Below is the body of a message that I just sent to William Kelly, a Witness apologist, pertaining to his book written to defend Witness leaders against the charge that they are false prophets. I do not know if he will see it, since the most recent post on his blog, which is where the contact form was located, is already several years old. However, if I do not get a response I will attempt to find his email address (which may very well be readily available on his blog; I haven't checked) and ask him that way.
___
I purchased and have read your book "Are Jehovah's Witnesses False Prophets". While I think you do a good job articulating a defense to the accusation that Witness leaders are false prophets, I think you overlook several arguments that support the charge that at least some Witness leaders have engaged in false prophecy. Consequently, I think your apologetic effort is at best incomplete and so does not really substantiate your negative answer to the titular question.
There are occasions, it seems to me, where Witness publications claim that some of their teachings, including the "present truth" chronology is "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct", or to present not their own or human interpretation, but God's own angelically-given or spirit-given interpretation of prophecy. Given the falsity of at least some of what is claimed, this seems to rise to the level of false prophecy.
Moreover, the implicit definition of false prophet used by Witness leaders to condemn "the clergy", when applied by Christian critics, seems to indicate that Witness leaders are false prophets. Since, what counts as false doctrine or bad fruit to such a critic differs from what it means to a Witness.
And the definition in "Reasoning From the Scriptures" seems applicable to Witness leaders. And I think that, when applied, it indicates that at least some of them have been false prophets.
Lastly, I think the related issue of credibility needs to be addressed. What good does it do to exonerate Witness leaders of the charge of being false prophets if the Witness organization's track record of prophetic interpretation is bad? I would argue that it is bad. And, if so, this fact would seems to discredit the claims to authority or organizational legitimacy made by such Witness leaders. And this is only slightly less problematic than would be the conclusion that they are false prophets.
If you are interested in discussing this or in providing feedback to an essay I am writing on this point, let me know. My email is tubertheologian@gmail.com
