bethel in Toronto as a janitor. The next shock was that Percy Chapman was forced to be married. Percy, following the Rutherford line, was totally anti- marriage and he made sure that none of the "Bethel boys" even contemplated the subject with very strict rules and early curfews. The only way a bethel boy could see another sister would be to go on a Bible study with her. My parents started studying in 1945 with a beautiful young pioneer sister named Joyce Randall and every week there would be a new Bethel boy accompanying her. She later was sent to Gilead and posted in Peru, totally isolated, only to be seduced by a latin lover. Of course she was disfellowshipped and sent home in disgrace. But my family did get to know a lot of Bethel boys. They were all young and handsome, hand-picked by Percy Chapman; there was even an elite group known as "Percy's boys" who would accompany him to expensive restaurants and bars and receive other favours. At the time, Bethel was on Irwin Avenue, now (although replaced by a condominium) in the centre of the gay district of Toronto. There was even a Kingdom Hall above "the Parkside", one of Toronto's few gay bars in the fifties and sixties.
Poor Leo Greenlees, Percy's close companion for three decades even when at London Bethel, had to find himself a new room-mate. Leo was a cheerful, likable fellow, with his thick Scottish brogue and also an electrifying public speaker. He was very open about his homosexuality to those few good-looking young brothers like those he would meet at one of the summer resorts in Haliburton run by Jehovah's Witnesses (later bequeathed to the Watchtower Society). I got to know Leo a little better when he was assigned to be congregation overseer at the Kingdom Hall I attended as a teenager during the early sixties in Richmond Hill, just north of Toronto. He would bring along another bethel boy, Lorne Bridle, who was very good looking and charming. After a failed marriage to a young pioneer sister, he eventually committed suicide. I often wondered what tortured state of mind led him to that - but so often the fate of closeted gays in the Watchtower society!
But Leo was soon to be promoted to Brooklyn Bethel, where he became the Treasurer of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and one of the elite governing body. He managed to escape the witch-hunt at Brooklyn Bethel in the early seventies when dozens of Bethel boys were disfellowshipped after learning of their midnight trysts in the sauna in Brooklyn bethel. There was for a short period in the late sixties and early seventies a marked liberalization of attitudes among the governing body. But this suddenly ended, culminating with a power struggle and the disfellowshipping of Raymond Franz, a member of the governing body who was a free-thinker and had written the "Truth" book and chaired the writing of the almost scholarly "Aid to Bible Understanding". Both books, interestingly have joined the list of publications that you would think never existed according to the Watchtower society, although the "Truth" book had the largest printing, next to the Bible, of any book in the world.
It as not until a few years ago that I learned Leo Greenlees had been found out and was removed from the Governing Body for being gay. The last I heard as that he was sent to San Diego where he died not too long ago. As far as I know he was never disfellowshipped, nor can I corroborate any real seductions. Another member of the GB, Chitty who was also removed from Brooklyn Bethel for the same reason and sent away to London, England, I understand."
Had Enough

Senior Member
Posts: 169
Since: Mar 30, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 10:17:44 PM 

Hi SanFranciscoJim:
Thanks for the added info on Leo Greenlees. I tried to post a reply to AlanF asking for proof of the details he gave us, but for some reason I was unable to post or access any of the topics again after I read it this morning. It was like my computor was frozen and stopped counting any new posts past 10:46 am. (I wish I knew why it does that-3 tims in the past month and half)
Anyway, I only wanted details, if possible, of where his facts came from since if I ever have the opportunity to discuss this with my still-active family, once the rest of the lid is off the whole pedophilia story for the general r&f who are kept in the dark, I want to be able to present provable facts. I don't want the issue to be disregarded by them as only heresay and gossip since some of the older members of my family and friends remember Percy and Leo and Chitty (being close to the Toronto Bethel) and would never believe these things without the info being sure.
Thanks again for your input.
Had Enough
 
Edited by - Had Enough on 11 May 2001 22:19:31
JT

Master Member
Posts: 342
Since: Jan 2, 2001
 Posted: May 11, 2001 11:13:12 PM 

I was sitting in Lower dinner that morning when the Bro Potzger the German member of the GB at that time who has since passed made the anoucnement to the bethel family
i recall his comments like they were yesterday'
"This is to inform the bethel family that Leo Greenless is no longer a member of the bethel family and THE MATTER IS CLOSED"
NOW IF there are any bethlites who were there that morning i'm sure they too can comment on the spirit that sweep thru the dining rooms that AM
after the prayer and on the way to work it was sorta of a sick feeling for no one really wanted to ask or say anything about it
so during the day no one one would really ask the question that was on the minds of everyone:
"What in the Hell happened" looking back now i can see clearly why
the fear that jw live under is much like that in all congo when someone is kicked out
no one wants to aske the ovious question
how sad

