Foreigner

@JW Insider  Quote " Surely if the Bible says be no part of the world, and love your enemy, etc., anyone could easily interpret this to mean that support of the military is support of the "enemy" which is Satan's world and it's machinations. "
I totally disagree with you on this, but as I've mentioned to @Anna that the Society / GB were misusing the Superior Authority scripture in Romans 13. 
If the Romans scripture had been used correctly then it would have meant they would have been submitting to those Superior Authorities that God had put in place. If it was 'orders from', then it was not showing 'support for', it was just being 'obedient to'. Big difference in my humble opinion. 

Now this is very wrong indeed. However I'm wondering if this fits in with the misuse of the Romans 13 scripture concerning the 'superior authorities'. 
The Society / GB were still misusing this scripture until 1962 I think. So JW's could not use that scripture correctly and say they had to obey the Superior Authorities' meaning the Government / Secular Authority..... Because the Society /GB were telling lies and pretending it meant God and Jesus Christ. 
From 1929 to 1962, the Superior Authorities became “the Most High God Jehovah and his exalted Son Jesus Christ.” (This Means Everlasting Life (1950) p.197)
Which is absolutely stupid as the scripture says :- 
 Let every person* be in subjection to the superior authorities,a for there is no authority except by God;b the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.c 2  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.
Note :  'stand placed in their relative positions by God'. So if you believed the Society /GB they were saying that the Most High God Jehovah, was 'placed in his relative positions by God'. It makes no sense at all. 
Now back to other stupid ideas.
1. that communal work was as bad as killing people. 
2. that it really mattered who gave the  orders. 
Which takes us back to Superior Authorities being placed in their position by GOD. And if the Armed Forces are part of the Superior Authority because they enforce that authority, then so be it. 
The fact that it was perceived being "the same as"   shows a complete lack of spiritual guidance. 
 

It might look that way. But I think many of the GB (more than one-third) could have believed that voluntarily submitting in support of a military organization was breaking integrity to God. Surely if the Bible says be no part of the world, and love your enemy, etc., anyone could easily interpret this to mean that support of the military is support of the "enemy" which is Satan's world and it's machinations.
The Pharasaic, legalistic issues come into play when someone questions, then, why we would submit at all after imprisonment (because the typical sentence in most countries was often to just do 2 to 5 years of the same thing the brother just refused to do voluntarily, and the instruction from the Society was to follow orders of the court in that case. (Romans 13 could be invoked as "the sword" of the authorities -- paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, etc.)
That's always a tendency, but it is not the case that they are corrupt, just human.
I think the problem took 50 years to fix because it had a long tradition. It had become one of those "strongly entrenched things" as the Bible calls them. Perhaps it was seen as possibly going against something that Rutherford had received through one of those "flashes of light" that he claimed to get, perhaps received at a time when Jehovah needed to influence him more directly than he influences the GB today. Remember, that if we "rank and file" publishers have trouble understanding the workings of the holy spirit and inspiration, it must be an even touchier subject for those who claim they have no more holy spirit than a member of the great crowd, but who also know that their decisions will effect thousands or millions. How do they know if Rutherford might have been right when he claimed, for a while, that angels, not holy spirit, brought "flashes" of insight "directly" to the earthly part of God's "temple?" By changing a doctrine, even if it seems wrong, the current GB might feel they are  "standing on holy ground." That time period when military service and alternative service questions started was the same period that brought Jehovah's Witnesses victoriously through persecution, Hitler and WWII. And now the GB are going to question that past and say that a big part of it was wrong all along? It's always so much easier to just let things go as they always have until the issue reaches a crisis or boiling point.
 

