Teaching from WT's point of view as OLD Light & NEW Light - Both writings are taken from WT own publications.

Old light is found in WT Book 'Aid to Bible Understanding' 1971 edition starting from page 458 & NEW Light is taken from
"Insight on the Scriptures" 1988 edition staring from page 639..

I will use 3 columns first will be OLD Light - Second will be NEW Light & third will be my comments as I think they are warranted to show you where the differences are. I will highlight the changes in each text also - For ease of reading & seeing the differences as they happen - I will re type most of the original passage so that I am not called biased in any way.
**
 

Old Light	New Light	My Comments
Legal & Scriptural dissolution of the marital union. Hence the severance of the marriage bond between a husband & a wife	Legal dissolution of the marital union. Hence the severance of the marriage bond between a husband & a wife.	Please note that initial teaching was Scriptural & in NEW light it is not
This section is not in Old Version - may be this meaning wasn't available back then as Light wasn't bright enough!	Various original - language terms for "divorce" literally mean "send away" "De 22: 19, ftn} "release" or "loose of " {Mt. 1: 19, Int; 19:3, ftn.}" drive out; cast out" {Le 22: 13, ftn}, and "cut off." - Compare De 24: 1, 3, where the expressions "a certificate of divorce" literally means "a book of cutting off."	Apparently Jehovah who is ALL KNOWING didn't know these definitions back in 1971. HMM
When Jehovah united Adam & Eve in wedlock he made no provisions for divorce, Jesus Christ made this clear when answering the Pharisees' question: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?"	When Jehovah united Adam & Eve in wedlock, he made no provisions doe divorce. Jesus Christ made this clear when answering the Pharisees' question "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?"	Now Jehovah Remembers the Original words once again.
Christ showed that God purposed for man to leave his father & his mother & stick to his wife, the two becoming one flesh.	Christ showed that God purposed for man to leave his father & his mother & stick to his wife, the two becoming one flesh.
Then Jesus added: "So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has yoked together let no man put apart." Matt 19: 3-6; compare Genesis 2: 22 - 24	Then Jesus added: "So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has yoked together let no man put apart." Matt 19: 3-6; compare Genesis 2: 22 - 24
The Pharisees next asked: "Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?"  In reply, Christ said: "Moses, out of regard for your hard heartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning." Matt. 19: 7,8.	Though divorce was allowed among the Israelites on various grounds as a concession, Jehovah God regulated it in his law given to Israel through  Mosses. Deuteronomy 24: 1 reads: "In case a man takes a women & does make her his possession as a wife, it must also occur that if she should find no favour in his eyes because he has found something indecent on her part, he must also write out a certificate of divorce for her & put it in her hand & dismiss her from his house."
Just what "something indecent" {literally, "the nakedness of a thing"} was is not specifically stated.	Just what "something indecent" {literally, "the nakedness of a thing"} was is not specifically stated.
Separate views concerning this "indecency" were held by the two schools of Jewish rabbis in existence prior to & during the days when Jesus Christ was on earth. One school, headed by Shammal, considered this 'indecency' to be adultery.	This section is not in New Version	Please note  the BIG differences here! Somehow Jehovah didn't know few things again - may be it was members of GB who were confused on this issue?? Just curious me! Item completely gone!!!
However, that is was not adultery is indicated by the fact that God's law given to Israel decreed that those guilty of adultery be put to death, not merely be divorced. {Deut. 22: 22: 24}.	That it was not adultery is indicated by the fact that God's law given to Israel decreed that those guilty of adultery be put to death, not merely be divorced. {De 22: 2 - 24}
The older rabbinic school of Hillel I and  his followers thought the expression applied to a number of minor matters, interpreting it broadly to wife's part, even to the point of spoiling food by burning it or by improperly seasoning it.	This section is not in New Version	Small changes again - somehow those who followed men made rules are now excluded from NEW LIGHT!!
Though Deuteronomy 24: 1 does not specify the 'indecency' that would give a Hebrew husband some basis for divorcing his wife, doubtless originally it involved serious matters, perhaps such as the wife's showing gross disrespect for the husband or bringing shame on the household.	Doubtless, originally the 'indecency' that would have given a Hebrew husband some basis for divorcing his wife involved serious matters, perhaps the wife's showing gross disrespect for her husband or bringing shame on the household.	Some how things change again - totally opposite view!! By change of few words we get a twist to our understanding.
From here on Old & New are same so I will cut straight to next BIG Change From page 460 Title	From here on Old & New are same so I will cut straight to next BIG Change	From here on Old & New are same so I will cut straight to next BIG Change
Only Ground For Divorce Among Christians	What is the only Scriptural basis for divorce among Christians?
Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, stated: "Moreover it was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'	Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, stated: "Moreover it was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery." Matt 5: 31, 32}	However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery." Matt 5: 31, 32}
Also after telling the Pharisees that the Mosaic concession of divorcing * wives * not the arrangement that had prevailed "from the beginning," Jesus said: I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." {matt 19: 8, 9}	Also, after telling the Pharisees that the Mosaic concession of divorcing their wives was not the arrangement that had prevailed "from the beginning," Jesus said: 'I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." {Mt 19:8, 9)	Do you notice the slight of a pen here in these 2 passages? Second passage completely changes the meaning of the message Where the ** are in OLD & inserted words in NEW!!
Today, generally, distinction is made between "fornicators" and " adulterers."	Today, generally, distinction is made between "fornication" and "adulterers."
Those guilty of fornication are unmarried persons who willingly have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex	According to modern usage, those guilty of fornication are unmarried persons who willingly have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex.	Now it is Modern usage - What was it back in 1971 then?  While in previous sentence it is TODAY - HMMM - Amazing how things change in ONE sentence
Adulterers are married persons who willingly have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex who is not their legal marriage mate.	Adulteress are married persons who willingly have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex who is not their legal marriage mate.
As shown in the article on FORNICATION, however, the term "fornication" is applied in the Scriptures to any voluntary sexual intercourse between a man & a women aside from copulation of a husband with his wife or concubine.	As shown in the article FORNICATION, however, the term 'fornication' is a rendering of the Greek word por-nei'a and includes all forms of illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage.	Please note that the NEW Meaning is now given to the word Fornication - Where in the OLD light - we are let to the meaning in the book it's self - but now we have been inspired to go to Greek meaning. I wonder why GB didn't do this in the first place - Didn't God know all of this in the first place is the question that comes to mind.
Hence, Jesus' words at Matthew 5: 32 & 19: 9 mean that the only divorce ground that actually serves the marriage bond is adultery on the part of one's marriage mate	Hence, Jesus at Matthew 5: 32 & 19:9 mean that the only divorce ground that actually severs the marriage bond is por-nei'a on the part of one's marriage mate.
The follower of Christ may avail himself of that divorce provisions if that is his desire, and such a divorce would free him to marry an eligible Christian. - 1 Cor. 7: 39	The follower of Christ may avail himself of that divorce provision if that is his desire, and such a divorce free him to marry an eligible Christian - 1 Co 7: 39
A person is not Scripturally obligated to divorce an adulterous though repentant marriage partner, however.	I Wonder what happened to these 2  section in NEW Light???/	Mind Boggles :-(  I find the omission quite interesting - How about you??
The  Christian husband or wife can extend mercy in such a case, even as Hosea seems to have taken back his adulterous wife Gomer & as Jehovah extended mercy to repentant Israel that had been guilty of spiritual adultery. - Hos. Chap. 3.		Mind Boggles :-( I find the omission quite interesting - How about you??
Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex  {homosexuality} are filthy & disgusting.	Sexually immoral acts committed by married person with someone of the same sex {homosexuality} are filthy & disgusting.
Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God's kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. {Lev. 18: 22, 23; Rom. 1: 24 - 27; 1 Cor 6:9, 10}	Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God's Kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. {Le, 18: 22, 23; Ro 1: 24 - 27; 1 Co 6: 9, 10]
However, though these acts are grossly filthy, they do not constitute adultery and are NOT named as Christian grounds for divorce. {Hmmm}	These grossly filthy acts come under the broad designation por-nei'a. It is also noteworthy that, under the Mosaic Law, Homosexuality and bestiality carried the death penalty, freeing the innocent mate for remarriage. - Le 20: 13, 15, 16	Well folks - this is a beauty if I ever saw one. In Old light Person who performed Bestiality - was let off scot free !! Even his partner had no grounds for divorce - Then all of a sudden some one on Board of GB found Leviticus 20: 13, 15, 16 & POW - NEW Light comes in force!!!!! How did Jehovah's Organization MISS Chapter 20 of Leviticus in 1969 - 71 when the ORIGINAL Light was written?  May be they didn't have Electricity & only used candles - or matches!!!!!!!!!  Just me being VERY curious. I wonder how many lives were destroyed by this teaching?????
An individual cannot, for instance, Scripturally mary a person of the same sex & become "one flesh" with that one in the way God ordained when uniting Adam & Eve in wedlock. Gen 2: 24.	This part is not in New books	I Wonder what happened to this part in the New light?
Jesus Christ pointed out that "everyone that keeps on looking at a women so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." {Mat 5: 28}	Jesus Christ pointed out that "everyone that keeps on looking at a women so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." {Mat 5: 28}	This is  good - Jesus' Words do not change from Old to New :-)) Sounds fishy to me!!
But Jesus did not say that what was in the heart, but not carried into action, furnished  a basis for divorce.	But Jesus did not say that what was in the heart, but not carried into action, furnished a basis for divorce.
Christ's words show that the heart should be kept clean and one should not entertain improper thoughts & desires. Phil. 4: 8; Jas. 1: 14, 15.	Christ's words show that the heart should be kept clean and one should not entertain improper thoughts & desires - Php. 4:8; James 1: 14, 15.
The Jews' rabbinical law laid emphasis on the married person's duty to perform the marital act & allowed a husband to divorce his wife if she was unable to produce children.	The Jews' rabbinical law laid emphasis on the married person's duty to perform the marital act & allowed a husband to divorce his wife if she was unable to produce children.
However, the Scriptures do not give Christians the right to divorce their mates for such a reason.	However, the Scriptures do not give Christians the right to divorce their mates for such a reason.
Bareness for many years did not cause Abraham to divorce Sarah, Isaac to divorce Rebekah, Jacob to divorce Rachel, or the priest Zechariah to divorce Elizabeth. {Gen. 11: 30; 17: 17; 25: 19 - 26; 29: 31; 30: 1, 2, 22 - 25; Luke 1: 5-7, 18, 24, 57}	Bareness for many years did not cause Abraham to divorce Sarah, Isaac to divorce Rebekah, Jacob to divorce Rachel, or the priest Zechariah to divorce Elizabeth. {Gen. 11: 30; 17: 17; 25: 19 - 26; 29: 31; 30: 1, 2, 22 - 25; Luke 1: 5-7, 18, 24, 57}	So far Old & New are word for word identical, but then something happens. See next sentence - Not there :-((
Nor did Jehovah divorce his symbolic "women" because of her bareness for a great many years. Isa. 54: 1 - 13.	This part is omitted	I wonder what Happened to Jehovah's symbolic "women" in NEW Light? May be we are still awaiting to see if the Light on this will get re ignited!
Nothing is said in the Scriptures that would permit  a Christian to divorce a marriage partner because that one was physically unable to perform the marital act, or had gone insane or contracted an incurable or loathsome disease.	Nothing is said in the Scriptures that would permit  a Christian to divorce a marriage partner because that one was physically unable to perform the marital act, or had gone insane or contracted an incurable or loathsome disease.
The love that Christians are to show would call, not for divorce, but merciful treatment of such a mate. {Eph. 5: 28-31}	The love that Christians are to show would call, not for divorce, but merciful treatment of such a mate. {Eph. 5: 28-31}	Please NOTE How Christians should treat their partner
Nor does the Bible grant Christians the right to divorce their marriage mates because of difference in religion, showing, instead that by remaining with an unbelieving mate the Christian may win that individual over to the true faith. 1 Cor 7: 12 - 16; 1 Pet. 3: 1- 7.	Nor does the Bible grant Christians the right to divorce their marriage mates because of difference in religion,  it shows instead that by remaining with an unbelieving mate the Christian may win that individual over to the true faith. 1 Cor 7: 12 - 16; 1 Pet. 3: 1- 7.	Please note the treatment that UNBELIEVING partner SHOULD be receiving!  Compared to how many unbelieving partners are treated & Non Believing Family members who are cut of.
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery." {Matt. 5: 32}	In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery." {Matt. 5: 32}	I wonder what happens if  HUSBAND did the same thing - Would a WIFE be allowed by WT to divorce him??
By this, Christ showed that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons other than her fornication [adultery] he exposes her to  adultery in the future.	By this, Christ showed that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons other than her fornication [por-nei'a] he exposes her to  adultery in the future.	Please note that WT is using NEW Version of the meaning "Adultery"  It is from Greek word "Por-Nei'a"
That is os because the unadulterous wife is not properly disunited from her husband by such a divorce and is not free to marry another man and have sexual relations with another husband.	That is os because the unadulterous wife is not properly disunited from her husband by such a divorce and is not free to marry another man and have sexual relations with another husband.

