JW Insider

Antarctica?
 

If my calculations are right, then, you could fire such a gun at just the right angle on the moon and it could orbit and hit you in the back of the head.

I'm not saying the individual congregations are not part of the CCJW or the Watchtower, I'm just showing the kinds of legal arguments that must be made to protect the financial part of the current kingdom "interests." It's not that I think that attorneys should not try to do what they can to limit financial exposure either, as long as they are also looking for "fairness" and "justice" for the victims. But all Witnesses should be aware that the material resources that we currently enjoy as part of the organization are not permanent. They are not "promised." In fact, all of us should at all times be willing to walk by faith and not by sight.
A lack of money can result in a breakdown of the lines of communication between a local congregation and various entities in New York. Are we willing to make the best of such a situation and trust in Jehovah? The WTS/CCJW is currently trying to prepare Witnesses for such an eventuality. Will it happen as predicted? Will it happen in a way that doesn't come anywhere close to what is being predicted? What if the GB are taken by some nefarious forces, as you have spoken of? What if they are put in prison for covering up child abuse? They have surely considered these possibilities themselves. What if, instead of the protection expected in an imminent great tribulation, our religion and organization becomes an object of derision for 40 more years? (These are not predictions and have nothing to do with any Bible prophecies that I know of.)
In any particular country, or perhaps even on a more international scale, we have certain expectations bolstered by prophetic interpretations, and we will easily maintain faithfulness if those expectations seem to align with our beliefs about ourselves. But we also need to be prepared for maintaining our faith under completely different circumstances. One of those circumstances might be merely going on for another 50 years as more and more of our brothers lose their enthusiasm, and cannot seem to be goaded any longer by proddings of 'imminence.' We can go back to a Biblical question in Luke 18:8:
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Let's assume that the last year of the Civil War was 1865, and that this person forged papers because he was only about 16 or so. This would mean he was about 116 in 1965, when you were about 5. This fits most of what you have claimed elsewhere about your age and experience, and it means that you are about my age.
It reminds me of 1964, when we moved to the Springfield/Joplin, Missouri area to 'serve where the need was greater' and we ended up assigned to a congregation in the Boonville/Versailles, Missouri area. In Missouri we came across several persons up until about 1967 who claimed to remember the Civil War. I never met someone who claimed to fight, but a few who lost their parents or other close relatives. One old man on my "magazine route" as we called it, claimed to have been over 100 and he made "fiddles." He said his father fought but I don't even remember for which side. 
What really impressed me is that, at age 5, you asked him about a "Confederate and Union" parade in New York that happened nearly 45 years before you born. And a seemingly obscure parade, at that! I could hardly find out anything about this particular parade.

I'm not saying the individual congregations are not part of the CCJW or the Watchtower, I'm just showing the kinds of legal arguments that must be made to protect the financial part of the current kingdom "interests." It's not that I think that attorneys should not try to do what they can to limit financial exposure either, as long as they are also looking for "fairness" and "justice" for the victims. But all Witnesses should be aware that the material resources that we currently enjoy as part of the organization are not permanent. They are not "promised." In fact, all of us should at all times be willing to walk by faith and not by sight.
A lack of money can result in a breakdown of the lines of communication between a local congregation and various entities in New York. Are we willing to make the best of such a situation and trust in Jehovah? The WTS/CCJW is currently trying to prepare Witnesses for such an eventuality. Will it happen as predicted? Will it happen in a way that doesn't come anywhere close to what is being predicted? What if the GB are taken by some nefarious forces, as you have spoken of? What if they are put in prison for covering up child abuse? They have surely considered these possibilities themselves. What if, instead of the protection expected in an imminent great tribulation, our religion and organization becomes an object of derision for 40 more years? (These are not predictions and have nothing to do with any Bible prophecies that I know of.)
In any particular country, or perhaps even on a more international scale, we have certain expectations bolstered by prophetic interpretations, and we will easily maintain faithfulness if those expectations seem to align with our beliefs about ourselves. But we also need to be prepared for maintaining our faith under completely different circumstances. One of those circumstances might be merely going on for another 50 years as more and more of our brothers lose their enthusiasm, and cannot seem to be goaded any longer by proddings of 'imminence.' We can go back to a Biblical question in Luke 18:8:
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