I think so. I think they are much better, and I think that discussions of doctrinal issues go beyond the GB circle now. That was true up until about 1978, when there were very open discussions of doctrinal issues, and any Bethel Elder might talk to a table of Bethelites with a new idea.  Then they cracked down on that from 1979 until F.Franz died, and then tightened those kinds of discussions into the GB "inner rooms" only, according to a brother from Writing (who had too many of his own ideas anyway). But in the last 10 years or so, even some of the helpers have researchers.
When I was at Bethel, I was in the Art Department but was also doing research. Brother Schroeder (GB) gave me my first of many research projects in early 1977 and it was to do a survey/report on all the Greek words and expressions that can translate the expression "house to house" and report on Bible dictionaries, Bible translations, and uses from the LXX, Josephus, Philo, etc. His own Greek was pretty good, much better than mine in fact, but at least I knew how to use a dictionary and could do some leg work for him. I don't know who else used researchers back then, because all the brothers in the Writing Department did their own research, as far as I could tell. (There were no sisters in Writing then as there are now.)
F. Franz died more than a quarter-century ago. I think it's much different now. I don't really know any of them personally but we can see a pattern in the types of talks and topics each of them gets assigned. I don't get the impression that any of them are trying to outdo one another these days. Politics was rampant when I was working at Bethel from 1976 to 1982.
I doubt that anyone can know, but there are a lot more talks at Gilead Graduations and Annual Meetings that give you a good idea what has been talked about in terms of updates to doctrines. Also, you can learn to listen in a certain way to how some doctrines are brought up to know if it's under discussion. The "Peace and Security" issue came up recently, for example. I was at a WT study about a month ago where a member of the GB was in the audience and I thought it odd that he brought up the scripture and then without any reason I could think of decided to defend the idea that the Peace and Security issue might be a bigger thing than just a general condition. Bringing it up in a defensive way would make one think that maybe it had needed defending recently. I made a note of it on my iPhone at the time, but didn't think much of it until I just noticed that it was under discussion at the annual meeting, which means that if a new doctrine were to come out of this, it was also very likely discussed in a GB meeting. 
Would be wonderful if it were recorded and made public. But that would probably change the whole tenor of the meeting if they knew outsiders might know what goes on. I have heard that things go very smoothly among the GB at their meetings, but that a lot of "we can hear you through the wall" arguing goes on among the GB Helpers. Again that was just one man's report, and he is not one of the Helpers, just a brother in Writing, who might even be jealous. (Just kidding!)

I never said that I thought God's active force cannot be transmitted to humans like in ancient times,  in fact I said that of course it could and is. But it is apparent that the holy spirit doesn't help people perform some kind of miracles or see some kind of visions today. This is what Christendom claims for its saints. It doesn't seem that this is what the GB claims.
I don't think JW Insider implied the GB are self-serving. Did he?
I am thinking you mean how does this view differ from RF.  Well I don't think RF thought the GB were self-serving all the time, he did highlight their human imperfections and failings though. But really this would have only been surprising to those who thought the GB members were somehow different from all the rest of the brothers in the faith. But they give us o reason to believe they are. Apparently they themselves are domestics too.

