ComfortMyPeople

think it is a matter of being practical, balancing what you know with what your audience is able to bear at present. Even of his disciples Jesus said there were things they were not yet able to bear, so what does that say about speaking to non-disciples? A pretty good guess on the 70% - 80%, I think. People’s criteria for “knowing” with certainty will differ. All will agree on the place of safety, however. None will say “all roads lead to heaven.”
As to, “I believe how more JW's try answer this way, because of need to give answer that is more acceptable for non-JW people,” 
Tharcisse Seminega does this in his book No Greater Love—How My Family Survived the Genocide in Rwanda. Proclaiming the superiority of one’s religion comes across as crass in “educated” parts of the world, and it is actually illegal in Russia—that is the pretext used to ban the Jehovah’s Witness organization. The local populace, not being able to get their heads around something so devious as banning a religion’s organization but not the religion itself, conducts itself as though the Witnesses themselves are banned. What sensible person would not?
So Brother Seminega has to self-peddle this part about “religious superiority,” a part that many would say is integral to giving a thorough witness. I don’t blame him for this—it is the only way he can reach his intended audience. Besides, whoever has spent several weeks in the hole, hidden at enormous risk by his spiritual brothers, while others of his tribe are being slaughtered wholesale on the outside, can do whatever he likes.
That he privately has given a thorough witness is clear from the Foreword, written by a fellow academic, John K. Roth, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy Claremont McKenna College: “As a result, the book makes an appeal to folks like me who are not members of that particular community: Embrace and follow the ethical values embedded in the acts that saved the Seminegas. I am grateful for that invitation.” Yet, he does miss the point. He takes away from this book not that people should embrace the religion that stood fast in the face of genocide, but “the ethical value embedded in the acts that saved the Seminegas,” as though such a separation were possible.
Brother Seminega prefers to let others say it, not he himself: He is content to include in an appendix: “Peace and conflict researcher Christian P. Scherrer states: ‘All the churches active in Rwanda, with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (of whom only a few survived), were involved at least ‘passively’ in the genocide.’ Genocide and Crisis in Central Africa: Conflict Roots, Mass Violence, and Regional War (London: Praeger, 2002), 113.” [Italics mine]
He doesn’t thereafter say, “You see? Our religion is superior!” even though anyone of moral sense can deduce it from the above passage. There are examples in his book, corroborated by international adjudicators, of clergymen purposefully luring Tutsi parishioners to their churches to be slaughtered by the thousands. A passage from his book, that of his wife who was not then a Witness, testifies from her spot of hiding:
“The stifling conditions, lack of sleep, scanty food, and darkness had a numbing effect on our minds. But one thing I knew: I, my husband, and all five of my children were alive because our Jehovah’s Witness friends had repeatedly risked their lives to save us. Their faith was like a rock. They lived for peace. No one could force them to use weapons against their neighbors, even those of a different ethnicity. They would sooner die than harm others. They were Hutu, just like the machete-wielding murderers who spilled rivers of blood. It pained me to think of it, but I knew in my heart that the vast majority of Hutu killers claimed to be Christian. Most of them belonged to my Catholic church.”
Okay? The Witness religion is superior. Yet Brother Seminega is writing to an audience loath to accept that idea. “If he will really say it, the radio won’t play it, unless he lays it between the lines,” so that is what he does. The greater sophisticated world wants to view the atrocity as though there are noble qualities distributed more or less at random among all religions, and in this case, it is but the luck of the draw that they fell to Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is clear in how religionnews.com reviews the book. It does what it can to obscure the conclusion inescapable to anyone of common sense: of the superiority of a religion that alone enabled all members to withstand genocide. (Or maybe it is that I am myself influenced by how that source doesn’t appear to regard Witnesses as a religion, and how such is not necessarily disagreeable to the JW organization.)
It expounds on how “Witnesses had long been oppressed for refusing to take up weapons or participate in politics. Because of this apolitical teaching... ‘Hutu Witnesses were impervious to calls for patriotic Hutu to take part in mass killings’... Professor Seminega says that his family’s rescuers and other Witnesses followed Jesus’ “new commandment”—To love one another just as he loved them, even to the death.”
Note how “new commandment” is in quote marks, as though it is new to the reviewers themselves, or at least an unsophisticated and quaint notion that they know is not one that readers can be expected to quickly get their heads around.
Maybe the professor has something to teach us, is the tone of the review and the Foreword. It cannot hurt that he is a professor. What learned lesson does he, and maybe even the people he has sided with, have to teach us? In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses do try to teach them—every single day they try—and their attempts are rebuffed. To secure the integrity of the Witnesses, they have to side with the kingdom—and most of them don’t even know what it is. To secure the integrity of the Witnesses, they have to become “no part of the world” (John 17:16), and most of them are fully part of it.
Here, Brother Seminega’s academic connections come in handy, for he is able to trace the historical, political, and religious roots that ultimately triggered the Rwandan sudden slide into barbarism. He, the former Catholic seminarian, writes of the Catholic Church’s deep involvement in “the world,” and of how it abruptly switched sides in the late 20th century, from that of oppressor—the Church had historically been associated with the European colonizers, and as such promoted the “privileged” tribe of the Tutsi—to the oppressed, the “lesser” Hutu. If you embrace the world and its power plays, you eventually embrace its tactics, and the tactics in this case descended to genocide.