When Christ said that whoever "marries  a divorced women commits adultery." he was referring to a women divorced on grounds other than "on account of fornication" {adultery}.	When Christ said that whoever "marries  a divorced women commits adultery." he was referring to a women divorced on grounds other than "on account of fornication" {por-nei'a}.	Please note that WT is using NEW Version of the meaning "Adultery"  It is from Greek word "Por-Nei'a"
Such a women, though divorced legally, would not be divorced Scripturally.	Such a women, though divorced legally, would not be divorced Scripturally.

As you can see there are MAJOR Changes in NEW writings that should have been in the OLD writings also.

I can not stop wondering how many lives were destroyed by the OLD teaching & HOW many people are pushed to marry a JW's partner even though they have a NON believing spouse????????? !!!!!!!!

What I will do now is take excerpts from Ray Franzes book "Chris's of Conscience" Title page also states this "The Struggle between loyalty to God & loyalty to one's religion" hmmmmmm   ISBN #0-914675-04-4  Published by Commentary Press!  I recommend this book very Highly as it shows what WT is really made of & how it operates.

Lets face it - Ray should know as it was he who wrote many NEW Lights & everybody {all JW's} had to toe the line or else they w ere out. I would also like to recommend his book  "In Search of Christian Freedom" ISBN # 0-914675-16-8 By the same publishers - Both of these books can be obtained through my BOOK Page which is linked to Amazon Books just click on Book Page.

Starting from page 46 ray tells us this under the heading "Later the elder expressed his own feelings saying: - In most if not all cases I will HIGHLY or place EMPHASIS on  the appropriate phrases or words.

"Since Jehovah went into great detail in this chapter [18] of Leviticus as well as other chapters on sexual behaviour, why is there no statement made to married couples as to the acceptable or unacceptable forms of copulation? Would it not be likely that Jehovah would have done so if he wanted this personal and private area of the marriage union open to the scrutiny or opinions of the 'JUDGES' or 'Older men' of Israel so that appropriate action could be taken against offending individuals?"

May I say This would apply to the blood issue also - If Jehovah wanted us to TAKE some parts of blood & not others then He would have told us in Leviticus 17 etc. wouldn't He?  Just a thought :-))

Ray goes on to say: "Some of those affected by the organizations ruling were persons whose normal sexual functions had been seriously impaired by an operation or by an accident. SOme of these expressed dismay at the position the Governing Body's decision placed them in.

One such person who had become impotent in this way, had, during the years that followed, been able to perform a sexual role through one of means now condemned by the organization. Before the Governing Body's ruling he said he had been able to stop feeling like  half man, because he could still please his wife. Now, he wrote saying that he could not see the Scriptural proof for the standard taken in  the Watchtower magazine but that his wife felt duty bound to obey, and as he loved her he acceded. He said he knew that he was the same as before, yet emotionally he was crumbling since he feared their marriage would be seriously affected. he pleaded to be told if there was not some "loophole" in God's will that would allow him the satisfaction of pleasing his wife.

All of these situations put considerable strain on the conscience of elders called upon to deal with offenders against the Governing Body's decision. At the conclusion of the earlier mentioned letter from an elder, he says:

So sad hey?? That few OLD men could stuff up peoples marriages just by the WRONG stroke of a pen! GRRRRRRRR

"I find I can only use what Bible laws & principles I understand with any degree of sincerity and conviction in representing Jehovah & Christ jesus, and if I have to administer these laws and principles in exercising my responsibility as an elder in the congregation I want to do it not because I have come to take for granted that this is Jehovah's organization and I'm going to follow it no matter what it says, but do it because I truly believe it to be scripturally proven and correct. I truly want to continue believing as Paul admonished the Thessalonians in the second chapter, verse 13, to accept the word of God, not as of men, but as it truthfully is, as the word of God."

