Foreigner

From what time period were those men told by the GB to 'go to prison' instead of doing alternative service ?
From what date until what date ? 
I notice you mention 1996, as when the Organization reversed its policy on alternative service.
The reason I'm asking is that in 1962 (or so I've just read) the 'Society' changed the meaning of the Romans 13 scripture, back to its original understanding, that is, that the Superior Authorities are the governments / rulers of this world. Hence, if a government / ruler of a country offered Alternative Service that was not going against the will of God, then the people should obey it. 
Romans 13.
 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 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.
Wow, now that is very clear, isn't it.
So if the Society / GB deliberately took this stand against those Rulers that had the authority from God to rule, then the Society / GB were in fact taking a stand against GOD Himself. 
 

I know you asked for a response, but you have sometimes indicated that you feel insulted by my responses, so this response is directed only to others who might have also wondered what I meant.
I was referring to the 16 years between late 1979, the last time when R.Franz was involved in the last vote on this issue, and 1996, when the Society finally was able to get a large enough majority for the second time, and the change was finally made. Many brothers who would not have gone to prison by being allowed to act upon their own conscience during those extra 16 years, actually did serve prison time during those years. 
Anyone who wishes can probably see that this is a point that R.Franz made in his book, here:
The twothirds
majority was gone. After further discussion, when another
vote was taken it read: Nine in favor, five against, one abstention.
Though still a definite majority it was no longer a two-thirds majority.
Though only a minority of the Governing Body favored the
continuance of the existing policy and the sanctions it applied toward
any who accepted alternative service (unless sentenced
thereto), that policy remained in effect. Year after year, hundreds
of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding
it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested,
tried, and imprisoned—because one individual on a religious
council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their
conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the
cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a
part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ.
Surely such instances make clear why no Christian should ever
be expected to mortgage his conscience to any religious organization
or to any body of men exercising virtually unlimited authority
over people’s lives. I found the whole affair disheartening,
tragic. Yet I felt that I learned more clearly just to what ends the
very nature of an authority structure can lead men, how it can cause
them to take rigid positions they would not normally take. This case
illustrated the way in which the power of tradition, coupled with
a technical legalism and a mistrust of people’s motives, can prevent
one from taking a compassionate stand.
The matter came up on one other occasion and the vote was
evenly split. Thereafter it was dropped and for most members it
seemed to become a non-issue. The organization, following its
voting rules, had spoken. The Branch Committees’ arguments need
not be answered—they could simply be informed that “nothing had
changed” and they would proceed accordingly. The men in prison
would never know that the matter had even been discussed and that,
consistently, half or more of the Governing Body did not believe
they needed to be where they were.
...
If the published statements in the Watchtower and Awake!
magazines have any validity at all, then, when compared with the
statements of these Branch Committee members, they clearly identify
these young Witness men as either very vulnerable to brainwashing
or as already victims of indoctrination and mass persuasion.
In 1996, when the organization reversed its policy on alternative
service, many hundreds, even thousands, of these young
men were right then in prison, like thousands before them, but they
really did not know why the position they took, which led to their
imprisonment, should have been taken. They accepted a policy
without seeing a sound basis for it, they allowed their decisions to
be governed, not by solid evidence from God’s Word, but by
“group loyalty,” and “organizational loyalty.” These are the same
forces that give such potency to indoctrination on the part of what
Witnesses call “worldly” organizations. It is a case of doing what
one’s associates do and what the authority (the organization) says,
even though one finds the reasons given to be insubstantial, even
“artificial.” The view of alternative service these persons accepted
was clearly a “borrowed” one, not their own. Concern over what
others in their religious community would think, concern over reprisals
by the organization in the form of excommunication, certainly
must have weighed heavily in their thinking, causing them
to shut out any questions from their minds and simply submit.
These young Witness men stood before government tribunals and
declared themselves bound to an uncompromising position of rejecting
alternative service unless first arrested and tried and sentenced
to perform it by a judge, and they perhaps thought that such
was their own conviction. But their inability to explain the reason
for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them. Recall the Watchtower statements earlier quoted:
 