They very well could. I am not one of the anointed and I therefore don't know exactly how that particular expression of the holy spirit manifests itself. We say it has a lot to do with how sure such individuals are, in their heart, that they are "invited" to heaven. I expect it has a bit to do with "feeling" that they have long felt that the calling to eternal life in heaven is much more appealing and much more sure than the prospect of living forever in a paradise earth. Beyond that, I have never heard an anointed person express much. Although I expect (and have been told by longtime non-anointed brothers) that within themselves there is a certain inexplicable "joy" involved in that heavenly calling.  I have never personally heard an anointed person describe it with that term. I'm positive that some would, however.
I say this, because I think that there would be certain sense of "I just feel it! I know we have this one right!" when an issue that has come up to the Governing Body has been resolved in a positive way, perhaps by updating or completely changing a teaching or practice. It's hard to imaging that there wouldn't be something like that, because I'm sure all the rest of us have felt a kind of warm fatherly love when an issue we struggled with has been resolved through prayer and scripture, and sometimes through new circumstances that either highlight a proper direction, or resolve an issue by showing a way out of the problem. Or sometimes we just feel a certain kind of "pure joy" at reading a Bible passage for the 10th time and seeing something that is not only new but helps us appreciate Jehovah better, or will help us with our own or someone else's problems.
This is why I think that Brother Jackson's testimony seemed a bit mundane. Perhaps there is more to the "sureness" or some kind of "sign" seen in the fact that others bring up the same scripture they were concerned with, but help them see it in a new way. Perhaps there is more to the way each of them personally feels that a prayer is personally answered with some unstated "connection" to the right answer. But in any case, Brother Jackson boiled it all down to what sounds like a prayer, followed by a scripture search to sort of see what pops out at them. It does sound more mental than heartfelt, more rationalized than motivating.  And I understand that making a big deal about the difference in the words "heart" and "mind" can sometimes be artificial, but I think you know what I mean.
It reminded me of comments such as these in 2016:
*** ws16 January p. 22 pars. 6-8 “We Want to Go With You” ***
So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others. They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else. . . . They do not try to find other anointed ones so that they can talk about being anointed or meet in groups to study the Bible. (Galatians 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did this. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Read Romans 16:17, 18.
Of course, I'd be just as happy if anointed ones did meet to study the Bible together, and send their suggestions to the GB for evaluation and distribution. Doesn't mean that they would split off from the congregations and be disunited. The Society gets missionaries together, pioneers together, elders, circuit overseers, branch overseers, doctors, lawyers, computer specialists, building specialists, orchestras, choirs  . . . why not a meeting or two with those who claim to be anointed?

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Can you rephrase it please?
It was an explanation of how the holy spirit works, nothing to do with not really getting the holy spirit. The holy spirit works through the Bible. It is not a tongue of fire on top of your head like it was in the 1st Century.
I don't think anyone is disputing that God gave the apostles  power of healing and removing demons. But those days are gone. I am not saying Jehovah couldn't make this happen again, but He obviously has not chosen to do that in our day.
Everyone receiving the same holy spirit doesn't mean you have to be on the same page. That depends entirely on you and how you respond to the direction of that spirit.

I would not go to war in the real sense of going prepared to kill people. But I would work on a farm producing food. 
I would not vote for a person or political party. I would not become part of a political party. I would not salute the flag. 
But :- 
Matthew 5 v 41 
"And if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles."
 
 

That's one way to look at it. It would go against my own conscience. What might a nation or government ever ask you to do that might go against your conscience, if I may ask?

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

“I was hanging in the suana with Fred thumbing a soggy copy of Ray’s book that Dan had squirreled out of the safe, hoping Albert wouldn’t go off on some spiel on UFOs or whatever, and that he would postpone his latest jetting around the globe gig, where he always made me ride baggage class, when...” uh oh, I’m not that sufficiently gets the job done.

Yep do it in secret. Just like the GB does.   

You raise some good points, and they, and some other comments, have given me an idea for a topic on the JW - only closed club. So when I get a bit more time I will put something together.

@Anna Quote" I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. So if there is no difference.. "
A bit presumptuous to assume that the WT is right. Just because the GB / Writing dept' says the Anointed on earth and the earthly class are the same, does not prove that they are the same. What it does is say that the WT are saying they are the same...
If you want to hang on every word the GB / Writing dept' say, that is of course your right. But don't expect everyone else to do the same. 
How many scriptures did the WT use in full to make the point you've mentioned ?  Can you repeat those scriptures ? 
 