James
SanFranciscoJim

Senior Member

Unites States of America
Posts: 63
Since: Mar 16, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 1:16:35 AM 

HadEnough, email me privately and I'll be happy to put you in touch with the author of the article.
JAVA

Master Member

Unites States of America
Posts: 443
Since: Dec 14, 2000
 Posted: May 12, 2001 1:26:10 AM 

Alan & Jim,
Really appreciate your posts on Greenlees. Thanks for taking the time of pulling it together. The two posts complement each other nicely.
JT, I forgot to add a "thanks" for giving the insights the Brooklyn boys felt when Greenlees was dropped from the GB.
--JAVA
...counting time at the Coffee Shop
Edited by - JAVA on 12 May 2001 1:31:41
AlanF

Senior Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 116
Since: Mar 7, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 1:54:12 AM 

To Had Enough:
My information came from former Bethelites who were positions to know about this stuff. It isn't generally known among rank & file Bethelites. That's all I can reveal.
AlanF
 
jschwehm

Junior Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 32
Since: Mar 27, 2000
 Posted: May 12, 2001 2:51:26 AM 

Hi Alan-
When I was at Bethel, I had heard about Greenlees and Chitty being gay from my bethel elder roommate. I had only been there maybe three months or so when he told me about it. I was shocked to say the least.
Also, if I am not mistaken Leo Greenlees lived in the New Orleans area not long after he was asked to leave Bethel.
Jeff S.
Scarlet Pimpernel

Newbie

Posts: 6
Since: May 12, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 7:10:50 AM 

bigboi

Senior Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 66
Since: Mar 16, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 11:48:20 AM 

Yep Jschwen is right.
I attended the Downtown Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in New Orleans, LA for about a yr or so before I moved away to the Wesbank of New Orleans. I was baptized in 1996 as a member of that congregation.
I remember the friends in that congregation talking about Bro. Greenlees. It was apparently where the Society had him relocated after his ouster from Bethel. He was known for his fatherly way of dealing with the brothers and his zealousness in the feild ministry. Street work was a big part of the ministry in that congregation's territory and the friend's marvelled at how he would boldly go up and talk to ppl instead of waiting for someone to pass close to him.
The former PO of the congregation once told me that he had gotten "caught up" in the Franz debacle, and apparantly that's what most of the friends thought about him. I doubt anyone down there in his new congregation new anything about him being gay. I know he died a few yrs before I joined that congregation but i don't know when. I also heard that shortly before he died, he had been reappointed an elder in that congregation, but again i don't know for certain how true that is, thoughi wouldn't put it past em.
Peace,
Bigboi
"..... anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he had been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself." The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli.
Had Enough

Senior Member
Posts: 169
Since: Mar 30, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 7:59:50 PM 

To AlanF:
Thank you for your response. I respect your position and the need for discretion. I'm sure more will be revealed as time goes on anyway, so my family is due for an eye-opening. At least for now, knowing these things actually happened in that ivory tower, paints a more believable picture of reality instead of the whitewash of spirit-directed holy men we've been handed. These men were fallible despite their claims of divine approval and I, for one, appreciate knowing the real truth. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
To SanFranciscoJim:
Thanks for your offer. I've emailed you. Let me know if you didn't get it.
Had Enough
waiting

Emperor Class
Unites States of America
Posts: 2351
Since: May 13, 2000
 Posted: May 12, 2001 8:38:26 PM 

Hey AlanF,
 
quote:

The situation begs for clarification. Clearly, if Greenlees was caught molesting a young boy once, he must have done it before and must have molested plenty of other young boys over the years, because that's how molesters operate. The questions proliferate. Why didn't parents come forward before 1984? Why didn't elders who must have known something come forward and protect these children? Why did the GB not disfellowship Greenlees instead of simply removing him to some local congregation where he lived out his days unknown as a pervert? Clearly, Greenlees had committed fornication, so how did he get out of punishment for that?

That is not how all molesters operate. Some do. As with any other crime, there are differences in how the criminal operates. Perhaps he graduated from young bethel men over 18 to a young boy for the first time. Anything's possible with sex and/or deviates. But if there were other children, it doesn't seem that anyone has proof of them - yet.
I do not have the facts, but am only responding to your absolute post. You have eluded to having facts, but unwilling to put them forth. Unless you are in a position to publish your facts, it would seem prudent to not make specific charges against a dead man.
But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He could have been long term, but not necessarily.
waiting
 
Edited by - waiting on 12 May 2001 20:40:49
outcast

Newbie
Singapore
Posts: 5
Since: Apr 1, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 8:51:05 PM 

waiting
How did you get so smart? And how can I get smart like you?
Farkel

Master Member

Posts: 209
Since: Mar 14, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 8:57:51 PM 