You are wrong, but it's easy to see where the mistake comes from. You apparently didn't realize that it was not Raymond Franz who became President on June 7 1977, but it was Frederick Franz, and that it was Frederick Franz, not Raymond Franz, who explained to a large gathering* that 1975 didn't happen because it was the fault of Witnesses in the audience for expecting it. You can still get the audio recording of Fred Franz making this outrageous accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses.
Your quote is from The Re-Enchantment of the West, Vol 2, p.295, by Christopher Partridge. Yes, it's true that Partridge claims that "Raymond Franz conceded that there had been a prophecy" and that it had failed. The book makes it appear that, as you said, Raymond Franz "conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to." As you said:
The actual talk by F. W. Franz is one for which I have never heard a recording. It was at a new Assembly Hall in Canada. The talk has been described in several places. I just found the following from a Google search that pointed to a book by Edmund C. Gruss: 

I just listened again to the talk that F.W.Franz gave on February 10, 1975 in Los Angeles. I had heard it right after my grandmother recorded it. She was all excited about it. And I was too at the time. But I remember my father still downplaying the date, and saying to listen very closely to what he is NOT saying. I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause.
It's a little off topic, but I listened to it from this YouTube video that follows along in the same book that Franz is asking the audience to take note of.
The assembly lapel ID badge shown is not actually related directly to the same talk. It's just what was attached to the video. The actual context of the badge is from 1970 and early 1971. Note the Our Kingdom Ministry that year:
*** km 7/70 p. 3 Announcements ***
A new circuit assembly program is scheduled to begin in September. We believe you will find it most informative and upbuilding. The public talk will be “Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970’s?”
 

So let's be blunt. The Governing Body sat on their arses in some nice room and decided other men should go to prison. There was basically no scriptural reasons for it. The GB just had that power over people to do it.
Now that proves how much those people were serving the GB. The GB did not give them the choice to use their God given conscience. It proves dictatorship.
Felix is a GB worshiper so I'm not interested in his opinions on this. 
As you have posted  "But their inability to explain the reason for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them."  That says it all. Case proven. 

@Srecko Sostar  Quote " Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. "
Srecko, I have tears for you my friend. The GB have a lot of things to answer for. 
I hope God removes the GB from 'power' and replaces them with a true Anointed class. 

Thanks John for emotions you put publicly.
All in all, my prison time went well, working, going to school inside prison walls, not have problems with other prisoners, after 2 years get my first vacation to visit home. I am kind of introvert, and to be alone is not so harsh punishment  in my case :))) i like more to be alone in 3x2,5 cell than in crowd. Perhaps .... or certainly/ obviously.... i have some unsolved psycho and early childhood issues :))))   

As usual. Once again, you are wrong to think I have any input on what others were saying. So, don’t put words in my mouth to make an insulting conclusion.

What does selective service have to do with anything Raymond corrupted because of his action? It appears you continue to evade the issue on why the claim of apostasy was levied on him.

If he was an innocent man, why did he evade having to justify what he referred to about 3 simple principles?

1.       144,000 interpretation

2.       33AD interpretation

3.       1914 interpretation

Initially, he had the first meeting taped, even though he claimed he was wronged by not getting a copy. He wasn’t wronged as he stated since the first committee didn’t involve the allegation of GOSSIP, by many Bethel members.

He could have simply stated his position but instead evaded. This is when a member referenced he resign. An innocent man would not have resigned.

That just shows, either he was too proud, or the claims were true, not just on his position of rejecting those 3 claims, but also being involved in the Gossip of certain high ranking members teaching such a doctrine at the kingdom halls.

So, your attempts of proof to justify Raymond’s actions are meant to obscure what really went on at Bethel, just as you are attempting to sway the same ideology for him. Therefore, your submissions are inconsequential.

Hermano. Por eso me niego a aceptar cualquier cosa tangible de los sitios apóstatas. Sobre todo viniendo de Peter Gregersons. 😉

 

I didn’t mean to imply anything negative. I have no knowledge of your personal relationships. If I made you feel uncomfortable, my apologies.

Cynthia passed away supporting her husband to the very end. Any good wife would. Right or wrong.