It doesn’t happen that often. During most times of normal stress, church teachings and even politics are enough to, after a fashion, ensure acceptable conduct among members. But during times of abnormal stress, they collapse completely. 
Did no one of the greater Rwandan religious community other than Jehovah’s Witnesses act nobly? A small minority did, and this is detailed in the Appendix section. The end of Tharcisse Seminega’s narrative marks only the halfway point of the book. Numerous appendices follow, which start with the same tale told through the eyes of different participants, as though the author has taken a cue from construction of the four Gospels themselves. Thereafter, No Greater Love is the work of a meticulous historian, and he nails down each historical detail of a story and its aftermath that ought never suffer extinction.
The small minority of religious Hutu that did not participate in genocide is enough for a certain church revisionist to write that “church institutions cannot be blamed for the moral failure of individuals who abandoned Christian values.” However, scholar Timothy Longman cuts the Church no slack—the fact that some did it proved they all could have done it, is his position. This dovetails with some digging I did for ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ Perhaps 10% of church Christians refused to support Hitler during Nazi times. Is that good? Of course. But the fact remains that they had to defy their own church to do it, churches that invariably played ball with the dictator. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, the figure is close to 100%. How can anyone state that their religion is not superior, or that the organization that coordinates is not to be lauded?
The greater lesson for the religious scholars that Brother Seminega has is that they should become Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is a collection of core teachings often discussed (two have been cited here: identification with the kingdom and withdrawal from the politicized world) that serve to identify one and only one religion. There is no setting more poignant than 1990’s Rwanda or 1940’s Germany to highlight how vital those teachings are. This is why those “apostates” who vehemently oppose the Witnesses readily slide into hypocrisy. They ignore the vital core teachings—rarely when people leave the faith do I ever hear them referring to such things again—to rail about how the faith impeded their freedom of movement. They ignore the vital core teachings, preferring to put humans under the magnifying glass in a search for dirt. They dig through the diamonds in search of the turds and present revelation of the turds as their version of “good news.”
I like how at the 2019 annual meeting, Mark Sanderson examined Hebrews 2:15, of how “through [Jesus’] death [God] might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.” He then spoke of the Nuremberg trials, in which various Nazis who had committed unspeakable atrocities were asked the simple question, “How could you do those terrible things?” “What did they say?” he asked, and then related the answer they had given: “We had no choice. If we didn’t obey they would put us to death.” 
“Those people could be manipulated,” Sanderson said. “They could be controlled. They could be made to do the most wicked things because they were afraid.” It was true of the Hutu tribe as well. To not join in “the work” of slaughter was enough to be put to death oneself for being disloyal to the cause. Many consciences, religious and otherwise, were cast aside due to fear of death.
That’s manipulation. That’s control. That’s the consequence of—shall we say it?—not being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and benefiting from the program of spiritual food directed from the Governing Body. Reject it and settle for a genocide every so often when with winds blow just right—history affirms that such will happen.
Professor Roth welcomes No Greater Love, agreeing with the author that it is likely the first book by a Jehovah’s Witnesses writing of his own experience, the first book by someone who was there. It almost didn’t come about. From the Acknowledgments section, Brother Seminega thanks Alexandre Kimenyi, the scholar who invited him to speak and subsequently encouraged him to gather his records for history.
I wrote in Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia that “books about Jehovah’s Witnesses authored by Jehovah’s Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can an insider - they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Jehovah’s Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people, who are not inclined to write books... Why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say?” Professor Seminega is from a class that is inclined to write books, yet he still doesn’t do it until much later, after outside encouragement, because he is used to “looking people in the eye and telling them what he has to say.”
In time, a Russian Jehovah’s Witness will write a book of his experiences at the hands of current persecutors there, and when that happens, his book will rightly vault ahead of mine. Mine is merely a compilation and analysis of worldwide news reports, along with a considerable amount of witnessing along the way, but not so much as to negate its historical value. When that Russian Witness writer appears, he or she will be likely facilitated by the Arnold Liebster Foundation, as has been the case with No Greater Love. This, too, will vault it ahead of mine, because the Foundation at present regards me with a dubious eye. Probably they came across me when I was battling online with the malcontents and said, “What Witness would do that?” They do not know that I subsequently kicked them all to the curb. 
No matter. At the Kingdom Hall, we would straighten it out in two minutes. But the internet is the land of the liars where frauds roam at will, and it can be difficult to distinguish friend from foe. Of course, it is always possible that they regard even taking on the controversial topics that I do as the work of an “indiscreet brother,” and should this be the case, who am I to say that they are not right? Maybe I am the soldier singing atop the Jerusalem wall after Hezekiah has told the troops to zip it.
 