I'm not saying the individual congregations are not part of the CCJW or the Watchtower, I'm just showing the kinds of legal arguments that must be made to protect the financial part of the current kingdom "interests." It's not that I think that attorneys should not try to do what they can to limit financial exposure either, as long as they are also looking for "fairness" and "justice" for the victims. But all Witnesses should be aware that the material resources that we currently enjoy as part of the organization are not permanent. They are not "promised." In fact, all of us should at all times be willing to walk by faith and not by sight.
A lack of money can result in a breakdown of the lines of communication between a local congregation and various entities in New York. Are we willing to make the best of such a situation and trust in Jehovah? The WTS/CCJW is currently trying to prepare Witnesses for such an eventuality. Will it happen as predicted? Will it happen in a way that doesn't come anywhere close to what is being predicted? What if the GB are taken by some nefarious forces, as you have spoken of? What if they are put in prison for covering up child abuse? They have surely considered these possibilities themselves. What if, instead of the protection expected in an imminent great tribulation, our religion and organization becomes an object of derision for 40 more years? (These are not predictions and have nothing to do with any Bible prophecies that I know of.)
In any particular country, or perhaps even on a more international scale, we have certain expectations bolstered by prophetic interpretations, and we will easily maintain faithfulness if those expectations seem to align with our beliefs about ourselves. But we also need to be prepared for maintaining our faith under completely different circumstances. One of those circumstances might be merely going on for another 50 years as more and more of our brothers lose their enthusiasm, and cannot seem to be goaded any longer by proddings of 'imminence.' We can go back to a Biblical question in Luke 18:8:
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

As @BillyTheKid46 has pointed out, the term "governing body" had already been used prior to 1971, and it was usually used in the sense that certain types of corporations used the term. In fact, for the Watchtower Society it was primarily used to refer to the "legal" leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses through the legal entity of the Society itself.
This is why there was a difference in the way the term was used in the 1960's and even right up until 1970, the year before the change in meaning that the Watchtower Society gave to this term. For example, the 1970 Yearbook said very clearly:
*** yb70 p. 65 1970 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses ***
So really the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses is the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, all of whom are dedicated to Jehovah God and anointed by his holy spirit.
Technically, then it was the 7 members of the board of directors, not merely the President and Vice-President of the Pennsylvania corporation. In 1942, the Vice President, and therefore a member of the governing body was Hayden C Covington, a Watchtower Society attorney who claimed not to be one of the anointed. (He had also only been a JW for 5 years when he became VP.) In fact, a few years later the rule was changed so that only anointed persons could be on the board of directors, and Covington had to resign his position as Vice President and that position was handed over to Frederick W Franz. After 2001, members of the board of directors no longer need to claim to be one of the anointed, and most of them since 2001 have not claimed to be of the anointed.
The following (about Hayden Covington) is in small print because part of it's based on what was considered to be common knowledge, and part of it is based on the claims of a couple of Bethelites I have known, both still alive. And one is also a relative of the brother who played a key part in one of the incidents described:
Just a little bit of inside information on Covington is that he was a heavy drinker, and thought to be an alcoholic, and eventually dismissed and disfellowshipped after some run-ins with President Knorr. This is in the Wikipedia article, but what's not there is that just before his death he was working on a tell-all that was supposed to expose a lot of wrongdoings and embarrass Knorr and others. (I heard one Witness claim that it was supposed to "bring down the Watchtower.") The person who takes credit for talking him out of it says it was a hard-won battle and he was only convinced after a lot of begging and pleading, including more pleading from family members. Just after that incident, over the next few months in fact, he was reinstated, claimed to be of the anointed, and died. I'm not even sure he even got a chance to partake at the Memorial. But you can still find the funeral talk that Colin Quackenbush gave, posted somewhere on this forum. You can get a small sense of Covington's problems from the funeral talk, where Quackenbush almost has to apologize for giving it, but it's a good talk. Quackenbush himself was the Awake! magazine editor, who also got kicked out of Bethel after a run-in with Knorr, but who arrived back at Bethel upon Knorr's death in 1977. 
I should add that I don't think any of us should have a problem with an international organization of any kind having a governing body. It just means that it is organized to be guided by a committee or board instead of a "dictatorship" of one or two persons. That's a good thing. And the arrangement with GB helpers is even better, in my opinion.
In addition to just mentioning the board of directors as the governing body prior to the 1971 change, it was also used as a way to refer to the entire Watch Tower Society.
*** w50 8/15 p. 251 par. 8 Answering the Foes of His Government ***
The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, with main offices in Brooklyn, New York, acts advisorily as the governing body and servant of Jehovah’s witnesses in all lands. So what is true of Jehovah’s witnesses in America must be true of them throughout the earth.
*** w50 1/1 p. 10 par. 2 Reviewing the Past Year’s Work World-wide ***
The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses, has pointed out through its publications that the kingdom of heaven was established in 1914
*** w52 9/15 p. 567 par. 7 Loyalty the Test ***
After being fed and directed through the faithful legal governing body, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, for thirty years, many said, “Jehovah is also dealing through other agencies.” Thus they could advance their own selfish interests.
Of course, the Watch Tower Society, although considered to be the legal entity by which to lead and govern all Jehovah's Witnesses earth-wide, was still considered to be the near equivalent of the old council at Jerusalem where decisions were made with respect to the rules for the gentile converts, etc. Also, Paul is considered to have been included in the governing body since he told Timothy how to make appointments of overseers and servants. So this modern board of directors was considered to be something like a modern fulfillment of the council of apostles and older men at Jerusalem, and the extension of that authority as given to Paul.
*** w52 5/1 pp. 281-282 God’s Way of Financing His Work ***
Having received free, they gave free. Their unselfish course influenced others to show love, so that many early Christians sold all their possessions and turned over the proceeds to the governing body for them to use as they saw best for the advancement of the true worship and the benefit of the Christian community in general.
So even when the governing body, technically and legally meant something else, it was still very similarly applied as an adaption of the original governing body (apostolic council) at Jerusalem. Over the years, it was tied closer and closer to the faithful and discreet slave.
*** w52 11/15 p. 683 Timothy, the Youthful Minister ***
Because of Timothy’s devotion to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus, the apostle Paul, under the guiding influence of the holy spirit, appointed Timothy to serve as an agent of the governing body of the Christian congregation in his day; being authorized to appoint mature men as overseers and assistants in the various Christian congregations. (1 Tim. 1:3; 3:1-15, NW) In this capacity Timothy pictured or represented the instrument that Jehovah God is using today, the Society of footstep followers of Christ Jesus, which likewise appoints servants in the Christian congregation in keeping with Jesus’ promise that he would set his faithful and discreet slave over all his belongings.—Matt. 24:45, NW.
 