: That is not how all molesters operate.
That's not what he said.
Farkel
AlanF

Senior Member
Unites States of America
Posts: 116
Since: Mar 7, 2001
 Posted: May 12, 2001 9:20:41 PM 

To waiting:
: That is not how all molesters operate. Some do.
Alright, I should have said "almost all". Statistically, molesters have been shown to molest something like 100 children over their lifetimes.
: As with any other crime, there are differences in how the criminal operates. Perhaps he graduated from young bethel men over 18 to a young boy for the first time. Anything's possible with sex and/or deviates.
Anything might be possible, but only a few things are true. In Greenlees' case, I've heard other stories from other people who complained about Greenlees' behavior. One man complained that he found Greenlees alone with his 8-year-old son with his hand on the kid's knee -- entirely inappropriate touching. Another complained to me of inappropriate touching of him and his brother when they were perhaps ten years old.
Given the above, the probability that Greenlees got caught on his first foray into pedophilia is zero.
Consider this, too: Suppose you were to call Bethel and ask to speak to someone about charges of sexual deviance against someone who is known to be above reproach in this regard, such as the recently deceased Lyman Swingle. They would tell you that the charge is ridiculous, and they would be confident that they were telling the truth. Try that with a known deviant like Leo Greenlees and you'll get an entirely different reaction -- "No comment." How do I know this? Because I've done it. I've also had offline discussions with certain current Bethel members who, while not directly admitting of Greenlees' deviance, could not bring themselves to lie to my face and deny it.
Perhaps it's time for me to post once again a list of online comments I've accumulated over the years.
: But if there were other children, it doesn't seem that anyone has proof of them - yet.
"Yet" is the operative word here. Again consider an important fact: people who are in positions to know the direct facts about Greenlees boil down to Governing Body members, certain trusted secretarial assistants, and a few others. However, the Bethel grapevine is often a reliable source of information, and Bethelites love to build up networks of 'confidants' who usually end up spilling all sorts of juicy gossip all around the place. But almost all of these people have a great deal to lose by letting this information get 'outside'. If it becomes known that they spilled the beans, they're history. If spilling the beans leads to serious consequences for the Watchtower organization, they themselves suffer some of those consequences. Therefore, only under unusual circumstances do these things come out. But if enough people become angry enough due to the upcoming Dateline program and the fallout that is sure to occur, some of them will surely tell their stories in public.
Were a Governing Body member subpoenaed in court to testify about Greenlees, they would almost certainly try to invoke ecclesiastical privilege in order to avoid testifying. They might even have to invoke the Fifth Amendment so as to avoid incriminating themselves in a cover-up of molestation or of failure to obey state reporting laws. I'm hoping that this will happen, and not a moment too soon!
: I do not have the facts, but am only responding to your absolute post. You have eluded to having facts, but unwilling to put them forth.
I can't because I have to protect my sources. Keep in mind that I was only making some comments here, not trying to establish an airtight case.
: Unless you are in a position to publish your facts, it would seem prudent to not make specific charges against a dead man.
I have enough facts, which I will certainly publish, which along with the private information I will not publish makes me completely confident of the charges. The Society has had ample opportunity, and will have further opportunity, to bring forth facts to defuse the charges that have been made to date. That they have not done so seems pretty good proof that they don't want to get involved in a public discussion of the details, any more than they want to publicly discuss any of their false teachings and stupid practices that they know they cannot defend.
: But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He could have been long term, but not necessarily.
Right, but the other stories that surfaced over the years proves that he was.
AlanF
waiting

Emperor Class
Unites States of America
Posts: 2351
Since: May 13, 2000
 Posted: May 13, 2001 9:54:05 PM 

to AlanF
Thanks for qualifying your statement. I appreciate it, as I'm sure Farkel does.
 
quote:

...Greenlees' behavior. One man complained that he found Greenlees alone with his 8-year-old son with his hand on the kid's knee -- entirely inappropriate touching. Another complained to me of inappropriate touching of him and his brother when they were perhaps ten years old.

I'm sure there must be more to these accounts than is given here. The first does not constitute molestation, imho. Without the particulars of what is *inappropriate touching*, the other cannot be commented on either, at least by me.
 
quote:

Given the above, the probability that Greenlees got caught on his first foray into pedophilia is zero.

Stories, accounts, truths, proven truths are all different things - which can all be the same - but not necessarily. The probability of Greenlees is probably closer to 95%. Zero, to the common man/woman, is perceived an absolute - molesters, unless proven, still have the probability factor of the unknown. Memory, even by several persons, is still considered by many professionals to not be absolute in truth or error. Even if it is the truth, not necessarily proveable.
 
quote:

Perhaps it's time for me to post once again a list of online comments I've accumulated over the years.