It's interesting that there were few good men back then who stood up to GB & practised & taught Scripture as God's Word demanded it to be.

Ray continues: "Though I find the sexual practices involved to be defiantly contrary to my personal standards, I can honestly say that I did not favour the disfellowshipping decisions made by the Body. But that is all that I can say. [emphasis in original & not mine] For when the VOTE came I CONFORMED to the MAJORITY decision. [hmmmmmm men's rules hey!!] I felt dismayed when the Body assigned me to prepare material in support of the decision, yet I accepted the assignment and wrote it as was desired by the Body, in conformity with its decision. Thus I cannot say that I acted according to the same fine outlook expressed by the  elder just quoted. My belief in the organization as God's agency on earth caused me to do what I did at that time without particularly great qualms of conscience.

The bulk of the correspondence on this subject NEVER reached the Governing Body, being, handled by the staff members assigned to "Correspondence Desk" or by members of the Service Department. I am sure, however, that the various Governing Body members must have been made aware, likely through personal contacts and conversations, that many felt they had improperly invaded people's private lives. When finally, after some five years, the matter cam up again on the agenda, the disfellowshipping policy was reversed and the Governing Body in effect withdrew itself from that intimate are of other's lives. Again the Body assigned me to prepare material for publication, this time advising of the change. I found it personally satisfying to be able to acknowledge, even though rather obliquely, that the organization had been in error."

So much for God's guidance - when majour policies effect MANY peoples lives - MAJORITY RULES! That is majority men & NOT God.

The february 15, 1978, Watchtower, pages 30 & 32, carried the material & included these points:

"...in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and  ... these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to control nor to take disfellowshipping action with such matters as the sole basis ... [This] expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule & to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand when the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis."

Presto & now we have NEW rule in place  or should I say NEW LIGHT from men - so much for stuffed up lives & marriages that the OLD Light caused. Please note what Ray has to say about this NEW Light & How HE felt about it  NOT what God said. This does not detract from Ray himself - Just a point that I making that WT is RUN BY MEn who cannot make up their OWN mind up, yet they supposed be guided by Holy Spirit - yeah right!!

"Actually, I felt that way about a whole host of matters that came before us, that there was really NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE for taking dogmatic stands on the vast majority of things we were ruling on. [ please note who was ruling- men of GB  - NOT GOD] I expressed that view here & it was accepted by the Body on this point. I expressed it again & again in the future but it was rarely accepted.

Looking over the letters at hand, some of which have been presented, whatever satisfaction it brought to write that corrective material seems rather hollow. [love the man with honest heart] For I know that no matter what was said, it could never in any way compensate for or repair  all the damage in embarrassment, mental confusion, emotional distress, guilty pangs, and broken marriages that resulted from the earlier decision - a decision made in few hours by men almost all of whom were approaching the matter 'COLD,' with NO previous knowledge, thought , meditation, specific prayer on the matter or searching of Scriptures, but whose decision was put in force globally for five years & affected many people for a lifetime. NONE OF IT NEEDED TO HAVE OCCURRED."

So much for being God's organization when ALL matters were approached COLD :-((((((

In the next section on this subject Ray really shows us what GB is made of - it will curl your eye brows

"Another issue that arose, somewhat linked to the above, involved a WItness in SOuth Africa whose husband had confessed to having sexual relations with another women. The problem was that he said that the relations were of the kind in the issue earlier described, in this particular case anal & not genital copulation.

The decision of the Governing Body [not  God - OK but GB] was that this did NOT qualify as adultery; that adultery required strict genital copulation 'capable of producing children.' Therefore the man had NOT become "one flesh" with the other women and hence the decision was  that the wife had no grounds for Scriptural divorce and future remarriage. " HMMMMM Mind boggles now folks!

The existing rule of voting required UNANIMITY of decision and I conformed. I felt genuinely disturbed, however, at thinking about this women & her being told that she could NOT Scripturally choose to become free from a man guilty of such an act. The decision  also meant that a husband who engaged in HOMOSEXUAL ACTS with other men or who even had relations with a beast was not subject to Scriptural divorce, since a man could not, with any procreative possibilities, become 'one flesh" with another man or with an animal. A Watchtower magazine earlier that year had, in fact, specifically ruled this way. 13"

I will cite the entire  passage now in its entirety from Watchtower of Jan 1, 1972, pp 31 & 32 in the section titled "Questions from Readers" - Yes I do have the Original WT Bound Volume.
 

• "Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry? - USA."

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ said: "Everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, & whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery." (Matt. 5: 32)

On a latter occasion he told the Pharisees; "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." - Matt 19: 9.

Thus "fornication" is seen to be the only ground for divorce that frees the innocent mate to remarry.

The Greek word for fornication is porneia It can refer to illicit sexual relations between either married or unmarried person. the ancient Greeks, in rare instances, may have understood this term to denote acts other than illicit sexual intercourse between a man & a women. But the sense in which Jesus used the word porneia at Matthew 5: 32 & 19: 9 must be ascertained from the context. [we will see later that this is NOT the case - please read on]

It should be noted that in Matthew chapters 5 & 19 "fornication" is in the restricted sense of marital unfaithfulness, or illicit relations with another person not one's marriage mate. Just before bringing up the matter of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ pointed out that "everyone [married] that keeps on looking at a women so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." {Matt, 5: 28)

Consequently, when he afterward alluded to a woman's committing fornication, his listeners would have understood this in it's relative sense, namely, as signifying a married women's prostitution or adultery.

The context  of Matthew chapter 19 confirms this conclusion. On the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures, jesus pointed out that a man & his wife become "one flesh," & and then added : "What God has yoked together let no man put apart." (Matt 19: 5,6) NOw, in homosexual acts the sex organs are used in unnatural way, in a way for which they were never purposed. Two persons of the same sex are not complements of each other, as Adam & Ever were.

They could never become "one flesh" in order to procreate. It may be added, in the case of human copulation with a beast, two different kinds of flesh are involved. Wrote the apostle Paul: "Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, & there is another flesh of cattle, another flesh of birds, and another of fish.: Cor. 15: 39.

While both homosexual and bestiality are disgusting perversion, in the  case of neither one is the marriage tie broken.

It is broken ONLY by acts that make an individual "one flesh" with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate."

Question - Is this Teaching from God or Not?  O right!!  God would never make a such a mistake. This one teaching proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that GB is NOT God's organization as God is NOT a man to lie to God of Confusion who does not know the meaning of words. Also - God does NOT rely on what ANCIENT GREEKS thought or did within their culture - ONLY man made ORG would rely on this type of teaching.

You will see later on in this passage As I cite the retraction & NEW Light - It is taken from the same WT mag - on pages 766 - 767 & 768 - a December Issue - It's amazing how things change between January & December of 1972.

Ray Franze goes on to say on page 49: "The emotional upset I felt moved me to make a study of the original language terms (in Greek) used in Matthew, chapter nineteen, verse 9. The Society's New World Translation there presents Jesus as saying:

" I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery."

Two different words are used. "fornication" & "adultery," yet the Watchtower publications for MANY Decades had taken the position that they both referred essentially to the same thin, that the "fornication" meant a man's having adulterous relations with a women other than his wife {or a wife's having such relations with a man not her husband}.

Why then, I asked myself, did Matthew, in recording Jesus' statement, used TWO DIFFERENT words [porneia & moikheia] if the same thing, adultery, was actually meant in both cases?

Searching through the many translations, Bible dictionaries, commentaries & lexicons in the Bethel library, the reason became obvious. Practically EVERY book I opened showed that the Greek term porneia [rendered as "fornication" in the NWT] was a very broad term & applied to ALL types of sexual immorality & for this reason many translations simply render it as "immorality,"  "sexual immorality," "unchastity," "unfaithfulness." 14
14 refers to appendix at bottom of page 49 [The word "adultery" appearing in the original Greek in Matthew 19: 9 is 'moikheia' and, unlike porneia, is not broad but very limited in meaning, being restricted to "adultery" in the ordinary sense of the term."]

"Lexicons clearly showed that the term was also applied to homosexual relations. The conclusive point to me, however, was realizing that in the Bible itself porneia IS used at Jude, verse 7, to denote the Notorious homosexual conduct of the people of Sodom & Gomorrah.