I think you referenced my opinion here. It's as follows:
We know that Jesus' invisible presence began in the first century, around 33 CE, because, as Jesus said:
(Matthew 18:20) For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”
(Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
So, Jesus is invisibly present with Christians always from his resurrection UNTIL the conclusion (Gk, synteleia). If the conclusion began in 1914, then Jesus was saying he would be invisibly present with us UNTIL 1914.
But this is not the "parousia" which can also be translated "presence" or "visitation." The scriptures tie the "parousia" to the "glorious manifestation" of Jesus when he is revealed, and "every eye shall see him" and a time of sudden, bright flashing like lightning. (Scripture references available upon request. 😊) Thus, for several years, the following comment was included in the NWT appendix, which has since been removed from the 2013 Revised NWT:
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.”
These visitations of royal personages were a spectacle, often with trumpeted fanfare and with the official accompanied by throngs of persons brought with him and joined by spectators alongside the parade. To make sure that the "parousia" went smoothly, the local authorities could even raise a special tax on the local citizens to fix the roads to make straight paths for the king's chariots and horses and entourage on foot. That tax was minted on "parousia" coins, or later "adventus" coins, just as they were in Paul's day. (This can explain why the first Bible translations did not translate "parousia" as presence, while koine (NT) Greek was still a living language. They used a word that meant "advent" or "visitation" focusing, therefore, on the arrival/coming, not the presence that followed.)
It seems obvious that this "parousia" did not start in 1914.
On the issue of when Jesus sat down in his Kingdom, this also seems pretty obvious from the scriptures. Jesus is called "king of kings" in the first century.
(1 Timothy 6:13-15) ...I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,
(Revelation 1:5, 6) . . .and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. . .
Immediately after his resurrection, Jesus said that "ALL authority" had bee given to him in heaven and on earth.
(Matthew 28:18) . . .“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
Trying to minimize this kingdom authority in the first century appears to take away from the scriptures. In the scriptures, Jesus is already "crowned" in the first century.
(Hebrews 2:9) 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death,. . .
(Hebrews 1:3) . . .he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
He already has a scepter:
(Hebrews 1:8) 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
And "sitting at God's right hand" means the same as "rule as king" as said above:
(1 Corinthians 15:25) . . .For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.
So with this in mind, I think that 1 Cor 15:23 makes sense:
(1 Corinthians 15:20-26) . . .But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. 21 For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
In other words, Jesus has now been raised from the dead, and he is the first of those to be raised alive "in the Christ." The word "during" is only used here because the NWT translators believe we should focus on a long time period. Most often the word just means "at."
So, first Jesus, then those who belong to him "at his visitation," at his parousia, at his manifestation, at his coming, at his arrival, at his presence, at that day.
(2 Thessalonians 2:8, 9) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia].
Also.
(2 Timothy 4:1) I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom:
Paul does not ever speak about 1,000 years, specifically, but he makes it appear that there is a resurrection of those "in the Christ" and then the end, when he brings to nothing all government and authority and power. Paul appears to refer to only one single end that includes bringing to nothing all these other governments, and that this results in the end of death. Mission accomplished.
From Paul alone, then, we can't tell where a 1,000 year reign fits in. Paul speaks from the perspective of this particular kingdom of Christ accomplishing its purpose, and in some sense being handed back to God at the point where the final enemy (death) is fully subjected. 