I would look forward to reading your list.
 
quote:

Were a Governing Body member subpoenaed in court to testify about Greenlees, they would almost certainly try to invoke ecclesiastical privilege in order to avoid testifying. They might even have to invoke the Fifth Amendment so as to avoid incriminating themselves in a cover-up of molestation or of failure to obey state reporting laws.

I agree with your speculation on the GB's actions. However, it would seem a lot would depend on where Greenlees resided and the laws of that state/country at that time.

quote:

: But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He could have been long term, but not necessarily. - waiting
Right, but the other stories that surfaced over the years proves that he was.- AlanF

No, the other stories don't prove it - at least not here. The other stories lend credibility to your charges. I don't necessarily disagree with you - only on your absoluteness. I've found little in life that is absolute - especially when dealing with perceptions of *inappropriate actions* and memories, whether of children, adults, or the memories of adults who are remembering events of decades ago.
Don't get me wrong - if Greenlees did molest young boys - then let the facts come out. But facts, along with the truth, are hard to come by, particularily when dealing with memories. It may all be true, but unproveable. Thus, the little word - alledged - comes into play.
You've been at this longer than I have - at least in the WTBTS arena - I bow to your prowness on gathering information. However, I've dealt intimately with molesters my whole life, approximately a half dozen of them. They are the same, and quite varied at the same time. Much too easy to lump them and the way they operate - as dangerous as lumping victims/survivors into truth sayers or liars.
Most likely, the true picture lies somewhere within those parameters.
I, like many others, look forward to the Dateline program.
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 13 May 2001 21:58:12

As interesting as that announcement was, what really caught my eye were some of the comments made by other posters, specifically one person who posts by the name of Truthseeker. Truthseeker had copied a post made on August 31, 2001 by Maximus. The name of the subject which Maximus started way back then was, 'Food at Proper Time: Insider's Insight from Barbara.'^[2] Here Maximus (an ex-Bethelite and former circuit overseer), with my permission, posted a private email from me, although he did edit some of my statements and they read harsher than I intended. My insights came from spending almost eleven years at Bethel, and observing first hand the Engineering Department and the Writing Department. When I went back and reread Maximus's 2001 thread, I noticed that many posters back then were curious about the Nethinim (meaning 'Given Ones') concept introduced back in the April 15, 1992 Watchtower, which concept I called "ridiculous" and a "hoax" in my email to Maximus. Although many posters had questions after they read my words about the Nethinim, I did not give out any clarifying information at that time. However, Maximus was specifically called upon to review the Nethinim teaching, to which he replied that he had, "No stomach for reviewing that Nethinim thing again. It's simply a strained analogy that proved to be more embarrassing than important. Are there assistants? Of course. What's stupid was to trot out that hewers of wood and drawers of water nonsense as having application in this way, thrilling new light." And I certainly agreed with Maximus.

Inasmuch as the appointment of two new Governing Body members on August 24 has, once again, caused many posters to seek more information about the Nethinim teaching, I've decided to post some information not previously revealed as to why I called the Nethinim analogy "ridiculous" and "a hoax," and also to share some heretofore unknown background facts.

Tension in Brooklyn

Bethelites always receive a personal copy of the Watchtower or the Awake! magazine in their Bethel room approximately one month before subscribers receive their copy in the mail and as much as two months before the cover date of the magazine. So we received this April 15, 1992 issue some time around the middle of February 1992. From that Watchtower, we learned how the Nethinim in ancient Israel foreshadowed a few faithful, capable overseers in Bethel whom the Governing Body would select. Their job would be to provide the Governing Body with "some additional assistance." They would take part in Governing Body committee meeting "discussions and carry out various assignments given them by the committee."^[3]

For weeks much of the private conversation in the Writing Department centered on this topic with the younger "mature overseers" telling the older "mature overseers" that this one or that one was surely going to be appointed. No one knew exactly what an assistant would be doing, but it would certainly be a feather in one's cap to get the appointment. Although the actual article itself (pages 12-17), and the detailed announcement on page 31, 'Assistance for Governing Body Committees,' were fairly explicit as to their duties, still the question was on the minds of all those concerned, Just how important was the job? The article was clear that, "Their being assigned to work with a committee does not give them a special status,"^[4] although everyone knew that the "assistants" would indeed have status and, as I had observed, status was important to many men at Bethel!