I prepared fourteen pages of material containing the results of the research & made copies for each member of the Body {GB i.e..} But I felt very uncertain as to how this  would be received and so I went to Fred Franz's office & explained what I had done, expressing my doubt that the  material would be favourably accepted. he said, "I don't believe there will be nay difficulty."

Though very brief, the words were spoken with a tone of confidence. When I inquired if he would like to see what had been found, he declined & again said he thought there would be "NO Problem."

My problem was that he was already aware of some of the pints my research had revealed, though for how long I had no way of knowing. Since he had been the principal translator of the Societies NWT I felt he must surely have at least been apprised of the true sense of the word porneia ["fornication"] 15

1. 15 In appendix refers to this: "The NWT bears no translator's name and is presented as the anonymous work of the "New World Translation Committee." Other members of that Committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroder & George Gangas; Fred Franz, however, was the ONLY ONE with sufficient knowledge of the Bible language to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two [2] years in the University of Cincinnati but was Only SELF Taught in Hebrew."

1. HMMMMMM - 2 years of Biblical Greek & only self taught in Biblical hebrew & we have a NWT - WOW!!

"When the matter came up in the Governing Body session, the material I submitted was accepted, Fred Franz having expressed his support, & I was assigned to prepare articles for publication in the Watchtower presenting the CHANGED Stand this would bring about. 16
 
 

• 16 in appendix says this : "See Watchtower of December 15, 1972, pp 766 -768"  So lets go & see what it said in its entirety - It is a LONG passage In "Questions from Readers" Staring bottom of page 766:

"Why, According to Matthew's accounts, did Jesus use TWO different words - "fornication & "adultery" - in discussing the proper grounds for divorce? Is not the only ground for Scriptural "adultery" as the term is generally understood? - USA {I wonder if it is the same person as in the first question - HMMM - may he was little bit frustrated - just a thought}

At Matthew 5: 32 Jesus' words are: "However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of 'fornication' [Greek, por-nei'a], makes her a subject for adultery [Greek, moi-khei'a], and whoever marries a divorced women commits adultery."

Similarly, at Matthew 19: 9 we read: " I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [por-nei'a], and marries another commits adultery [moi-khei'a]."

The account, therefore, does  use two distinct words. Let us first see what they mean and then consider the significance of their use.

Moi-khei'a, one of the terms used in Matthew's account, is properly translated "adultery." The English word "adultery" comes from the Latin adulterare, which means, basically, " to alter" &, by extension, "to corrupt or make impure, as by the addition of a foreign or a baser substance."

Thus we speak of 'adulterating' food, making it impure by adding foreign substances. A marriage is 'adulterated' when one of the parties defiles the marital relationship by having relations with someone outside that relationship.

This idea of adulterating or corrupting, and of unfaithfulness to a sacred relationship, is also inherent in the  Greek term moikhei'a. Therefore, both in Greek & in English, the focus is on the effect illicit sexual relations have on the marriage relationship, the adulterous mate being guilty of introducing someone else into that relationship, corrupting the union that should include just husband & wife.

What of the other term used? "Fornication" focuses attention, not on the effect sexual immorality may have on a marital relationship, but on the nature or quality of the sexual activity itself.

This is true, not only of the English word 'fornication," but also of the Greek word, por-nei'a, used in Matthew's account. Our interest, of course, is primarily in the Greek term used by the Gospel writer.

For, no matter what the word "fornication" may commonly be understood to mean by English - speaking people, it is what the word used in the BIble meant to the writer and the people at that time that really counts and is decisive."

HMMMM This is very interesting - I wonder if the SAME RULES SHOULD BE USED IN JOHN 1: 1??

When "fornication" is mentioned today, people commonly think of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex, relations carried on outside marriage yet consisting of  intercourse in the 'ordinary' or natural way.

So, many have understood that, when Jesus said that "fornication [por-nei'a] was the only  ground for divorce, he referred to intercourse in the ordinary or natural way between a wife and a man not her husband, or, by extension, between a husband & a women not his wife.

But is that the case? Does por-nei'a, the word used in Matthew's account, refer only to such a natural sexual relations? Or did it include ALL forms of immoral sexual relations, including those between individuals of the same sex & also perverted forms of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex? Just what did por-nei'a mean to people in the first century when Jesus was on earth? [Just what did the word "Kai Theos" mean to the same people that John uses in John 1: 1 - SAME Rules MUST apply, hey!!]

And does a sincere & careful investigation of this meaning call for a reappraisal of our understanding as to what the Scriptural ground for divorce is? [HMMMMM Mind boggle on John 1: 1 by now Nearly forgot Col 1: 16 ;-)) hmmm]

A thorough study [a must] of the matter shows that por-nei'a refers to ALL forms of immoral sexual relations. It is a broad term, somewhat like the word "pornography," which is drawn from por-nei'a or related verb por-neu'o. Lexicons of the Greek language clearly show this to be so.

They show that por-nei'a comes from root word meaning "to sell," and it describes sex relations that are licentious and not restrained {as by the restraint of adherence to marriage bonds}.

Thus, of the use of the word in Bible times, Thayer's Greek  English Lexicon of the New Testament states that por-nei'a described "illicit sexual intercourse in general."

Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament says that is is "unlawful sexual intercourse generally." the sixth volume of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that por-nei'a can come to mean "'sexual intercourse' in gen[eral] without more precise definition."

It is because of it's being a broad term {broader in its scope than the word "fornication" is in the minds of many English - speaking people} that many Bible Translations use expressions such as "gross immorality," "sexual immorality," "sexual sins," or " similar, when translating pornei'a.

Does this mean that unnatural & perverted sexual relations such as those engaged in by homosexual are included in the meaning of this term used by the apostle in recording Jesus' words?

Yes, that is the case. This can be seen by the way Jesus' half brother JUde used por-nei'a when referring to unnatural sex acts of the men of Sodom & Gomorrah. (Jude 7)

Concerning the use of por-nei'a by Greek - speaking Jews around the start of the Common Era, the sixth volume of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says: " [por-nei'a] can be also be 'unnatural vice,' .. sodomy." [ I am unable to type in Greek words so Greek por-nei'a is missing :-(( ]

What, then, is the significance of the Bible's use of these terms & what does it reveal as to the valid Biblical grounds for divorce?

It shows that ANY married person who goes outside the marriage bond & engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with some of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural & perverted, is guilty of committing por-nei'a or "fornication" in the Bible sense.

Such sexual relations do not refer to minor indiscretions a person might commit, as by a kiss or caress or embrace, but refer to immoral use of the genital organs in some form of intercourse, natural or unnatural.

We find principles in the Law covenant in support of this of this broadened viewpoint. It is clear that under that Law marriages were dissolved when a mate committed serious sins, including unnatural ones, inasmuch as such mate was put to death according to God's own instructions. Compare Exodus 22: 19; Leviticus 18: 22, 23, 29; 20: 10, - 16; Deuteronomy 22: 22; as  well as the words of the Christian apostle at Romans 1: 24 - 27, 32 [does this mean that Apostle who wrote Romans was a JW????]

Taking Jesus' words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious immoral sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.

This CLEARLY MARKS A CORRECTION in view expressed on previous occasion in the columns of this magazine, but faithfully adheres to what Scriptures ACTUALLY say requires it.

SO then what did the Scriptures mean in the previous WT magazine? It Must be that they WERE NOT Inspired by God as God dos NOT  make such errors of judgement!! It is obvious then that MEMBERS of GB are NOT inspired of God - Even ray Franz was Disfellowshipped - Yet he wrote so many New Lights & now even they do not apply. Or do they?

There is much more that can be considered on the matter & for that reason it will be discussed more completely in a coming issue of this magazine."

What did you think of the above teaching?  For more details on this issue you can read WT of 1972 December issue form pages 734 - 736 & how oral sex that Ray talks about above is taught & what should be done.

Ray goes on to say in his book about the above item this:

"I still remember, some time after the article appeared, a letter that came in from Witness who some years before had discovered her husband having sexual relations with an animal. As she said, " I couldn't live with with a man like that," and she divorced him.

Later she remarried. The congregation then disfellowshipped her for so doing as she was not "Scripturally free."

Can you believe that?? SO much for being guided by God!  Yes it is god - but he is of this system & NOT our HEAVENLY Father & the Son & the Holy Spirit.

After the Watchtower article appeared, she now wrote & asked that, in view of the changed position, something be done to clear her name of the reproach she had suffered as a result of the disfellowshipping action. I could only write her that the articles published were themselves a vindication of her course.