 

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

You are right that some of the claims came from former Bethelites, but they were certainly not disgruntled, as far as I know. However, I did add a disclaimer in front of that information, back in the original post. (By the way, I know firsthand about Quackenbush's run-in with Knorr, and I was there when he arrived back at Bethel when Brother Knorr died, and for a time we even sat at the same table.) This information should not be new or surprising to anyone, however. It's not that I think that Covington was in the right, or that he could have had much effect on the Society overall. Olin Moyle, the previous Watchtower attorney, had tried something similar. And it barely registered a blip in the overall history of the Watchtower Society.
Of course, I did add the information for a good reason (in my opinion). There are those here who automatically think that if anyone says anything negative about people at high levels of responsibility, they must be lying. This is one of the reasons that people need to keep their eyes open. Always be optimistic, trust in Jehovah, and expect the best from all our brothers; but also be cautious, and be prepared for anything.

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this:
Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc.
There you go again!
Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus?
You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for.
I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully.
For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this:
Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc.
There you go again!
Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus?
You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for.
I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully.
For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this:
Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc.
There you go again!
Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus?
You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for.
I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully.
For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this:
Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc.
There you go again!
Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus?
You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for.
I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully.
For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.

We got to a few other issues on this thread, so I suppose it's only fair to try to address your questions here.
I think it's obvious that a few things still work a little differently in practice than in theory, because there is such a considerable overlap in the way policy/procedure is followed and changed -- and potential consideration of any scriptural principles involved, which would then go back to the governing body for that reason if changes are being considered.
But in theory, it's possible to distinguish the major purposes and utilization of each of the various corporations. Even here there have been several legal issues raised by the way that the corporations were set up in various countries. For example, Australia branches are still under the direction of the Pennsylvania Watch Tower corporation. Most others are under their own local corporation with some functions reporting to their own zone, and some to Pennsylvania, and some even to New York. The CCJW was specifically set up NOT to be under the direction of the Watchtower of New York or the Watch Tower of Pennsylvania.
I will quote from the appeal that the Watchtower just filed in a CSA case in Montana which makes some clear statements about how it works in theory. (Someone just sent it to me.) But I can't do this just yet because I don't know if the appeal has been publicized yet, and I will never be the first to put something like that out into the public.
 

