:::::::::::You say “The concept is not explicitly defined in Watch Tower literature”. This is POV. And it is POV because the WT explains it, as you can see below. 

 :::::::::::“official statements" from Brooklyn have no priority in this article at all.” Are you sure that you understand the wiki-policy? Do not confuse facts with opinions on facts.  

 :::::::::::“It doesn't need your defense of the GB or claims that they pray for divine guidance.” This is an official statement about the procedure. It is a fact; it is not a comment or an opinion on a fact. 

 :::::::::::“How do you know I'm not praying for divine guidance in writing what I do for Wikipedia?” If you become an article here, we will discuss this further. 

 :::::::::::“As I've explained, Penton is doing his best to explain what the WTS chooses not to do. That's a challenge for us as well, and Penton happens to be an excellent source, along with the WTS itself, whose words I've drawn on for the final sentence.” What you admit proves that you have a totally wrong attitude in editing. And if you continue like that, I won’t hesitate to report that to the administrators, because your editing tends to be destructive. Penton is a respectable source in academic bibliography, but it is not Wikipedia’s business to take the role of anti-JWs, as you put it. Do you understand that when you speak about a “challenge” to prove the Watchtower false, you admit that you have an agenda?