I suppose it was like the 1975 debacle - Blame the individuals for misunderstanding the OLD LIGHT!!

Though again it had been satisfying to prepare the material acknowledging the organization's erroneous view & rectifying it, the sobering thought remained that this could NEVER UNDO Whatever Harm the pervious position had caused over decades of time & - only God knows = to HOW MANY PEOPLE.

The Governing Body at that time was, in reality, both a judicial court & also - because its decisions and definitions had force of law fro ALL JW's - A Legislative Body.

It was a "Governing Body" {GB} in the sense that the Sanhedrin of Bible times might be called such, its function being similar. Just as ALL majour questions involving Jehovah's name people of that period were brought to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for settlement, SO WITH THE GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESS IN BROOKLYN.  [From the horses mouth & I LOVE It - how about YOU??]

But it was not an administrative body in any sense of the word. The administrative authority & responsibility rested exclusively  with the corporation president, Nathan Knorr.  I had not expected this because the same year of my appointment Vice President Franz had given a speech, later carried in the December 15, 1971, Watchtower, in which he described the role of the Governing Body, contrasting this with that of the corporation, the Watch Tower  Bible & Tract Society. Spoken of by some as the "tail wagging the dog talk," its language was unusually bold & frank, stating again that the corporation was simply an "AGENCY," a "TEMPORARY INSTRUMENT" used by the Governing Body (pages 754, 760):
 

• "this world - wide evangelizing organization is NOT tailored according to any present - day legal corporation that may be required under the laws of man made political governments that now face destruction in the "war of the great day of God the Almighty" at Har - Magedon. {Rev. 16: 14 - 16}
• Not legal corporation of earth shapes the evangelizing organization or governs it. rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it.
• It is  a theocratic organization, ruled from divine Top Down, and not from the rank & file up. the dedicated, baptized members of it are under Theocracy! earthly legal corporation will cease the man - made governments that chartered them perish shortly." [sounds familiar hey!! Nearly 30 has passed since those words were used!!]
• So the Society's voting members see that this governing body could most directly use that "administrative agency" as an instrument in behalf of the work of the "faithful & discreet slave" class by having members of the governing body on the Board of Directors of the Society.
• They recognize that the Society is NOT administrative body, but merely an AGENCY for administering matters.
• Hence the Society's voting members do not desire that there be any basis for conflict and division. they do not want to cause anything like a situation where the "administrative agency" controls & directs the use of that agency, which  user is the GOVERNING BODY as representing the "faithful & discreet slave" class.  {hmmmmm Slave Class - do you belong to this slave class???}
• No more so that to have the tail wag the dog instead of the dog's  wagging its tail. A legal religious instrument according to Caesar's law should not attempt to direct and control its creator; rather, the creator of the legal religious instrument should control & direct it.

The Governing Body did NOT Control the corporation, not at the time that the aforementioned talk was given by the vice president, nor at the time the material was published, nor for some years thereafter.

The picture presented eventually did come to be true, but only as the result of a very drastic adjustment, one unpleasantly fraught with heated emotions & considerable division.

Strange as it may seem to most Jehovah's WItness today, the kind of Governing Body described in the talk NEVER EXISTED IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION.

It took over 90 years for it to come into being & its present existence dates only from January 1, 1976, or less than one - fifth of the organization's history. I will explain why I make such a statement and why it is factual.

• "You Know that in the world, rulers lord it over their subject, and their great men make them feel the weight of authority; but it shall not be so with you." - Matthew 20: 25, 26, New English Bible.

The corporation called the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society was formed in 1881 and incorporated in 1884. It is certainly true that back then the corporation did not "shape, govern, control or direct" (to use the words of the vice president) the Governing Body of those associated with the Watch Tower.

It did not, & in fact could not do so, for the simple reason that NO 'governing body" existed.

Charles Taze Russell personally started the Watch Tower as HIS OWN magazine & was its sole editor; during his lifetime all those associated with the Watch Tower SocietY  accepted him as their one & only  Pastor.

It is true, of course, that the Society, once formed, had a Board of Directors {Russell's wife, Maria, originally being one of these}.

But that Board was not viewed as a governing body nor did it serve as such. Yet the Watch Tower of December 15, 1971, passage 760 & 761, makes this statement:
 

• "According to the facts available, the governing body became associated with the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. C.T. Russell was patently of that governing body back there in the last quarter of the nineteenth century."

Concerning that Board of Directors, Russell himself states in a special edition of Zion Watch Tower dated April 25, 1894, page 59:

• "Having  up to December 1, 1893, thirty - seven hundred & five [3,705] voting shares, out of a total of sixty - three hundred & eighty - three [6,383] voting shares, Sister Russell & myself, of course, elect the officers, & thus CONTROL the Society; and this was fully understood by the Directors  from the first. their usefulness, it was understood, would come to the front in the event of our death." 17

NO 17 in appendix tells us this :

"Mrs. Russell resigned as associate editor of the Watch Tower in October, 1886, due to disagreement with her husband & on November 9, 1897, she separated from her husband. She remained a Director of the Society, however, until February 12, 1906 she obtained divorce."

• "Often when asked by others, Who is that faithful & wise servant? - Brother Russell would reply: "Some say I am; while others say the Society is."  [HMMMM So familiar hey!!]

• "Both statements were true;  for Brother Russell was in fact the Society in a most absolute sense, in this, that he directed the policy and course of the Society without regard to any person. He sometimes sought advice of others connected with the Society, listed to their suggestions, & then did according to his own judgement, believing that the Lord would have him thus do. [WOW - So nothing has changed - hey,  WT does as they please - saying that ALL spiritual Food is from Jehovah See WT mag , October 1, 1999 (yep I got it too} page 5 par. 1 last sentence we read this. '... it has weakened some people's faith in Jehovah & his organization."]

• "No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor By God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out." 18 - 18 refers to Watch Tower mag, of July 15, 1906, p 229.

Believing himself to be "God's Mouthpiece" & his agent  for revelation of truth, it is understandable why he would see no need for a governing body. The year after this statement, Russell prepared a "Last Will & Testament" which was published in the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower magazine following his death in that year.

Since nothing illustrates more clearly the  total control Charles Russell exercised over the Watch Tower magazine, the full text of this will is presented in the Appendix. [So please purchase the book to see the whole thing as I don't have the time nor space on web page to have it written here.] We may here note what is said here in the second paragraph of this published will:
 

• However, in view of the fact that in donating the journal, ZION'S Watch Tower, the Old THEOLOGY QUARTERLY & copyrights of the MILLENNIAL DAWN SCRIPTURE STUDIES books & various other booklets, hymn - book, etc, to the WATCH TOWER & TRACT SOCIETY, I did so with the explicit understanding that I should have full control of all the interests of these publications during my life time, and that after my decease's they should be conducted according according to my wishes. I now herewith set  forth the said wishes - my will representing the same - as follows: {Please purchase the book for the read of entire will}

• No. 20 in appendix says this : "The book Jehovah's Witness in the Divine Purpose, published in 1959, p 64, says that by Law Russell's votes died with him. { Hmmmmmm - I suppose that is one sure way of never being challenged by the faithful slave class - just tell them to back off & they must obey.}

AT the annual corporation meeting in January, 1917, Rutheford was elected to replace Russell as president. Early in his presidency for of the seven Directors [ a majority] took issue with that they viewed as arbitrary action on the part of the president. he was not recognized the  Board of Directors and working with it as a body but was acting unilaterally, taking actions and informing them later of what he had  decided to do. They did not feel that this was at all in harmony with what Pastor Russell, the "faithful & wise servant,"  had outlined as the course to follow. Their expressing objection led to their swift elimination. 21

• No. 21 in appendix reads like this: "Typical of this course was Rutheford's decision to publish a book titled The Finished Mystery, presented as the 'posthumous work of Russell,' but actually written by Clayton J. Woodworth & George H. Fisher. Rutheford not only had not consulted with the Directors about the writing of the book, they did not even know it was being published until Rutheford released it to the "Bethel Family," the headquarters staff. Later Watch Tower publicans, including the book Jehovah's Witness i the Divine Purpose [pp 70, 71], give the impression that this was the initiating & primary cause of the objections  of the four Directors. This distorts the facts, since Rutheford announced the dismissal of these four men as Directors the same day {July 17, 1917} that he presented the book The  Finished Mystery to the headquarters staff. The announcement of the dismissal  of the Directors was, in fact, made before the was presented. {WOW - get rid of the opposes so that they can not stop you taking over - Hmmmmmm - I wonder if God really works like that?? Talk about setting up a standard for others to follow !!!!}

• No. 22 in appendix reads like this: "A. H. MacMillan, Faith on the March {Englewood Cliffs: Prentice - Hall, Inc., 1957}, p.  80. The Foreword to the book is by N. H. Knorr.