This is why Raymond left a bad taste on some peoples mouth. Being conflicted when he shouldn’t have been.

 
 

I figured you would use wordplay here. I had to swallow my pride to show your bias, with Raymond’s books. That doesn’t mean I will continue to indulge you in promoting a failed man’s ideals. 😉

The End: Eschatological Re-Enchantment 295

“They 'seemed stunned but refused to admit that they and they alone were responsible for the cognitive dissonance that was now so common among Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide'.'07 Later, in 1976, Raymond Franz, who was to become President of the organization on 7 June 1977, conceded that there had been a prophecy, but explained its apparent failure to a large gathering in a way that distanced the leadership from blame: 'It was because you expected something to happen.' In other words, as Penton says, 'since Jesus had predicted that no one would know "the day or hour" of his coming to judge mankind, the Witnesses should not have believed that they could know that it would occur in 1975.'108 The leadership also provided an exegetical explanation for the failure: 'The answer has been to recognise that 6000 years since the creation of man may have properly begun, not with Adam, but only when creation was complete - when God made Adam and Eve.'109 Noting that prior to Eve's creation, Adam had been naming the animals for an unspecified amount of time, it was argued that this time should now be added and considered 'extra time' for evangelism prior to Armageddon. That said, although the prophetic failure of 1975 was explained, and while it did not lead to an overall collapse of belief, the growth rate of the…”

 

Why would such nonsense be written by others if Raymond believed on what he held as the truth? He was well aware the society was referring to the 6000 years of mankind, yet he conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to. Once again, who was this man to decide to place the organization in such a bad light, if he knew full well what the writing department meant through the Watchtower publication? That means he was wrong to concede on an idea that wasn’t there, THE END OF THE WORLD IN 1975. That means you are wrong also. It’s clear you never really knew the man, just through his books.

Wrong again. There is no such thing as having a vote from the Holy Spirit. Once again, try not to obscure, administrative with the gift of the Holy Spirit. To give people spiritual nourishment, the responsible body has to be in full accord when receiving the same gift from God. Don't quote me Raymond's books anymore, that's insulting too.

Thank you for proving my point on how you view the GB. JWinsider used you as a "fine" example. He was wrong to do so since it was a horrible example coming from a meaningless person.

Try separating the 2. 1 by what opposers believe, and 1 by the innuendoes Raymond implied. Why would he found it a need to stipulate how witnesses would feel if 1975 wasn't going to be realized as indicated by the Watchtower publications. Your defense of Raymond is illogical. Perhaps to a weak heart, you will have success.
Is this why you told TrueTom you couldn’t find anything about Cynthia when there is plenty of ex-witnesses to applaud her for sticking by her man? A man that failed as an intellectual and spiritual person. Sorry. I don’t hold him, his research, or books in high regards as you do.

That means we have a difference of opinion with Raymond criticizing the year 1975, as though people thought it would become the end of the world just like any weak-minded witness.

Word salads are insulting. When I prove you wrong, it is not conjecture. This is why defending Raymond is wrong. And if you bother to read the remarks in the WordPress, His actions had a serious impact on others in a negative Christian way.

Who was this man to decide? This is a question he will have to answer for leading God’s children astray. A question that some here will have to answer for.

Hermano, deja que el incrédulo tenga su día. No vale la pena el tiempo que se imprime. La mentalidad apóstata es lo que el diablo apoya.

a algunas personas les gusta impresionar a los demás pretendiendo buscar cosas, cuando ni siquiera conocen a las personas que están buscando. https://www.commentarypress.com/
 

I see you are going to use my words against me. I find that insulting.
 
1975: ‘THE APPROPRIATE TIME
FOR GOD TO ACT’
DURING the second half of Rutherford’s presidency most of the older time prophecies so strenuously argued for in the first half
were gradually dropped or relocated. The start of the “last days” was moved up from 1799 to 1914.
The 1874 presence of Christ was also moved up to 1914 (as had already been done in 1922 with the 1878 official start of Christ’s active Kingdom rule)...Governing Body member Bill Jackson smilingly said to me, “We used to say, you just take the date from this shoulder and put it on the other shoulder.”

at most,” “the final few years,” all used in the Watchtower and Awake! magazines with reference to the beginning of the millennial reign and all in a context that included the date 1975. Do such words
mean anything? Or were they used loosely, carelessly? Are people’s hopes and plans and feelings something to be toyed with? To fail to be concerned about those factors would be both irresponsible and insensitive. Yet theWatchtower of August 15, 1968, even implied that one should be careful about putting too much weight on Jesus Christ’s own cautionary words.
Your characterization of me is 100% speculation. This is why we all have different opinions.