I don’t even pretend to know how this works. I know what is the place of safety. I know what is my obligation to publicize it. Everything else involves matters “too great for me.” 
Can you be some distance from the place of safety or not on millimeter? Dunno. “Is it only Jehovah’s Witnesses who will be saved?” someone asked my daughter, a need-greater. “Well—I’m not Jesus, and I don’t know,” she replied. What of the verse that you will by no means complete the circuit of Israel before the son of man arrives? How does that factor in? Will Jehovah pull some last minute trick like he did with Jonah?
It is enough to know that he can read hearts. I’ll just do an Abraham and say, “is not the God of the entire earth going to do what is right?” After Armageddon, (let us assume that I find myself on the other side of it) I will look around, see who I see, and say, “I guess that is what’s right.”
All we can do is what we can do. Between house-to-house, carts, internet, and just plain zeal, what we have done is a lot. Is the kingdom the burning issue in everyone’s mind that they consciously approve or reject, as much of our material would suggest? Or is it that people are consumed with the day-to-day and “take no note” of what is happening around them, as also much of our material would suggest? What is the interplay between the two?
The issue is do people prefer government by God or government by men. The GB would be negligent to not continually stress the place of safety and call attention to verses that indicate you’d better be there. They would be negligent to not urge those there to prioritize their lives so as to join Christ in saying “Come,” They have not been negligent. Imitate them, says 2 Thess 3:7-9. Imitate their faith, says Heb 13:17, a faith that has manifested itself as deeds, because faith without works is dead.
That is enough for me to go on. You don’t have to know every little thing. Not a sparrow falls to the ground unseen by the Father. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t fall. How many will fall, and why, and how many will stand?
 

I think we can probably figure out a rough timeline that Revelation 20 appears to show, and then, compare it to 1 Cor 15. If it doesn't make sense, we can see if our current understanding helps us to make more sense of it. I'm still thinking about it, mostly about whether I should even share what I'm thinking. I had some thoughts that were eerily similar to what TTH shared in the post where he said:
And, as before, my comments on the example of Abraham were a bit different from TTH:
I would have pointed out that if we were really doing what Abraham did when he said then, that we should be questioning this judgment, just as Abraham did. Perhaps that is one of the lessons. If we truly want to be God's friend then we should be ready to "argue" with Him. We should question the numbers, as Abraham did. We should question the sense of justice, as Abraham did. Ultimately, we would never question Jehovah's judgment after the fact, but we should always be thinking and questioning what justice should look like before the fact. It is important that we try to understand Jehovah's justice as best we can.
To that end, I brought up whether we should question the WT's view of Armageddon as it was spelled out from the time when I was still very young. We seem to have backed off on using such numbers, but I know that many JWs still believe these numbers are about right. The following article is on the jw.org website: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1958762
*** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? ***
Armageddon will be greater than any nuclear war fought on a global or even on a “space” scale. The Bible shows that Armageddon will be a war between gods and universal in scope. In it “Jehovah God, the Almighty,” and the “Mighty God,” his Son, Jesus Christ, will do battle with “the god of this system of things,” Satan the Devil. Involved in that battle will be all intelligent creatures, seen and unseen.—Rev. 11:17; Isa. 9:6, AS; 2 Cor. 4:4.
Revelation 9:16 gives us an inkling of the size of Jehovah’s forces when it speaks of him as using, on a certain occasion, cavalry to the number of 200,000,000. And 2 Kings 19:35 tells of just one of these destroying a host of 185,000 warriors in one night. How many demon cohorts Satan has, the Word of God does not indicate, but from the description of the war in heaven at Revelation 12 their number can by no means be insignificant. That Satan’s demons are likewise powerful can be seen from the fact that one of them once hindered an angel of Jehovah for twenty-one days, until the archangel Michael came to his rescue.—Dan. 10:13, 21.
As for humans upon earth, on the side of Jehovah will be all those fully dedicated to him and who are faithfully following Jesus Christ; compared with earth’s billions these are indeed few. They are the few that walk the narrow way or cramped road that leads to life. These will not share in the fighting but will merely sing God’s praises.—2 Chron. 20:20, 21; 2 Cor. 10:4, 5; Matt. 7:13, 14.
On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” That includes all the governments of the world together with their supporters, the commercial, religious and social institutions. Even the professedly Christian organizations? Yes, because all such that are friends of the world are making themselves enemies of God.—1 John 5:19; Jas. 4:4.
Yes, today the earth is filled with wickedness, much innocent blood has been and is being shed, both in war and in peace. Godless men are persecuting Jehovah’s servants and ruining the earth. Jehovah will express “indignation against all the nations” and “against all the inhabitants of the earth,” because “there is nought but swearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery.” At Armageddon Jehovah “will cause justice to be done” speedily to “his chosen ones who cry aloud to him” because of being persecuted. At that time he will also “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”—Isa. 34:2; Jer. 25:30; Hos. 4:2, AS; Luke 18:8, 7; Rev. 11:18.
God’s Word likens Armageddon to the Flood, to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and to the battle at Gibeon, where God rained down great blocks of ice upon his enemies. Armageddon will be the worst thing ever to hit this earth in the history of man. It will be marked by shocking surprise, consternation, fright, collapse of government, tremendous upheavals of earth, landslides, cloudbursts, overflowing flash-floods, rain of corrosive liquid fire and terror in the air, on land and in the sea. No wonder that “the slain of Jehovah shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the face of the ground.”—Jer. 25:33, AS.
@César Chávez pointed out that there are about 8 million Witnesses. (When compared to a global population that is nearing 8 billion, this is also just another way of saying that 99.9 percent of the world are not Witnesses.) 
*** w58 6/1 p. 330 Why Dedicate Ourselves to God? ***
Yes, all such would foolishly ignore the instruction Book of their Maker and his “traffic laws” for living. And yet that is the very course that more than 99.9 percent of earth’s population
*** w55 11/1 p. 648 Using Wisely the Reduced Time Left ***
Time spent in trying to accumulate wealth, fame or power or in trying to perpetuate this old system of things is wasted, and that is what more than 99.9 per cent of this earth’s population are doing.
Of course, we don't know. CC has pointed out before that he thinks most Witnesses are not true Witnesses, with true faith. He has also made statements that question faith and loyalty of elders and ministerial servants. So perhaps the percentage of actual survivors is much lower than .1 percent from CC's perspective.