I know what you mean. But I think it makes a little more sense when we whittle that number down to a few (as in feeding many through the hands of a few). More like a function performed (someone’s got to do it) rather than any superiority or specialness on anyone's part.  I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. So if there is no difference, it logically figures that they are all domestics, whether it be the anointed scattered throughout the earth, the earthly class, or the anointed members of the GB. Obviously once in heaven, they are very different from the earthly class, in every way.
A situation that I think (in my mind) kind of illustrates the “domestics/anointed/FDS rolled into one” idea is when during the memorial (I am only using the memorial for the purpose of an example, not any significance that it is the memorial) emblems are passed around. Towards the end, the attendants who have been passing the emblems around also need the emblems to be passed to them.  All this is done in a symbolic way of course, but the point is that their function as emblem distributors is just a logistical function to get the emblems from platform, to one row to the next, and then back to the platform. This action or job does not include the symbolic observation of the emblems on their part. I don’t know if I have explained this very well, but I am sure you will let me know if I’m not making any sense at all

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression:
And also here:
At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit  the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

Since you like to insinuate, allow me to state, 
If doctoral theology or ecclesiastical endorsement means nothing to a person that professes to have Bible knowledge, there is really nothing more that can be added for the wisdom of such a person. The exegesis defines and intellectuals understanding. Perhaps it’s beyond the comprehension for some.
To some, it is clear what is meant in Romans 12:2
Can I take it to mean Anna and JWinsider are husband and wife? since you have the same form of writing style? or is it just another overreach in your part. Perhaps other things are far more important than personal silliness.

Well, they do live in a big compound, the Watchtower organization. Rev 13:1 Even though scattered throughout the world, they are still “gathered” under an oppressive rule.  Rev 13:5-8; 16:13-16
Are the “helpers” of the GB all anointed, or are any of them anointed?   Is the writing staff made up of anointed ones?  It seems to be something that could be accomplished, if it is God's organization.
 