Then you fail to see the difference of what the Holy Spirit means with gifts, just like Raymond. So your own assessment in wanting to equate my perspective with Raymond is an over emphases in your part, since, I have no reason to subvert the truth.

This is the reason why you can’t find any gifts since your thoughts have been corrupted by ideologies such a Raymond’s and perhaps others that make you believe the Watchtower is always flawed just like Butler, and Anna.

Therefore, the blame of misunderstanding scripture lies squarely on your shoulders. You have a way of placing false statements along with sound statements that make both ideals simply a conjecture in your part.

As for voting since you are changing the subject about the failed ideas of Raymond in his book, the 2/3 majority vote just like it is done now with the majority rule, is NOT applicable to the conscience but to a sign from the Holy Spirit. Men are capable of making mistakes, that’s a given since we are all imperfect. Waiting on a heavenly sign is something else for them to adopt a new understanding if need be.

Here many confused individuals believe the GB make things up as they go along.
The misquote of William Cooper in 1773 of Isaiah 55:8-9, that’s how God Moves in a Mysterious Way. Perhaps someone else will have another text in mind, John 13:7 this is a pun, not a misdirection.

Now perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean by 1996 and the dishonest claim you have about the 16 years in prison? I don’t need to ask an Ex-JW with tainted information from apostate sites, I’m asking you that considers himself a witness with Ex-JW views.

Perhaps this is the reason why you defend Srecko and Bulter. But, if anything, I get the impression Butler believes the GB to be equal to Christ, not above him as you state.

This is why your attempts of correction will run unchallenged, for one we are talking about Raymond’s motive. Initially, he thought 607BC was sound but later accepted 587BC because of the treatise. Could it be, this was a decision to informally mention Carl in his book?

The end results didn’t justify the means, and it doesn’t need to be in the book to know the man. Therefore, my comparison doesn’t squarely rely on his books but the man.

Since you are using the strawman argument and believe you know the man versus his books, which one on Matthew’s could be compared to him with his actions, not motives, but actions.

Fred Franz definitely used a lot of Scriptures to criticize the idea of a Governing Body, but he was outvoted. When the "board" came to vote the actual creation of a Governing Body that could share in the decision-making votes of the Society, and thereby reduce the autocratic power of the office of the Society's President, Fred Franz was quite literally outvoted. But his Scriptural reasoning in his talk was still valid to show how the Bible does NOT support the creation of a Governing Body.
 