After the consideration of the Daily Text at Bethel on the morning of April 15, 1992, apparently coordinating the announcement with the date of that particular Watchtower, the names of sixteen assistants to the Governing Body committees were read. Later, I came to call that day 'Black Wednesday' because, if you will, just imagine the disappointment of the men who were not chosen! From the moment all the "mature overseers from the great crowd who have gained a wealth of ability and experience" in Bethel read that Watchtower in their rooms, they were anxiously awaiting the announcement to see if they were going to be one of the 'selected few' assistants to the Governing Body, and no more so than the senior writers in the Writing Department where I was assigned to work at that time.^[5]

On that special day in April, Joseph Eames, Robert Pevy, and Gene Smalley were appointed to be assistants to the Governing Body Writing Committee. Later on when I arrived at work, many of us were saddened by the behavior of some of the men who were not asked to be part of this privileged group. As an example, John Wischuck, senior writer, who held one of the most important assignments in the Writing Department as a Watchtower magazine compiler, was so upset he didn't do a lick of work. He spent his day going from office to office with coffee cup in hand lamenting over his rejection and receiving soothing words from his peers.

Harry Peloyan was visibly upset because he wasn't chosen. He went to Lloyd Barry and asked him face-to-face why he wasn't appointed. Lloyd said that Ted Jaracz blocked Harry's appointment. And Harry knew why. It was because of his doggedness to get the Society's sexual child abuse policies changed.

Harry told me that Lloyd reassured him saying he wasn't missing anything by not being appointed because these assistants to the Governing Body would be nothing but paper-pushers and Harry was too important for that. From that day forward, Harry Peloyan, who had been the Awake! editor for many years, was officially given the title of "Editor" by Lloyd. I know for a fact that this was done to pacify a very angry Harry Peloyan. Oh, by the way, I heard that John Wischuck kicked up such a fuss over not being appointed that later, when more men were being asked to be assistants, he was included as one of them!

Origin of the teaching

Shortly after this April 15, 1992 issue of the Watchtower appeared in our rooms, my husband, Joe, good-naturedly teased Governing Body member, Dan Sydlik, about the new arrangement and the name, Nethinim. Instead of his usual lighthearted banter in response, Dan told us that he was the one behind the idea for the Governing Body to have assistants. He specifically mentioned the need for 'new blood,' for men from outside of Bethel to be brought in to serve as assistants to introduce fresh, innovative ideas to the Governing Body. Dan was very plain spoken to us during that conversation. He told us that the other Governing Body members liked the idea, but instead of bringing in 'new blood,' the majority voted to appoint men from within the Bethel ranks. Consequently, they got more of the same-fearful men with narrow and limited outlook, deficient of experience, offering the same unvarying opinions and points of view as before. And Dan let it be known to us that the choice of assistants taken only from the ranks of Bethel men was clearly a disappointment to him.

If the idea for assistants to the Governing Body was Dan Sydlik's, was the Nethinim ('Given Ones') analogy also his? Privately, I was told by a Writing Department staff member that another Governing Body member, Albert Schroeder, who considered himself quite a Bible scholar, came up with the Nethinim idea. And having the Governing Body's full confidence in his ability to present 'new light' convincingly, I was told that senior writer, Gene Smalley, was chosen to write the article which eventually was titled, Jehovah's Provision, the "Given Ones." Here would be found the evidence that would add to the organizational model-helpers, mainly from the great crowd, and, at that time, only from Brooklyn headquarters, "to share in the meetings of each of the Governing Body committees" who were, "modern-day Nethinim." In this way, "the faithful and discreet slave" class was providing more "life-giving spiritual food" to Jehovah's Witnesses.^[6]

The most fascinating aspect of all of this was the fact that Gene Smalley's exegesis, with Governing Body Schroeder's approval, was viewed by many as unsustainable. How do I know?

Early doubts

One morning, some time in March 1992, shortly after the April 15, 1992 issue of the Watchtower was received by Jehovah's Witnesses through the mail or at Kingdom Halls across the United States, I met an elderly, disheveled man with a very heavy Jewish accent in Ciro Aulicino's office. Ciro, who was a Writing Department staff member, told me that this man was a close friend of the Watchtower Society's President, Fred Franz. At that time, Franz, confined to the Bethel Infirmary, was no longer actively writing books or articles, inasmuch as he was blind and ill due to advanced age. If my memory serves me correctly, Franz's Jewish friend lived outside of New York City, not too far from Brooklyn. This man was the 'expert' Franz went to when he needed help to explain, translate, or interpret the Hebrew language for many of the complicated interpretive books which Franz, the 'oracle,' wrote for the organization. After the encounter, I questioned Ciro and found out that this man was not an active Jehovah's Witness, yet, it appeared, he was able to freely come and go in the Writing Department.