It's not unwelcome at all. I think that most of us have seen this idea in service and and in commentaries. And most of us have probably considered it (and dismissed it). It is such a big break from a "workable" understanding of Revelation and 1 Corinthians 15, that I dismiss it before I get very far into it. And that's because I see some potential contradictions among ALL the possibilities, but the idea that we are now in the 1,000 year reign seemed unworkable.
I'm fine with trying to work it through again since it's been so long. I don't have any time to do this today, but I'll put a few thoughts out here to at least show why I had a problem with it.
You believe that the 1,000 year reign of Christ began at the time he began to reign in the first century. So when does it end? At the time of tribulation/judgment/resurrection? When does Jesus hand back the Kingdom to his Father? When was/is Satan cast down, and angry for a short period of time? When was/is he abyssed? Are these the same periods. When is/was he let loose from the abyss? Yes, I believe that Jesus began to reign when he sat down at the right hand of God. 1 Cor 15:25 as much as says this. And, yes, we know from Col 1:13 that Christ already began gathering subjects to that Kingdom as soon as he was resurrected.
My problem with it is that the 1,000 years appears to be a literal time in history with a beginning and an end. Otherwise the scriptures could not say "the rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended." If it has a beginning and an end, then why not see it as a special, literal time period during the time of the otherwise everlasting kingdom.
(Revelation 11:15) . . .The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.”
I believe that this kingdom of the world did already become the Kingdom of God and Christ beginning when Jesus sat at the right hand of the throne of Majesty, at about the time of his resurrection, when "ALL authority was given him" and he could be called "King of Kings."
(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings . . .
But the biggest problem I have with claiming that we are already in the 1,000 year reign is that Jesus gave an indication that the end could come at any time, and that people could expect it, even in the first century. Paul said that the congregations could expect it at any time, even in the first century. He did not know if he or others alive at the time would live to see a "rapture" or if he or others would die first and be resurrected into the heavenly kingdom. 
What kind of "1,000 year reign" could have started around 33, when Jesus was resurrected, but then might have ended at a judgment day, perhaps only 70 years later?
Do you think that the 1,000 year reign is so symbolic that it refers to an unlimited time? If so, why does Revelation speak of the time when it is over, and why does Corinthians speak of a time when Jesus hands back the kingdom to his Father?
I know that Russell thought he was already living in the 1,000 year reign, which is why his books were called "Millennial Dawn." But he thought that the 1,000 year reign began around 1874. When this was changed, it made sense to think of the thousand years as a time to prepare for, and accept billions of resurrected persons into the new earth (including the unrighteous). Practically it makes sense. If Satan had not yet been completely destroyed, it makes sense that in the overall scheme of showing Satan the verdict of his false claim, that this "court case" is completed with Satan witnessing his own failure before meeting his final fate.
So there is a certain "practicality" to the 1,000 year reign as a special time when God through Christ takes his great power and begins ruling as king, even though he has always been king, and Christ too will be king from long before and eternally after. It becomes one of those special times when one can say in a special way:
(1 Chronicles 16:31) 31 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!’
I understand that Satan could be destroyed at Armageddon and this same scenario could play out. I also know that your point of view removes the problem of the "second Armageddon" at the end of the 1,000 year reign.
But we still have this, which can produce an issue for both points of view, but I think it is harder for your point of view:
(Revelation 20:4, 5) . . .And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