@Anna Quote "but you still do have faith and trust in so many people." ...............  WRONG.
No we don't have milk persons (PC) delivering milk. I don't 'fly' anywhere. I have no faith or trust in medical staff, hence I had to be in excessive pain before the ambulance came and took me in to hospital with pneumonia, and I ask to leave hospital asap after treatment. Was only in three days, then recovered at home. I have no faith or trust in the Police force, none at all. But it is all there in its place, and God's word tells us that these things stand in place with His permission and to serve His cause at this time. 
On this latter issue, the Police. When I was being abused in the Children's home my feelings were that i could not report it to anyone as they 'were all in it together'. Children's home / Local Council - Government / Local Council - Police / Local Council-Children's Department Social Services.... There was no one left to report it to................... Even a few years ago when I finally got some of my personal documents regarding my time in 'care', most of it was 'redacted' / Blacked out. One page completely black. So where is any reason to trust ? 
You are probably right on one thing. It is no longer possible to lead anormal life.............  As for my brother, I sort of feel sorry for him. He has 'given' his life to JW org. If he lost it, it would finish him. He no longer contacts me. I can understand why, but you are right I no longer trust him...
Quote " With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change? "
The Creative Days being 7,000 years long, and us being in the 'Rest Day' of 6,000 years , then 1,000 years of Christ's rule. It made sense that all the days were 7,000 years long. God being a god of order not disorder............   But other changes are constantly being discussed on here, such as the F&DS once being the whole 'body' of the Anointed, but now only 8 men............ The teaching about 'this generation' .... the teaching about 'the superior authorities'.............. You don't have to look far to find them do you ? 
Quote " But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job,   " 
Sorry you are totally out of line here.. You are talking about 8 men that dictate to over 8 million people, by pretending that those 8 men are the 'Faithful and Discreet slave'. Those 8 men misuse that title, which they have given themselves, to promote their thinking NOT God's thinking. 
As for the 'wrongdoings', they mount up to the heavens it seems. Giving themselves that title which means they put themselves above other Anointed...... Luke 14 v 11  answers that one............ Deliberately misusing scripture to rule over others.   Reasons for disfellowshipping/shuning, is another.... The Child Abuse situation, and on this one, if only i could find the video, I'm sure a member of the GB said it was 'all lies and just apostates causing trouble'...... 
Quote " Every time a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God.. " 
Wrong...Most times a' brother or sister' speaks, they are being a spokesperson for the GB or JW Org.  They go out with 'literature' more often than they go out with GOD'S word. There is such a big difference. JW's are taught what to say. Please remember I went to the Ministry School meetings / Work book meetings. It is all written in there. What to say, what to offer. It's JW literature, not God's message through Christ.... 
Your last paragraph is of course right.... But that is because you give a direct scripture. 
How wonderful it would be if the GB and it's writing department, and all the other 'people/men' in positions of 'power'  within JW Org / Watchtower, would stick completely to scripture. And only to write the things which they have 100% proof of.  They wouldn't write much of course  
Have a great day Anna. 
 
 
 
 

The person he associated with was not disfellowshipped. Many persons in his congregation still associated with the same man, because he was related to them, and was in a position to help them out financially, running a business that had hired them. Besides 1 Corinthians 5 says the following:
(1 Corinthians 5:9-11) . . .In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. Which one of these labels do you attach to this former member of the local congregation who was not even disfellowshipped? Was he greedy? Sexually immoral? An idolater? An extortioner? A reviler? A drunkard? Also, even if he was such a person --and I think you probably know he wasn't-- what did Paul mean when he said that we don't stop keeping company entirely with such people. Obviously, for purposes of employment, living in the world, we might need to associate with a person who is any one of these types.

What became of his wife? I never hear about her.

You should have already bee aware that R.Franz never made any such claim like this either.

You misrepresent R.Franz by implying that he made a claim that Russell prophesied about the end of the world in 1914AD.
R.Franz never made such a claim about Russell.
Perhaps you were thinking of J.F.Rutherford's talk 3.3 years after October 1914:
Back in January of 1918, in the very throes of World War I, the American president, Woodrow Wilson, proposed the League of Nations. The very next month Jehovah’s witnesses, as represented by the president of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, began preaching the startling message, “The World Has Ended—Millions Now Living May Never Die.”  -- https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1958767

From here you go on to indicate that there were differences between the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz and what is found in Watchtower literature. 
But I get the feeling, now, that you probably did not read his books, or did not remember what you read. Either that, or you found it necessary for some unstated purpose to skew the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz into something he did not say. For example:
He claims that 607 is a hugely relevant date to the Governing Body and to the Watchtower writers. And although he never mentions the date 587 or 586 in either book, I agree that his first book points to the fact that all the evidence he could find supports a date "twenty years later" than 607. His point here is that even though he found no evidence, he acquiesced.
We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All
historians pointed to a date twenty years later.
Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology”
I had not realized that the number of
baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the
Mesopotamian area and dating back to the
time of ancient Babylon numbered into the
tens of thousands. In all of these there was
nothing to indicate that the period of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the
necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything
pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology
claimed.
Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our
chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such
evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for
the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to
weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence
that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different
starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date
different from 1914.
Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a
specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing
astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any
information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever
in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that
indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became
evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of
the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to
misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one.
Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my
effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from
ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical
texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In themselves,
the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their
intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.
So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the
Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be
loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned
through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication.