I do not remember the not-so-simple name of Franz's friend, but I do recall his agitation. It was because of the Watchtower article about the "given ones" [Hebrew, 'nethunim'] or Nethinim. He did not agree that these circumcised non-Israelites, who returned to the Promised Land from Babylon and assisted the Levites at the Temple, foreshadowed longtime dedicated volunteers, men mostly not of the anointed group, but of the other sheep, who would be assigned weighty responsibilities under the oversight of the anointed remnant and eventually take the lead among the other sheep after the great tribulation was over.^[7]

As I listened to the reasons this man gave for not supporting the Nethinim concept, it appeared to me that there was indeed something amiss. However, I was in a rush that morning and did not stay to hear all of the discussion, but I definitely knew that the Nethinim theory was not credible according to what I had heard. It was much later that I decided to research the subject to satisfy myself.

Who were the "given ones"?

According to the Watchtower article:

"All the non-Israelites who returned from exile in ancient Babylon parallel the other sheep who now serve with the remnant of spiritual Israel. What, though, of the fact that the Bible singles out the Nethinim? In the pattern the Nethinim were given privileges beyond those of other non-Israelite returnees. This could well foreshadow that God today has extended privileges and added duties to some mature and willing other sheep."^[8]

The following information is what I found and you can decide for yourself if there were striking similarities between the Nethinim and "men of the other sheep [who] have weighty responsibilities in true worship today."^[9]

According to McClintock & Strong,^[10] the name Nethinim (or these given ones) was first bestowed upon the Levites because they were "given to Aaron and his sons, i.e. to the priests as an order." Later, this appellation was applied to any non-Israelite slaves who were "given" to the Levites for service at the Temple, beginning with the Gibeonites. Around nine hundred years before the return to the Promised Land from Babylon,

"the Gibeonites, whom Joshua consigned forever to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, i.e., the perpetual menial servants of the sanctuary, are the original caste denominated Nethinim in the post-exilian period; As these Gibeonites or sanctuary slaves were greatly diminished by the bloody persecutions of Saul, and in the massacre at Nob, and moreover, as the reorganization and extension of the sanctuary service effected by the royal Psalmist both rendered the work of the Levites very laborious and demanded an increase of the existing staff of menial servants, 'David and the princes (after him) gave the Nethinim (or these given ones) for the service of the Levites.' Ezra viii, 20."

Although the Watchtower stated, "The Levites were given to help the priests," one important point which was left out is that the Levites were the first Nethinim because they were given (Numbers 3:8) to the priests long before the Gibeonite account (Joshua 9:27) in the Bible. The Levites were descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah. The priestly family of Aaron, who also descended from Levi, had as their assistants the rest of the Levite tribe.

"Priestly duties were confined to the male members of Aaron's family, with the Levites, the rest of the tribe, acting as their assistants. (Nu 3:3, 6-10)"^[11]

So Levites were given as assistants to the Aaronic priests, and later, non-Israelite servants were given to assist the Levites in Temple work.

When David replenished the Temple servants (Nethinim or these given ones), they are thought to have counted in the thousands. Yet, years later, only six hundred and twelve Nethinim returned from Babylon and all had to be coaxed-by a powerful Levite chief who controlled them in Babylon-to get them to return from exile. Once in the Promised Land, some of the six hundred and twelve Nethinim helped to rebuild Ophel because of its proximity to the Temple; while others dwelt with the Levites in their own cities. Yes, they were considered as sacred ministers because they belonged to the Temple, along with all others who performed services there. And, as they were all Temple workers, they were exempt from taxation by the Persian King.

The Watchtower stated that, because the Nethinim were exempt from taxes and assigned living quarters close to the temple:

"This indicates how closely these "given ones" (Levites and Nethinim) were then linked in spiritual matters and how the Nethinim's assignments increased in accord with the need..."^[12]

Further, the Watchtower explains in this same paragraph regarding the Levites and Nethinim that they returned to serve as "ministers for the house of our God," which almost sounds as if they held lofty positions in the Temple. (Ezra 8:17). However, in the New World Translation footnote for Ezra 8:17, instead of "ministers," the word "attendants" is found. Two other English translations of this verse, plus Matthew Henry's Commentary, refer to these returnees as "Temple-servitors" or just "servitors" instead of "ministers." Webster's defines servitor as "a male servant." Random House defines servitor as "a person who is in or at the service of another; attendant." This conveys a clearer understanding of what non-Israelites were doing at the Temple.

To summarize: Aaron and his priestly Levite family were given the rest of the Levite tribe to be their assistants. These assistants were the first Nethinim. Later, any non-Israelite males who were given to the Levites and priests came to be called Nethinim. However close in proximity to the priests these slaves worked, and whatever perks they were given because they were Temple servants, they still were considered perpetual menial servants. Aside from Aaron's family, the rest of the Levite tribe might have been a better-fitting analogy prefiguring today's modern-day counterparts, the 'assistants to the Governing Body,' but they would have to be male anointed members of the remnant assisting the anointed Governing Body, who are supposed to have been prefigured by the Levitical priests.