Last night my mother called and said that they just had the circuit overseer who asked a question: Which Bible character was confined to his own place for a long time?
I said, don't tell me, let me guess. Uzziah?
She said, no. But wasn't he the one who steadied the ark?
I said, no that was Uzzah. King Uzziah had to be confined at home for leprosy.
She said, well it wasn't Uzziah. It was Noah. And that the circuit overseer said that at least we don't have to be confined with a bunch of stinky animals.
And I said, "Says you!" (We have two dogs, two cats, 10 fish. I was not, repeat not, referring to any son of mine who hasn't cleaned his room in over two weeks.)
And then, I added that Noah steadied the Ark, too. He had to keep the elephants and hippos at the four corners to keep it balanced, then "steady as she goes!!"

(John 10:2-18) 2 But the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The doorkeeper opens to this one, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought all his own out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. . . . . 9 I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and that one will go in and out and find pasturage. 10 . . . I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance. 11 I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep. . . . 14 I am the fine shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my life in behalf of the sheep. 16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.
Sometimes we think of expressions like "life in abundance" or "life in themselves" as only applying to the "little flock." But there is nothing that specifically says that the other sheep do not also attain "life in abundance" or even "immortality." (And yes, I realize it is not a WT teaching that the other sheep may attain immortality.)
It has long been applied especially to the "other sheep."
*** w73 6/15 p. 380 A Way of Life Opened to Mankind ***
“Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.”—John 4:14.  Does this everlasting life that Jesus gives mean that all who live everlastingly must go to heaven? By no means. For the prophecy at Revelation says of the crystal-clear water of the river of life: “The spirit and the bride keep on saying: ‘Come!’” Now, the bride is the Christian congregation of which Christ is husbandly Head. (Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:23; 2 Cor. 11:2) These who share heavenly life with Jesus Christ number 144,000 persons. (Rev. 14:1, 3) The ‘water of life’ is offered by the spirit and the bride to yet others. It therefore symbolizes God’s provision for earthly life, everlasting human life in perfection on an earth transformed into a paradise, suitable for perfect humans.
Paul speaks of the those who are changed in the "rapture" and those also resurrected to heavenly bodies as "immortal" and "incorruptible." But the "incorruptible" nature appears to refer to the type of body they have, not necessarily that they can never be destroyed if unfaithful.
(1 Corinthians 15:53-55) 53 For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: “Death is swallowed up forever.” 55 “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?”
And we already believe that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom for the "other sheep" too, at least in the following sense:
(Galatians 6:8) 8 because the one sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but the one sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit.
I don't think it's worth speculating that any will actually rebel, especially after the 1,000 years settles the great legal case against Satan, and will have proven the stupidity and fruitlessness of rebellion. But my point is that there is no scripture that claims that the other sheep or great crowd will not have immortality and eternal life. Even those terms (eternal life and immortality) are not really distinguished in the Bible, only in our doctrine.
I see nothing wrong with our doctrine, and I think it makes sense, but we should always be careful to distinguish interpretation imposed from the Bible and interpretation imposed on the Bible.