The entire post of yours that begins with the words I just re-quoted could be taken as a defense of some of the positions taken by R.Franz. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but several of the examples show that you agree with him.
The problem with this post is that the parts that are the most clear produce contradictions within your own post. Yes, the Bible says that the gifts are distributed throughout the entire congregation, the entire body of individuals, not just a special group of prophets, or a special group of teachers, or a special group of evangelizers. Then you mention that holy spirit was given to certain young individuals in the book of Daniel and not to the whole congregation (synagogue). Then you said that the apostles were given certain gifts that weren't given to others in the congregation. This is interesting. Can you name one of those gifts? I can't find any, nor do I believe this is a Biblical teaching.
I'm afraid you don't either. You can't blame someone for misunderstanding a false statement and your misuse of Scripture.
It looks like your main point of difference is that you are saying that R.Franz could not express a proper "faith" if he doesn't realize that "holy spirit" only works through a certain approved group of men. And it was not specifically the "approved group of men," but in a practical way holy spirit was supposed to work by moving at least two-thirds of this approved group of men to agree on an issue. Therefore the holy spirit worked by motivating a 66.666 percent majority or greater to agree on a vote.
Of course, R.Franz no doubt watched dozens of times when this group would have reached that 66.666 percent majority, except that persons who had expressed to him that they believed their vote should go a certain way, would vote a different way if F.Franz had his up before their own, and they would merely follow his vote. R.Franz says a sizable percentage of the Governing Body would almost ALWAYS vote however F.Franz voted. A couple of these votes were most interesting in that they got the 66.666 percent majority to make the change saying that "alternative service" was now a matter of the individual's conscience, which would have changed the situation in South Korea and many other countries, but Brother Barry changed his vote back when he realized that just one vote had brought them over the 66.666 percent needed, and his vote had been different from that of F.Franz. 
At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine
voted in favor of changing the traditional policy so that the decision
to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience
of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were
then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since
nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, no change was made.
On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote
taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven
voted for changing the policy so that the Witness who conscientiously
felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized
as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation.
This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made?
No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member
Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change,
announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance
of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds
majority. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present,
showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention.14
Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and,
when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing
Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one
vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the
policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected
to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even
though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might
conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight.
So they had the two-thirds majority, and even without it, they had an actual majority voting for the change during six sessions where the vote was always more than 50 percent. More importantly, (to me) it was clear from the letters they were receiving from all over the world that several of the persons in prison were not there for their own conscience, but were asked to falsely claim that it was their own conscience, even though it was really based on a vote of the Governing Body not reaching two-thirds.
If you believe that the current view of the Governing Body is correct, then you are indicating that the CORRECT view was not voted in until 1996. Which means that many brothers were being encouraged to be dishonest about their conscience, and go to prison unnecessarily for an extra 16 years.
Of course, you could argue that it was Jehovah's holy spirit that allowed for an extra 16 years of holding on to an incorrect doctrine, and which led to brothers being asked to go against their own conscience. (Ask @Srecko Sostar what this means if you don't know.) That is the same as saying that Jehovah didn't want things set right on this matter during that period, or withheld his Spirit.
I doubt that anyone claims that people actually bow down to the GB. I think your statement is generally accurate. And I don't think as John Butler has said, that the GB themselves think they are higher than Jesus Christ, nor do they act that way. They are really a lot like us in that they believe that, up to a point, they should respect the GB, too. But there really is a point when we could end up deferring to them too much, and forgetting that they admit that they sometimes make wrong decisions organizationally and sometimes teach us false doctrines. You seem to take the individual's Christian trained conscience out of the equation.
I think the Governing Body has made a lot of wonderful decisions, and the quality of the "spiritual food" distributed is very good. But this doesn't mean that their own past mistakes should not be learned from. This doesn't mean we should stop thinking using our powers of reason. It doesn't mean that we personally should stop trying to distinguish right from wrong. We should not stop testing every utterance to see if these things are so. We need to make the "truth" our own.