Flawed parallels

Now note what the Watchtower article went on to state:

"In ancient times, priests and Levites continued to serve among the Jews. (John 1:19) Today, however the remnant of spiritual Israel on earth must go on decreasing... [and] the other sheep must go on increasing... some of them, comparable to the Nethinim... are now being assigned weighty responsibilities under the oversight of the anointed remnant."^[13]

So, unlike the priests and Levites who continued to serve among the Jews in John's day, their counterpart, the remnant of spiritual Israel, the author is saying, will be decreasing in number and their Nethinim-type assistants will increase and grow in number. What about the ancient Nethinim? Can they be used in the analogy here? No, and it appears that the author of the article realized that because he appears to end the analogy with paragraph 21? Why? Because according to McClintock and Strong, page 983, the Nethinim decreased, not increased:

"Eventually they [Nethinim] seem to have been merged in the mass of the Jewish population, as no allusion to them occurs in the Apocrypha or New Testament. Their number, at all event, was then insufficient for the service of the Temple; whence, as Josephus tells us (War, ii, 17, 6) a festival, called Xylophoria, was established, in which the people, to supply the deficiency, were obliged to bring a certain quantity of wood to the Temple for the use of the altar of burnt-offering."

There is another, even more fatal, flaw in the Watchtower analogy. To work at the Temple, the ancient non-Israelite Nethinim had to be circumcised and conform to the religion of their conquerors. For circumcised foreigners, it was definitely a privilege to work at the Temple, no matter how lowly the job was. Did this mean the privileged Nethinim were viewed by Jews as having a high social position? Absolutely not! And this is made abundantly clear when reading further than apparently the author of the Watchtower article did in McClintock and Strong. Notice on page 982 this important information:

"Though they conformed to the Jewish religion (Ex. xii, 48; Deut.xxix,11; Josh.ix, 9; Neb. x, 28) they [Nethinim] occupied a very low position, and were even ranged below the Mamzer, or illegal offspring, as may be seen from the following order of precedence given in the Mishna: 'A priest is before a Levi, a Levi before an Israelite, an Israelite before a Mamzer, a Mamzer before a Nathin, a Nathin before a proselyte, and a proselyte before a manumitted [released] slave.' (Horajoth, iii, 8) The Nethinim were restricted to intermarriage among themselves, and if a Jew or Jewess married one of them, though all the valid ceremonies were performed, the issue shared in all the degrading disqualifications of the Nethinim (Mishna, Kiddushin, iii, 12; iv, 1; Jebamoth, ii, 4); and they were even excluded from being exempt from military service, allotted to newly-married people and to those who were faint-hearted (Deut. xx, 7, 8, with Mishna, Sota, viii, 3-6). If a woman was suspected of being deflowered by any one, or if she had an illegitimate child, it was ascribed to a Nathin, and the offspring took the degraded position of the Nathin, notwithstanding the assertion of the mother that the father of the child was a priest, unless she could adduce proof to support her assertion (Mishna, Kethuboth, i, 8, 9). If a court of justice gave a decision, and one of the members of the court was found to be a Nathin, the judgment was invalid, inasmuch as he was not regarded as a legal number of the congregation specified in Lev. iv, 13; Numb. xxxv, 24 (Mishna, Ilorajoth, iii.1)." [Emphasis added]

As a further example of the muddled thinking behind this 'new light,' note the following contradiction:

"All the non-Israelites who returned from exile in ancient Babylon parallel the other sheep who now serve with the remnant of spiritual Israel... God today has extended privileges and added duties to some mature and willing other sheep."^[14]

"Therefore it has been decided to invite several helpers, mainly from among the great crowd, to share in the meetings of each of the Governing Body committees..."^[15]

In this context, the terms "other sheep" and "great crowd" are synonymous.^[16] So, are the Governing Body assistants taken only from among the "other sheep"? On the one hand, they said in the study article, "all the non-Israelites... parallel the other sheep." In other words, all the Nethinim are "other sheep." But in the separate 'Announcement' they stated that the assistants would be from 'mainly the great crowd.' "Mainly," but not necessarily exclusively. One of the men assigned as an assistant to the Service Committee, Gerrit L”sch, claimed to be anointed and two years after the announcement about assistants to the Governing Body being appointed, on July 1, 1994, he was appointed to the Governing Body. ^[17]

Of course, the majority of "given ones" are "other sheep" and have no immediate prospect of being appointed to full Governing Body membership. It will be interesting to see whether, over time, the distinction fades.