I think it was clear that Arauna was referring to humans, not animals. Jehovah was the first to create beings that died, and they died before Satan could cause Eve and Adam to rebel.
Are we back to discussing Furuli's book again? That's the way he spells immortality in at least one place, too.
Just to go off topic a bit more, the view on whether animals died prior to Adam has been pretty consistent. One of the reasons that some fundamentalists need to deny the age of dinosaurs is that they don't want them to have died until Adam sinned. We also used to insist that the animals prior to Adam didn't kill each other for food, going back to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, but this is not insisted upon anymore. Of course, Russell also believed that since animals were so much lower than humans that Jehovah could have used evolution to develop them into their specific kinds.
Going back only half as far as Russell we have a 1950 Watchtower that gives a good answer that's still consistent with current teachings, about how animals lived and died, and will be expected to live and die, even in the new system. (Also happens to cover that point about the kind of death that is destroyed in the lake of fire.)
*** w50 10/15 p. 399 Questions From Readers ***
● Revelation 21:4 says that in the new world there will be no more death. Does this mean that even animals will not die then?—M. I., New York.
This text does not mean that all death will be eliminated. Rebellious human creatures will die during Christ’s millennial reign, and those siding with Satan at the end of the thousand years will perish. (Isa. 65:17, 20; Rev. 20:7-10) True, Revelation 20:14 shows death destroyed and thereafter Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death, but the death referred to is death due to inheritance from Adam. Men will not then degenerate and die because of Adam’s transgression, but at any future time Jehovah God could execute any willful rebel that would disrupt the peace of the new world. Hence Revelation 21:4 speaks only of the Adamic death of humans, and has no application to the animal realm.
As to whether animals will die in the new world we cannot be dogmatic. It appears that men will not kill them for food, nor will animals prey upon one another. In the new world Jehovah’s original purpose relative to food supplies will be realized, as stated to Adam and Eve: “See, I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are found all over the earth, and all the trees which have seed-bearing fruit; it shall be yours to eat. To all the wild beasts of the earth, to all the birds of the air, and to all the land reptiles, in which there is a living spirit, I give all the green plants for food.” (Gen. 1:29, 30, AT) If that outstanding carnivorous animal, the lion, is to “eat straw like the ox”, surely no others will be meat-eaters. (Isa. 11:6-9) Incidentally, this shows that Revelation 21:4 does not eliminate all death of organic life, for plants will die to become food for men and animals.
But merely that animals will not be used for food does not prove they will live forever. There is reason to believe they will die. Man’s disobedience in Eden did not bring death to animals—they had been living and dying and many forms becoming extinct for thousands of years before man’s creation. The new world will eliminate the effects of Adam’s disobedience, but that does not concern animal death. The status of the beast has remained unchanged since its creation—it lives out its life span and dies. At no time has it had set before it the prospect of eternal life.
Man’s position is different. Adam had hope of eternal life set before him, but that hope vanished when he failed to pass the test of obedience. Had he passed that test he doubtless would have eventually eaten of the “tree of life”. Through Adam all men lost the opportunity of eternal life, but through the ransoming work of Christ Jesus the opportunity is restored and men of good will may hope for eternal life in the new world. None of this concerns animals.
If a man is willfully wicked and scorns the ransom, he will never gain eternal life, though he lives for a few years now. He loses the better position of opportunity that is open for mankind, and drops into the same position as that of animals, a position that offers no opportunities of eternal life. Of such ones the inspired apostle Peter wrote: “But these men, like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own course of destruction.”—2 Peter 2:12, NW.
If animals had opportunity for eternal life, why would these men who lose such opportunity be compared to them? There seems to be no Scriptural basis for arguing that animals will live forever in the new world, but rather that they will continue being born, maturing, bringing forth offspring, and dying. Argument to the contrary seems to be based largely on sentimental grounds.
 

I think it's still there. Under "Becoming a Witness"

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, that in fact Gnam's claim was correct, that is, in the context of a family member living at home, which would naturally apply to husband and wife, and any children that were currently a part of the household. But, the claim was deceptive because it did not clarify this, and allowed for the assumption that the topic included ANY family member living inside or outside the home, in other words in a broad sense, which is how most people view "family". 

@Witness referenced a recent Watchtower article from 2013 that shows that the word "shunning" is interchangeable with "disfellowshipping."
It was also in the same 2013 Watchtower where an article was referenced on jw.org:
*** w13 8/1 p. 2 Table of Contents ***
READ MORE ONLINE | www.jw.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES—Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
(Look under ABOUT US > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

The Frequently Asked Questions section is still there, but that particular article has been removed. You have to go to the Wayback Machine (internet.archive.org) and look for the article that was picked up 62 times between August 30, 2012 and February 6, 2019. (There have been 16,777 captures from the jw.org website on the Wayback Machine from 2012, and the most recent was today). The article in question says:
Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
... We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.
And we can go back to the 1970's up through 2016 (and website up to 2019) to see that the word "shun" was commonly used as part of our vocabulary for how we should shun disfellowshipped persons. The 1988 case has been mentioned above as it was reported in the 1988 Watchtower.
The shunning article was removed from the website in February 2019 about 15 months after the Canadian case in 2017. Just before the Canadian court presentation in 2017, the October 2017 Wathtower said this:
*** w17 October p. 16 par. 19 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***
For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
This is exactly at odds with Gnam's claim that normal family life goes on.
2017
*** lvs chap. 3 p. 40 par. 19 Choose Friends Who Love God ***
He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.—See Endnote 8.
2019
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.
2016
It was in the 2016 Assembly where the following part of the program even included a dramatic example of how family members don't allow family life to go on normally:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