He choose the latter course, appointing Directors of his own choice to replace them. {Sounds to me like - appointing YES men}

What of the Editorial Committee? The Watchtower of June 15, 1938, page 185, shows that in 1925 the majority of this Committee "strenuously opposed" the publication of an article titled "The Birth of The nation" {meaning "the kingdom had began to function" in 1914}. The Watchtower states the result to those who disagreed with the president:

• "...but, by the Lord's grace, it [the article] was published, and that really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee, indicating that the Lord himself is running his organization."

The Editorial Committee was now eliminated. Rutheford had effectively excised any opposition to his full control of the organization.

An interesting feature about all this is that during  this entire time not only "The Finished Mystery book {a major bone of contention in 1917 [& it is a bone of contention to this day as far a Bible Students are concerned - just ask one!!], but also the Watch Tower magazine had been forcefully teaching that Pastor Russell was indeed the "faithful & wise servant" foretold in the Scripture, whom the Master would make the "ruler over his household." 23
 

• No. 23 in appendix reads like this: "See the Finished Mystery, pp. 4, 11; The Watch Tower, March 1, 1922, pp. 72, 73; may 1, 1922, p. 131; March 1, 1923, pp. 67, 68.

• To be faithful means to be loyal. To be loyal to the Lord means to be obedient to the Lord. To abandon or repudiate the Lord's chosen instrument means to abandon or repudiate th Lord himself, upon the principle that he who rejects the servant sent by the Master thereby rejects the Master. {Does that sound familiar??]
• There is no one in present truth today who can honestly say that he received a knowledge of the divine plan from any source other than by the ministry of  Brother Russell, either directly or foreshadowed the office of a servant, designating him as one clothed with linen, with a writer's ink born by his side, who was delegated to go throughout the city {Christendom} & comfort those that sighted by enlightening their minds relative to God's great plan. Be it noted that this was a favour bestowed not by man, but by the Lord himself. But in Keeping with the Lord's arrangement he used a man. the man who filled that office, by Lord's grace, was Brother Russell.

Again, in March 1, 1923, Watch Tower, pages 68 & 71, in an article titled "Loyalty the Test," conformity to Russell's teachings and methods was equated with conformity to the Lord's will:

• 3 We believe that all who are now rejoicing in present truth will concede that Brother Russell faithfully filled the office of the special servant of the Lord; and that he was made ruler over the Lord's goods.

• 38 Every fellow servant has shown his ability or capacity and has increased the same in proportion as he has joyfully submitted to the Lord's will by working in the  harvest of the Lord in harmony with the Lord's way. Which way the Lord used Brother Russell to point out, because Brother Russell occupied the office of that "faithful; & wise servant." He did the Lord's work according to the Lord's way. If, then, Brother Russell did the work in the Lord's way, any other ways of doing it is contrary to the Lord's way & therefore could not be a faithful looking after the interests of the Lord's kingdom.

The issue was quiet clear. Either one could loyally line up with and conform to the teaching and way of this 'ruler over the Master's household' {Russell} or he could become guilty of repudiation of Christ Jesus, hence, an apostate. Rarely has appeal to human authority been more strongly stated.

That is what makes it so notable that, within a few years of Russell's death, and during the very time these claims about him were made, the provisions he made in life and his personal selections of men for the office of supervision were set aside by the new president. His expressions contained in his "Will" were discounted as having NO LEGAL FORCE &, evidently, no moral force either. The Watch Tower of December 15, 1931, page 376, says of it:

• 24 The facts which are well known to exist and which apply to the prophetic words of Jesus are these" In 1914 Jehovah placed his King upon his throne.
• The three & one - half years immediately following afforded the opportunity to test those who had responded to the call to the kingdom, as to whether or not they were selfish or unselfish.
• In 1916 the President of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society died. A paper writing was found which he had signed & which was called his "last will & testament", but which in fact was not a will. {see - even tough it was a will - it actually was NOT Hmmmm - so when you write a will - it will not be a will after you die ARGHHHHHHH - obviously - Rutheford said so - so it was - Sounds Like GB of today - doesn't it??}
• It then appeared that Brother Russell, some years before his death, had concluded that he could not make such a will [yet he write one - Sounds very fishy to me - how about you??]
• The work of God's organization is not subject to the control of man or to be controlled by the will of any creature. It was therefore not possible to carry on the work of the Society to the Lord's glory and honour as outlined in that paper writing, called a "will".

Just eight years before, the Watch Tower, the "Lord's channel," had insisted that Russell "did the Lord's work according to the Lord's way" & therefore "any other way of doing it is contrary to the Lord's was."

Now eight years later, any who object to  Rutheford's setting aside of the directions given by the one the Watch Tower had so adamantly argued was the "faithful & wise servant" were portrayed as motivated by ill will and malice, as workers of iniquity:

• This gathered out or rejected class, however, do weep & wail, and they gnash their teeth against their brethren, because, they say, "Brother Russell's will is being ignored, and, The Watch tower is not beng published as he directed"; and they hold up their hands in holy horror and shed crocodile tears because the Lord's organization om earth is not being used according to the will of a man. {pot calling the kettle black - when the shoe is on the other foot - then all of a sudden we should not follow the MAN Russell - instead we MUST Follow & OBEY MAN Rutheford or PRESENT DAY MEN of GB!!!!!}
• In other words, they make these pretences as a cause for weeping & wailing and sorrow. They wail, complain & weep because they have not charge of the Society.
• They gnash their teeth against those who are engaged in the Lord's work, and they give expression to all manner of ill will, malice & lying statements against those whom they once claimed to be their brethren. [Wow = Should GB of now day read this statement & stop the Shunning policy right now :-)) = Also WT always has accused & charged  or attacked every other religious organization of crimes that they don't like when it is pointed back at them]
• Jude mentions the same class, and his words definitely fix the time when this wailing and weeping begins, to wit, at the time the Lord Jesus Christ comes to the temple of Jehovah for judgement.
• He says: "These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts [selfish desires]; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words [claiming themselves to be God's favoured ones], having men's persons in administration because of advantage [ in other words, they express their admiration for person of men and desire admiration for themselves, and their conduct and course of action exactly fit the words of the apostle]."
• They make great pretense of  love and devotion to a man, namely Brother Russell, but it is manifest they do so with a view of  gaining some selfish advantage.
• The purpose, therefore of maintaining these matters, and manifestly the purpose of the Lord in permitting his people to understand them, is that they might avoid such workers of iniquity.

It is difficult to explain such fickle, unstable, erratic course. Yet this was supposedly the channel the Lord Jesus Christ found so worthy of being made his sole means of  direction to people on earth.

In actuality, by 1925 J. F. Rutheford exercised unquestioned direction of the Society that years that followed only strengthened his CONTROL over ALL Organization functions. 24

• No 24 in appendix reads like this : "A. H. MacMillan in Faith on the march, p. 152, says: "Russell had left it much to the individual as to how we were to fulfil our responsibilities .. Rutheford wanted to unify the preaching work, & instead of having each individual give his own opinion & tell what he thought was right & do what was in his own mind, gradually Rutheford himself began to be the main spokesman for the organization. That was the way he thought the message could bets be given without contradiction."

This included full control of what would be published through the channel of the Watch Tower and other publications used to provide spiritual food for the congregation earth wide, [this included the fact that BIBLE It's self was of NO use alone or even when used it would be used in the context of MAN'S teaching & not how it was intended by God in the first place].

I recall {Ray Franze} my uncle's  telling me one day in his office of an occasion when Rutheford presented a certain issue, A NEW VIEWPOINT, to the Bethel Family for discussion. 25

• No. 25 in appendix tells us this: "The point at issue was either the new view that the "higher powers" of Romans 13: 1 were not the governmental authorities of earth but were Jehovah God & jesus Christ, or the decision regarding the elimination of Bodies of Elders, which of the two I do not now recall.

On another occasion he related that the "Judge" {Rutheford} later in his presidency made it a firm policy that the Watch Tower magazine would carry only articles that stressed prophecy or the preaching work.