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

You are right that some of the claims came from former Bethelites, but they were certainly not disgruntled, as far as I know. However, I did add a disclaimer in front of that information, back in the original post. (By the way, I know firsthand about Quackenbush's run-in with Knorr, and I was there when he arrived back at Bethel when Brother Knorr died, and for a time we even sat at the same table.) This information should not be new or surprising to anyone, however. It's not that I think that Covington was in the right, or that he could have had much effect on the Society overall. Olin Moyle, the previous Watchtower attorney, had tried something similar. And it barely registered a blip in the overall history of the Watchtower Society.
Of course, I did add the information for a good reason (in my opinion). There are those here who automatically think that if anyone says anything negative about people at high levels of responsibility, they must be lying. This is one of the reasons that people need to keep their eyes open. Always be optimistic, trust in Jehovah, and expect the best from all our brothers; but also be cautious, and be prepared for anything.

The board of directors, which was the previous governing body, was supposed to be 100-percent anointed, and there was only one (known) exception to that prior to 2001. (Covington in the 1940's). Then in 1971 the governing body was redefined to include the board of directors plus other older brothers who were not on the board of directors and had never been on the board of directors, but who were also anointed. Then after 2000/2001, no members of the governing body were also on the board of directors. This way the board of directors needed to concern itself no longer with filling its positions from members of the anointed. But the governing body is still filled by members of the anointed. This will remain true for as long as possible. The governing body helpers make up the  extended committees of the governing body, and these persons need not be of the anointed, although several are.

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this:
Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc.
There you go again!
Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus?
You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for.
I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully.
For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.

I get it! Like a duck's bill.
As in: A duck goes into a bar and tells the bartender: "Put in on my BILL!"
I should add that, considering the circumstances, I think Brother Quackenbush was sweet and brave at the same time for the funeral talk he gave for Covington. Brother Quackenbush was a very just and loving brother, in my opinion.

We got to a few other issues on this thread, so I suppose it's only fair to try to address your questions here.
I think it's obvious that a few things still work a little differently in practice than in theory, because there is such a considerable overlap in the way policy/procedure is followed and changed -- and potential consideration of any scriptural principles involved, which would then go back to the governing body for that reason if changes are being considered.
But in theory, it's possible to distinguish the major purposes and utilization of each of the various corporations. Even here there have been several legal issues raised by the way that the corporations were set up in various countries. For example, Australia branches are still under the direction of the Pennsylvania Watch Tower corporation. Most others are under their own local corporation with some functions reporting to their own zone, and some to Pennsylvania, and some even to New York. The CCJW was specifically set up NOT to be under the direction of the Watchtower of New York or the Watch Tower of Pennsylvania.
I will quote from the appeal that the Watchtower just filed in a CSA case in Montana which makes some clear statements about how it works in theory. (Someone just sent it to me.) But I can't do this just yet because I don't know if the appeal has been publicized yet, and I will never be the first to put something like that out into the public.
 

We got to a few other issues on this thread, so I suppose it's only fair to try to address your questions here.
I think it's obvious that a few things still work a little differently in practice than in theory, because there is such a considerable overlap in the way policy/procedure is followed and changed -- and potential consideration of any scriptural principles involved, which would then go back to the governing body for that reason if changes are being considered.
But in theory, it's possible to distinguish the major purposes and utilization of each of the various corporations. Even here there have been several legal issues raised by the way that the corporations were set up in various countries. For example, Australia branches are still under the direction of the Pennsylvania Watch Tower corporation. Most others are under their own local corporation with some functions reporting to their own zone, and some to Pennsylvania, and some even to New York. The CCJW was specifically set up NOT to be under the direction of the Watchtower of New York or the Watch Tower of Pennsylvania.
I will quote from the appeal that the Watchtower just filed in a CSA case in Montana which makes some clear statements about how it works in theory. (Someone just sent it to me.) But I can't do this just yet because I don't know if the appeal has been publicized yet, and I will never be the first to put something like that out into the public.
 

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.