Conclusion

In light of the above information, there is no doubt that these facts highlight the unsoundness of the analogy claiming that the ancient Nethinim foreshadowed "men of the other sheep [who] have weighty responsibilities in true worship today," and who will be "'princes' prepared to take the lead among the other sheep."^[18]

The non-Israelite Nethinim was not an important member of Jewish society, and his social position was lower than the lowest illegal offspring of a Jew. Nethinim were not assigned weighty responsibilities in true worship and were not "as princes" taking the spiritual lead in Jewish society or in the Temple. Accordingly, how could Nethinim foreshadow or prefigure the assistants to the Governing Body, who are next in command to the anointed remnant, some even becoming members of the Governing Body? It is no wonder that Fred Franz's Jewish friend was irritated with this premise as spelled out in the April 15, 1992 issue of the Watchtower. Hence, Maximus's words quoted in the beginning of this essay bear repeating:

"No stomach for reviewing that Nethinim thing again. It's simply a strained analogy that proved to be more embarrassing than important. Are there assistants? Of course. What's stupid was to trot out that hewers of wood and drawers of water nonsense as having application in this way, thrilling new light."

Accordingly, all Jehovah's Witnesses should be irritated by the facts regarding this strained analogy. They should be embarrassed by this deceitful presentation of a nugatory subject and ask themselves, What was the rationale behind the Watchtower writer, with the approval of the Governing Body, to use such a flawed analogy anyway? Furthermore, this author suggests that Jehovah's Witnesses give some thought to how the following words may apply to the men who are responsible for this exegesis and also of the more critical tenets of their faith, some of which could be life and death matters:

"The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much and a person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much." Luke 16:10

^[1] See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/97147/1.ashx.

^[2] See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/10925/1.ashx. It was this discussion that Randy Watters thought to include in his Free Minds Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, Jan/Mar 2002, page 5, that caused quite a stir in my life because this email led to my first judicial hearing and almost got me disfellowshipped.

^[3] The Watchtower April 15, 1992, p. 31, par. 1.

^[4] Ibid, p. 31, par. 5.

^[5] Ibid, p. 31, par. 5.

^[6] Ibid, pp. 12-17; p..31, pars. 1, 5, 6; p. 13, par. 6.

^[7] Ibid, p. 17, par. 21-22.

^[8] Ibid, p. 17, par. 20.

^[9] Ibid, p. 17, picture blurb.

^[10] The Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological, And Ecclesiastical Literature, pp. 981-983.

^[11] Insight on the Scriptures, p. 241, par. 5.

^[12] The Watchtower April 15, 1992, p. 15, par. 17.

^[13] Ibid, p. 17, par. 22.

^[14] Ibid, p. 17, par. 20.

^[15] Ibid, p. 31, par. 1.

^[16] According to Watchtower Society theology, the "great crowd" refers only to those who survive Armageddon ("These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation," Rev. 7:14, NWT) whereas the term "other sheep" also includes those who are resurrected back to earth during Christ's thousand-year reign.

^[17] Is it perhaps significant that the Watchtower article consistently refers to "other sheep" and not once uses the term "great crowd," whereas the 'Announcement' on page 31 consistently refers to the "great crowd" and not once uses the term "other sheep"? This very distinct difference of usage perhaps indicates that, while Gene Smalley wrote the article, the 'Announcement' was prepared by someone else, perhaps someone in the Service Department (note Kingdom publisher numbers, and expressions similar to those used in Our Kingdom Ministry). This could only have been done under the direction of the Governing Body member who directly oversees that department, and who might have desired to use this new arrangement as a 'proving ground' for potential new Governing Body members. All subsequent Governing Body appointees have first spent time as assistants, e.g.. Gerrit L”sch, Sam Herd, Guy Pierce, Stephen Lett, David Splane, Geoffrey Jackson and Anthony Morris. Inasmuch as all of these men were of the "other sheep" class, and since they were living in the last days and expected to live through the "great tribulation," that would have made them part of the "great crowd" of "other sheep." In time, each man came to believe he was called to become part of the "anointed remnant." And that calling could make him available to become a member of the Governing Body. Hence, the "Given Ones" arrangement could prove to be a 'proving ground' for potential new Governing Body members. But, does this mean that anointed "Given Ones," who were once part of the great crowd, will survive Armageddon? And just think, all of this difficult to comprehend doctrinal labyrinth can be attributed to merely trying to explain that the ancient Temple servants, foreshadowed and paralleled, "mainly from among the great crowd, " those who would become assistants of the Governing Body.

^[18] Ibid, p. 17, picture blurb; p. 17, par. 22.

Want to know who "They" are who "Follow The Lamb No Matter Where He Goes"?

Want to know who Morris said ninety-six times Witnesses should trust?