For that reason a period of years passed in which articles on the subject such as love, kindness, mercy, long - suffering & similar qualities did not appear in the magazine. [please re read the last two statements very carefully as they show you WHO is in charge of WT - it is NOT God as He would INCLUDE LOVE, MERCY etc etc as a for runner to ALL teaching - just as He does in His Word The Bible}

Thus, during the nearly sixty - year period of the presidencies of Russell & Rutheford, EACH MAN Acted according to HIS OWN prerogative in exercising his presidential authority, with no hint of a governing body.

When Judge Rutheford dies on January 8, 1942, Nathan H. Knorr was unanimously elected president by the Board of Directors.

The organizational structure, as Knorr did field out some responsibility. {Circumstances actually made this necessary, for the number of WItness grew from only 108,000 at the time of Rutheford's death to more that two million during Knorr's presidency.[ Hmmm - I wonder how they ALLOCATED the 144, 000 or even knew which ones were in that class? May be they all had to get a card numbered from 1 - 144, 000 & when all cards were taken - BINGO we had a full club membership - Just a thought :-) ]

Not a writer nor particularly a student of Scripture. Knorr relied on Fred Franze {the vice [evident} as a more or less the FINAL Arbiter on Scriptural matters & the principle writer of the organization.

Questions such as those discussed at Governing Body sessions {related earlier} in this chapter} were for decades, submitted to fred Franze for decision [HMM SO it was a man who was second in charge who provided the Spiritual Food to all JW's - WOW - NOT even the Head guy - but second in Charge. IS that How God works- considering that Father - Son - & Holy SPirit act in ONE Accord on ALL Matters]

If President Knorr felt that the decision might have some critical effect on the Society's  operation in certain countries {apparently NOT all countries need the SAME TRUTH - it must be altered some how HMMMM} of the world he would usually discuss it personally with Fred Franze & would NOT hesitate to make known what he felt the circumstances made advisable in a pragmatic way, overruling the vice president if necessary.

As has been noted earlier, this basic relationship continued up into the 1970's as illustrated in the decision to return to having bodies of elders in congregations. [ WOW - yet - God had elders ALL the time - couldn't God since 1914 make up His OWn Mind?? Unless He wasn't even consulted. Mind boggles].

That particular decision hinged largely upon the view & opinion of ONE PERSON, the Vice President, & when he CHANGED HIS MIND & favoured the return to bodies of elders, the president acceded.

The same was basically the case with all published material. The president selected the main article for the Watch Tower from material submitted by writers & he then passed these on to the Writing Department for proof reading & any necessary additions or polishing.

Then these were finally read by the vice president & the president & IF APPROVED, were published. Karl Adams, who was in the charge of the Writing Department when I entered it in 1965, explained to me that the president by then had given the department considerable latitude as to the reworking of such material. [Finally pressure became to much & so the buck w as passed on to LOWER Ranked ones to feed the spiritual food to the flock - I wonder how much lower things will finally go?]

He pointed out the one exception, namely, any material written by vice president, stating that "what comes from Brother Franz is viewed as 'ready for publication,' with NO adjustments to be made."

here again, nonetheless, the president could overrule. As an example, in 1967, President Knorr sent to Karl Adams, Ed Dunlop & myself , copies of a "Question from readers" that Franze had prepared & turned in to publication. 26

• No. 26 in appendix reads like this: "Of the three receiving copies, I was the only one professing to be of the "anointed" class, having made such profession since 1946."

Just the year before, a book had been published, authored by Fred Franze, in which it was pointed out that the year 1975 WOULD BE THE END OF 6,000 YEARS FROM HUMAN HISTORY.

Likening those 6,000 years to six days of a thousand years each, he had written:

• So in not many years within our own generation we are reaching what Jehovah God could view as the seventh day od man's existence
• 43 How appropriate it would be for jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants!
• This would be most timely for mankind. It would also be most fitting of God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it the last book of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ.
• Prophetically Jesus Christ, when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is what the SOn of man is." {Matthew 12: 8}
• It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah GOd for the reign of Jesus Christ, the "Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence." 27

[Please note above & below what ray says HOW HE understood this passage to read & be understood that is "year 1975 WOULD BE THE END OF 6,000 YEARS FROM HUMAN HISTORY. He sure understood that 1975 would be IT!!!!!!!

Not for many decades had there been such a sense of excitement among Jehovah's Witness as these statements generated.

A tremendous surge of expectation developed, far surpassing the feeling of the end's nearness that I & others had experienced in the early 1940's.

That is why we were amazed to see that the 'Question from Readers" Fred Franze had worked up now argued that the end of 6,000 years would actually come ONE YEAR EARLIER that had just been published in the new book, namely that it come in 1974 instead of 1975.

As Knorr told Karl Adams, when he received this material he went to Fred Franz & asked why the sudden change. Franze replied with definiteness, "This is the way it is. It is 1974." [what can I say - Amazing isn't it?? Even second in charge didn't know & he wrote it! HMMMM ! Yet, it is now August 1999 & we are still travelling around the Sun. Another false prophet Gone - Yippee!!]
 

Knorr did not feel at ease with the change & that is why he sent the three of us copies with his request that we submit our individual observations. {WOW - now even the Top guy had to ask those even lOWER in rank to give their opinion to the second in charge & hope I suppose that he changes his mind back to 1975 - lest read on}

The vice president's argumentation was built almost entirely upon the use of a cardinal & ordinal number in the account of the Flood at genesis, chapter seven, verses 6 & 11 {"six hundred years " & the "six hundredth year"}.

The argument endeavoured to show that the count of time set out in the new book was off one year as to the time of the Flood & that one more year needed to be added, with the result that the end of 6,000 years would come up one year earlier, in 1974 instead of 1975. [So much for being anointed class & led by the spirit - Definitely is not Holy Spirit as He knows ALL things - It must have been some other kind of a spirit - HMMMM - Mind boggles}

Each of the three of us respectfully wrote that we did not think the material should be published, that it would have an extremely unsettling effect on the brothers. 28

• No. 28 in appendix reads like this: "I pointed that the argument rested heavily on a portion of Scripture that is difficult to be definite about, and that the reason given for the change were, at bets, tenuous."

It was during Knorr's presidency that the term "governing body" began to be used with measure of frequency. 29

• No. 29 in appendix reads like this: "In the Watch Tower of June 1, 1938, p. 168, in an article on "Organization" the expressions "central body" & "central authority" are sued only with reference to the body of apostles and those who were their immediate associates, with no modern application made.
• The term "governing body" FIRST Appears in the Current usage in the Watch Tower, October 15, 1944, page 315, and November 1, 1944, pages 328 - 333."
• [Very interesting hey!!]

• "During the years since the Lord came to his temple the visible governing body has been closely identified with the board of directors of this corporation."
• *** NEW LIGHT *** NEW LIGHT *** NEW LIGHT *** NEW LIGHT *** NEW LIGHT *** NEW LIGHT **** What do you think about THIS NEW LIGHT??

The fact is, however, that their situation was much as had been the case with Directors in Russell's & Rutheford's day.

Marley Cole, a Witness who wrote a book {with the full co - operation of the Society} entitled "Jehovah's witness - The new World Society, points this out. 30.

• No. 30 in appendix reads like this: "Marley Cole, Jehovah's WItness - The New World Society {New York: Vantage Press, 1955}, pp. 86 - 89. Cole wrote the book as if he were a NON - Witness writing an objective account. the idea was that by having the book published by an outside publishing firm it might reach persons who normally would not take Society literature. this it was a form of public relations tactic. {So much for being a religious organization of God - who need to GO OUTSIDE their own publishing - HMM sounds like more deception to me}
• As a foot note here - No. 30 in appendix is also from within these pages So I am placing it here.

• "Four directors wanted a reorganization ... AS things stood the president was the administration. Hew as letting them know what he was doing only AFTER it was done. He was putting them in the position of advisors on legal corporation matters.
• "Rutheford made no bones about 'going ahead.' The Pastor before him had worked that way. the Pastor made decisions. The Pastor issued administrative orders without the Board's prior sanction."

• "That the president of the Society thereafter continued to exercise such unrestricted freedom may be seen by the following account of N. H. Knorr's actions in relations to bring forth a new Bible translation." 31

Right up until 1971 when the "tail wagging the dog talk" was given, the Board of Directors did not meet on any regular schedule but only as the president decided to convene them.