I hope someday soon you open your eyes. 
Watchtower 1/16 pp. 22-27:
Jehovah’s holy spirit helps his servants to be humble, not proud. (Colossians 3:12) So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others.  (simplified version)
Is it pride to speak truth that comes from the heart?  What about the elders?  Are they not given “honor” for their exalted position over God’s chosen priesthood,  while the anointed are told to be “humble”?   What they really mean, is, “listen, obey and be blessed”…by the governing body.
They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else.
Not according to scripture.  Holy spirit is poured into the heart of the anointed one.  This is what an anointing is.  God’s laws are written on their heart to allow them to teach believers.  Mal 2:7; 1 Pet 2:5,9; Heb 8:10 (please read)  If they are united together, able to speak and meet together as one body under Christ, their High Priest, they all receive Holy Spirit and knowledge from the vine. Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-31; Eph 4:12; John 15:5  This is no different than what the early anointed ones were able to do under Paul’s direction, but in the case of the GB, it is pure threat to their counterfeit headship.
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.  1 John 2:27
The Watchtower declares this the desire to bond (at the prompting of Holy Spirit) as the desire to become part of an “elite club”, which is exactly what the governing body has accomplished – an elite closed-door club that judges and condemns God’s priesthood for speaking what is in their heart, for seeking out their brothers and sisters in Christ. 
In addition, anointed Christians do not view themselves as being part of an elite club. They do not seek out others who claim to have the same calling, hoping to bond with them or endeavoring to form private groups for Bible study.
When someone realizes they are anointed, do you know who interrogates them?  The elder body who are not anointed.  They must accept and approve, that this individual can and will partake.  As I’ve said before, many don’t partake because of possible negativity coming from the elders.  Firstly, In a sea of 150+  people on a memorial night, there may be 0-2 who are anointed. Where do all eyes strain to look when someone partakes?   What doubts, what questions arise in a JW’s mind?  I’ve heard the gossip about partakers, I know the elders have been known to threaten and prevent an anointed one from partaking.
Don’t believe me?  How many elder pedophiles have been well hidden by the organization? How many victims have been threatened if they were to report a perpetrator to the police?  Their given role is one of authority that can’t be questioned, whereas the anointed are scrutinized thoroughly.  Why?  Men didn’t appointment them, it can’t be seen so why believe it?  Elders are visibly christened as “priests” to replace the appointed priests of God’s Temple.  1 Cor 3:16,17; 2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev 11:1,2
Secondly , who did Jesus invite to the Last Supper?  Every believer, or only those he chose?  Shouldn’t the memorial be observed as it was on that night?  Matt 18:20  Who manipulates how the memorial is observed?  A "wicked slave" and its henchmen who carry out their wishes.  
Jesus is the cornerstone of the Temple, the apostles and prophets are the foundation.  The remnant of these “living stones” are the anointed who if faithful only to their Head, Jesus Christ will complete the “captstone”.  Zech 4:7-10    What right to do men have who are not anointed, to direct their worship?  
“Therefore, it would be embarrassing for those with a heavenly calling if others were to give them undue praise or attention. Worse still, if they received special treatment, anointed Christians might find it difficult to remain humble.”
I would say it is the elder body that is given special treatment, wouldn’t you?
Do you really believe an anointed one who perceives scriptures differently than the regulated spiritual commerce coming from the GB can do this, with no questions asked?  Many anointed are disfellowshipped for doing so.  I was.  Rev 13:6,7,15 
 Spiritual food in the organization is managed, just as literal money is managed in a pyramid scheme.  One can “buy” regulated spiritual food through their dedication to the organization (becoming slaves to men Acts 5:29) which comes down from the top. God and Christ have no hand in this type of commerce.    They “sell” to others using the specified “products” – literature, doctrine, etc.  And, as in a pyramid scheme, no one watches their back.  
Wikipedia:
“Companies that use MLM models for compensation have been a frequent subject of criticism and lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial entry costs (for marketing kit and first products), emphasis on recruitment of others over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring members to purchase and use the company's products, exploitation of personal relationships as both sales and recruiting targets, complex and exaggerated compensation schemes, the company and/or leading distributors making major money off training events and materials, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion”
Translate this into the Watchtower realm of the “buying and selling” of spiritual provisions sourced in men’s doctrines from the parent ‘company’, Satan, (men’s doctrines that change regularly are not from the Father or Christ, but from their lying father.)…
…the “high initial entry cost” of forfeiting one’s identity over to an organization, “exploitation” – the oppressive treatment of Christ’s brothers under a wicked slave, and certainly an “exaggerated compensation scheme” called “peace and security” that all buy into. Rev 13:16,17; Matt 24:15,48-51; Dan 8:10; Rev 11:2; 2 Cor 11:3,4; 1 Thess 5:3; Jer 23:17 
Do you care about the Kingdom to come?  Then, get to know the role that anointed ARE to play in this fulfillment and the perils they face not in the world of politics, but at the hands of their own people.  The Temple of God, which the anointed are, is a "holy place".  (1 Cor 3:16,17)  The "disgusting thing standing in the holy place" are the elders - "man of lawlessness" who rule over them.   Matt 24:15,16  Do you believe in God's Kingdom the elders will "rule" over the anointed  "priests and kings"?  Rev 5:9,10   Then why now?  
 

Could either one of you tell me what you mean by "doctoral" in these cases? A "doctoral" understanding is the understanding of someone who is a a doctor or who has a doctoral degree. But that wouldn't make any sense in any of these examples.

I never called you an apostate or think of you as one, Pops. Former JW, yes, apostate? Dunno, didn't see you try to set fire to a hall like someone out there or defame God while attempting to mock our faith. 
If I had to be honest......whelp, I just see you as lukewarm or misguided, and a teaspoon of paranoia raising off of your skin. You can agree or disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, but to be as  stale as chips in a bag..... Well, Pops, it fits the bill, and I just paid it and tipped it too.
Do you even know what an apostate is?
Seem? An accusation or an assumption? Here we see you trying to say we are all the same when we are not. Same faith doesn't mean we sre all the same person.
 
oh dios mío.....