Sometimes months went by without any meetings, the most frequent agenda evidently being such  corporate matters as the purchase of property or of new equipment.

Asa  rule, they had nothing to say about what Scriptural material would be published, nor was their approval sought. Vice President Franz made this clear when testifying before a court in Scotland in 1954 in a case known as the Welsh Case.

Questioned as to what was done if some majour change in Doctrine was made whether such had to be first approved by The Board of Directors, the vice present replied {the material here being reprinted from the official court transcript with "Q" representing the question of the counsellor & "A" the response given by Fred Franz.
 
 

• Q. In matters spiritual has each member if the Board of Directors an equally valid voice?
• A. The president is the mouth piece. He pronounces the speeches that show advancement of the understanding of the Scriptures. Then he may appoint other members of the headquarters temporarily to give other speeches that set forth any part of the Bible upon which further light has been thrown.
• Q. Tell me; are these advances, as you put it, voted upon by the Directors?
• A.  NO.
• Q.  How do they become pronouncements?
• A. They go through the editorial committee, and I give my O.K. after Scriptural examination. Then I pass them on to the President Knorr, & president Knorr has the final O.K.
• Q. Does it not go before the Board of Directors at all?
• A. NO. 32 [No. 32 in appendix reads like this:]

I personally knew that presentation of ,matters to be true as regards the Board of Directors. Before 1971, I was in a meeting with several Writing Staff members called by Karl Adams, and the question arose as to how to get the president's approval of certain proposed improvements in the Watchtower magazine. [Why the need to improve God's Word? Is it some how that God doesn't know what He wants to convey & now he needs His creations to IMPROVE His Word - mind boggles]

Someone suggested that Lyman Swingle, who was present as one of the writers, broach the matter to Knorr. Swingle's reply was brief but spoke volumes as to the  reality of the situation. he said: "Why me? What can I do? I'm only a Director." {hmmmmmm - }

The situation remained the same even after the enlargement of the Governing Body to include more than the seven Directors. {Did God give the OK for this or was it just agreed on by few men of WT? - Don't you think we need to know that?}

In 1975 {that year} during one session some material the vice president had prepared for use as a convention talk came up for the discussion. It dealt with the parable of the mustard seed & the parable of the leaven {found in Matthew chapter 13} and argued in detail that the "kingdom of the heavens" Jesus referred to in these parables was actually a "fake" kingdom, a counterfeit. {WOW, now even Jesus did know what He was talking about - he was telling us FAKE Teachings - ARGHHHHHHHH - we are in trouble - when few men of GB can say that!! }

One of the Body who had read {what about the rest of them - didn't' they read it} the material felt unconvinced by the argumentation. After discussion, of the fourteen members present only five {including Knorr & Fred Franz} voted in favour of using the material as a convention talk, the other nine did not. SO it was not used - as a talk. [So now we know how spiritual food is dished out - by mere vote of few men & if majority - says YES - Bingo NEW LIGHT is in force & if they say NO - bad luck, the OLD Light Bible stays in -- HMMMM]., but the material appeared in a book released at the convention and within a few months also appeared in the Watch Tower magazine. 33

• No. 33 in appendix says this: "See the book Man's Salvation Out of the World At Hand!, published in 1975, pp. 206 - 215; also the Watchtower, october 1, 1975, pp. 589 - 698.

Not only the contents of the magazine and the other literature, but every other feature of the world - wide activity of Jehovah's Witness - the direction of the 90 or more Branch Offices [each Overseer of a Branch being described as the "presiding minister of the Christianity for and within the territory to which he has been appointed" [sounds like Roman Catholic Bishops & Cardinals - ARGHHHHHHH not them  yet WT style is Correct & RC's is wrong :-(( ]}, the supervision of all the work of all travelling representatives, the direction of the missionary School of Gilled and the assignment and work of all missionaries, the planning of conventions and convention programmes - all this and much more were the sole prerogative of one person; the president of the corporation.

[Sounds like Roman Catholic Pope to me - what ever he says goes & so it is with WT's own running of their organization. HMMMMM - which one of these organizations is correct - considering that Jesus told us that HE IS THE WAY & THE TRUTH & THE LIFE - John 14: 6?? Any ideas/ - Yep, Both of them are wrong & false - Jesus is the RIGHT!]

Whatever the Governing Body disused or did not discuss in any of these areas was strictly as the result of his decision and at his direction. [see - just like Pope of Rome - if any one of Roman Catholics doesn't believe in what Pope says - Out they go also. WT does NOT have the exclusive rights to d'fedding anyone - RC was first at this & WT followed the suite]

All this was difficult to reconcile with the articles published after the vice president's "tail wagging the dog talk." The language there had been so forceful, so conclusive:

• "Thus, too, even though there were no apostles of Christ on hand in the nineteenth century, God's holy spirit must have been operating toward the formation of the governing body for his anointed remnant of the 'faithful & discreet slave' class.
• The facts speak for themselves.
• there came on the scene a body of anointed Christians who accepted and undertook the responsibilities of governing the affairs of Jehovah's dedicated, baptized, anointed people who were following in the footsteps of jesus Christ & endeavouring to fulfil the work stated in Jesus's prophecy at matthew 24: 45 - 47.
• Facts speak louder than words.
• The governing body is there.
• Thankfully Jehovah's Christian witness known and assert that this is no one - man religious organization, but that it has a governing body of spirit - anointed Christians." 34 -[No. 34 refers to "The Watch Tower, December, 15, 1971, p. 761.

Unfortunately the picture presented simply was NOT TRUE!!

The facts, already presented from Watch Tower Society's own approved publications and from statements of Directors, clearly show there was NO governing body in any factual sense in the nineteenth century during Russell's presidency, NONE in the twentieth century during Rutheford's presidency, & there had been NONE in the sense described in the same Watchtower Article during Knorr's presidency.

It was an impressive - sounding picture presented but it was ILLUSORY, FICTIONAL. [do you get it by now - WT & GB are Illusory & Fictional Organization that make things up as they please & as they go on. There is NO Spirit filled members in that org now,. nor has there ever been any - Choice is yours - stay in & be deceived by mere men or LEAVE & ask Jesus to come into your life. My suggestion is Number 2].

The fact is that a MONARCHICAL arrangement prevailed from the very inception of the organization {the word "monarch" being of Greek origin & meaning "one who governs alone," also defined in dictionaries as "one holding pre eminent position & power"}.

That the first president was being, the next stern & autocratic, and the third very business - like, in NO way alters the fact that EACH of the three presidents Exercised MONARCHICAL Authority.

The great majority of Witness forming and including most of the "Anointed" composing the "faithful & discreet slave class" - were totally UNAWARE of this.

Those in positions close enough to the seat of authority knew it to be the case; the closer they were the more they were aware of the facts.

This was particularly true of the members of the Governing body and in 1975 the "dog" decided it as time to "wag the tail." [Love this one as it is sooooo true]

Most of the members felt that it was time that the facts finally started matching the words being spoken and published.

Interestingly, what was done was essentially the same as what the four Directors in 1917 had purposed, a reorganization, an effort on their part that had consistently been described there after in the Watch Tower publications as an 'AMBITIOUS PLOT' and "A REBELLIOUS CONSPIRACY,' one that "by God's grace, did not succeed!'

Fifty - five years later basically the same proposition did succeed, but only after months of turmoil for the Governing Body.

{To find out about the INTERNAL UPHEAVAL & RESTRUCTURE - you will need to buy the book & read chapter 4 onwards]

"SO  NEVER MAKE MERE MEN A CAUSE FOR PRIDE. - THERE IS NOTHING TO BOAST ABOUT IN ANYTHING HUMAN." 1 Cor 3: 21 NEB & Jerusalem Bibles.

I Honestly hope  & pray that YOU as the reader of this page - can see tat WT is NOTHING more then few men who are power hungry  run the WT as a Business organization with FREE DOOR TO  DOOR sales people who are thinking & have been blinded by WT lies over the years so that they {GB} can make a Fortune {$$$$$$$} every week by the sales of Watch Tower magazine & Awake magazine.

AT present the figures have dropped due to French Problem, yet they still sell over 19 million magazines each week - even at 50c a copy that is lot of $$$$$$$$$ every week - week in week out times 52 weeks of the year.

It s your free choice if this is what you want - BUT WT is NOT of God nor has it ever been - just take a look at this passage from Scripture & they tell your self if GB & WT is doing God's Work as they continually lie & deceive innocent lives by so MANY NEW Lights & changes.