Things may be done differently, but are they done any better ? 
If it seems that one member ruled over the others back then, is it any different now ?
Can anyone here know exactly what goes on in a GB meeting ? Is it recorded and made public ? 
I'm thinking about starting a new topic about " The times they are a changin' "  A line from a Bob Dylan song i think. 

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire."
Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother.
Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote.
You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere.
That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version:
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the
fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove
itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance.
One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost
during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate
with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy
and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents
an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason
that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural
position, imposed by organizational authority.
Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely
doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience
of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that
intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even
reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and
contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position
enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation
as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon
for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing
so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may
now be operative in this area.”
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it
deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the
good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that
were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the
Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only
all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but
even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence.
They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect,
shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who
held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place.
In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom."
But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization
even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being
passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience
would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do
hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative
but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered,
“Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was
considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the
judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed,
approved response already quoted, and then the judge in
sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service,
he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the
apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1
Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and
the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh.
This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.
 

@JW Insider Quote "If he answered, “Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the judge, and thus had broken his integrity. "
Broken his integrity to whom though ? The Society / GB obviously. Not his integrity to God. 
So the Society / GB were demanding that these men serve the Society /GB..
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
Quote " In England, there were 1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. "
As a side note. 
The 'big house' that i am 'caretaker' of, was known as Spicelands in the 1940's. It was run by Quakers and took in conscientious objectors. They were taught farming work and worked on the land around the house. 

Is this some sort of defence of the Society /GB ? If it is it's a poor try. 
Yes to suffer for the reason of serving GOD is a good thing, BUT to suffer for the reason of serving MEN (the society /GB ) will never be a good thing.
'Put not your trust in earthling man, in whom no salvation belongs'.  Those men in charge misused their 'power' that is so obvious. 

Many at Bethel, and even a non-Bethel elder in the local Brooklyn Heights Congregation saw him as the natural next "President" after F.Franz. But I also thought it was obvious that he would not have wanted it. I also thought it was obvious he would not get it. Schroeder, Henschel and Jaracz seemed to be the most politically active. R.Franz was always quiet and serious and sorry to say it, he just seemed like too nice a guy. The kind of guy that would always finish last. You could listen to morning comments by Schroeder and Jaracz and get an idea of great assignments they had in the past (Schroeder was the UK Branch Servant in London). Schroeder actually mentioned F.Franz' age and started a quick discussion about potential genetic influence on longevity. But almost no one at Bethel even seemed to know that R.Franz had been the coordinator and primary writer of the huge Aid Book. His experiences he related at morning worship were usually of the sort "I once knew a brother or sister who did [this or that]" and it was sometimes an amusing anecdote that made a specific point to highlight the meaning of a proverb or other scripture.
But the decision to have a Governing Body actually came out the research that R.Franz produced for the Aid Book which discussed how the first-century congregations had  the "Elder arrangement." Even here he decided to get "permission" from F.Franz to publish this because it would be obvious that if people read the entry under Elder that he completed in 1969, Witnesses would wonder why we didn't implement the elder arrangement today in our congregations.
By 1971, the Society implemented the Elder arrangement in all congregations with a yearly rotation in place so no one would preside for too long as the "Presiding Elder" ("president" elder in some languages). And the Society's board was turned into a kind of Elder arrangement, too, with rotating committees, so that no one handled any one committee (like the Chairman's Committee, etc) for too long. This didn't have any effect on Society's decision-making however because the Society still had a President and Vice President and Treasurer, etc., and continued to make decisions as they always had. It was basically just another name for the board of directors at that time and it was expanding by three persons, including R.Franz.
It sounds like R.Franz thought this was a scriptural arrangement, and he might have even accepted the Presidency had it been offered. I have no idea. But I don't think he would have wanted it, and he as good as admits that he wouldn't have wanted such a thing.
I think you know that Henschel was given the Presidency after F.Franz. After 2000, the Presidency had nothing to do with the Governing Body any more and it was given to a person who did not claim to be of the "anointed."