Yes. I think this is implied. It's a very imperfect world, and sometimes the world rubs off on us.
But this does not mean that all of the arguments made by WTS lawyers in defense of the WTS are false. I think this is what some non-Witnesses (especially, ex-Witnesses) are anxious to believe. What's shouldn't be lost here, is that many of the points that WTS lawyers make in cases about child abuse are actually quite true. For example:
The Watchtower Society/Organization is not responsible for the criminal and sinful actions of its members. Many of the arguments made in court that people complain about are merely trying to mitigate liability that was not the liability of the WTS in the first place. In many cases the victim goes after the WTS because that is the only place they can get financial redress. The primary criminal party is the perpetrator. There are times when the local elders are the ones showing negligence in after-the-fact investigations, trying to protect the reputation of the congregation or certain members of it. The liability, in this case should be on those elders. Only when following improper instructions from the WTS, should the WTS be partially liable. And even here, the local elders should understand their own personal responsibility if a process seems unconscionable. Much has been made of members of the judicial committees destroying notes made during the "investigation" process, as if this is all about a cover-up. Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process. If someone believes all elders are evil, they will think that the "official" version, which is never destroyed, is always a cover-up. But this view says more about the person imputing the wrong motives, and shows that they have not understood the typical investigation process. Watchtower disciplinary policy in congregations is not to be confused with Caesar's discipline. There are things the WTS should have done better to reduce the repetition of such crimes by perpetrators, but very little can be done about the original crime. There were things about the process in judging such matters that needed improvements too. More recently these "after-the-fact" matters and processes were handled and revised about as well as can be expected. Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest. In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client. It's more of a negotiation, and they have to be careful what words they use. But there are also times when the "twisted" words of some attorneys shows that the WTS itself wishes it could hide some practices from the world. But if these practices are right, such as "shunning," then we should be proud to be upholding righteous counsel from the Bible. If upholding righteous counsel from the Bible makes us liable before the world, we should be proud to accept the consequences. Lying about it, or twisting words about it, makes it obvious that we are ashamed to uphold God's word in the way that we do.
This is quite separate from child abuse cases, which have also sometimes included dishonesty by both defense attorneys and attorneys for victims. But when Geoffrey Jackson argues that we don't believe that Proverbs referred to a physical rod for disciplining children, or when a Witness child custody attorney argues that our summer conventions were really more about vacation fun than spiritual education, or when . . . .
I won't turn it into an itemized list for opposers, but these things have already been commented upon elsewhere.

Lawyering (and barristering) is a whole field unto itself with its own ethics considerations, similar to how policeman in the United States are legally allowed, and often expected, to lie to a suspect to elicit incriminating information for a case. My oldest son is an attorney. In his last two years of law school they had him do paid summer internships with a well-known and well-respected firm in NYC, and they kept putting him on cases to help defend cigarette companies and insurance companies to lower their payouts. He was not an attorney yet, but he learned how the entire existence of some of the major law firms is based on their ability to get away with lying. After he took the exam and became a lawyer himself, he took a job in family court, and found, of course, that dishonesty pervades each side of arguments there, too. So now he does mostly real estate, wills and estates, and contract law. (Yet in just those few weeks of paid internship as a non-attorney he made more money than in his first year of being an attorney.)
The case with Gnam above is not nearly as serious as others, even compared to examples of other Watchtower lawyers in the U.S. But I don't condone such dishonesty, even in small amounts. In my opinion Mr. David Gnam is dishonest here, and therefore a wrongdoer, and very likely an unrepentant wrongdoer. I don't think he should be disbarred, but he should not be used by the Watchtower Society in any way unless he is ready to be honest.

I defend them as elders who are taking on a huge responsibility in leading some major efforts to distribute Bibles and Bible-based publications around the world to fellow Witnesses and for non-Witnesses, too. I do not defend them as the equivalent of "the faithful and discreet slave." That, to me, and perhaps even according to the words of Brother Jackson of the GB, is a pretty presumptuous and haughty assumption, therefore not in keeping with being faithful and discreet. I am making an assumption that this is a serious error, but it does not discredit all the work they do. It's just a mistake of interpretation. The GB admit that this will sometimes happen. Jesus' anointed disciples made serious mistakes too. And not that this is an excuse, but we see it did not disqualify the work and zeal they showed. Remember how Apollos was zealous and aglow with the spirit, even though he was only acquainted with John's baptism. He even "gave himself" an assignment to go over into Achaia, and Priscilla and Aquila supported it fully.
(Acts 18:24-27) . . .Now a Jew named A·polʹlos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephʹe·sus; he was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of Jehovah, and aglow with the spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, but he was acquainted only with the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him. 27 Further, because he wanted to go across to A·chaʹia, the brothers wrote to the disciples, urging them to receive him kindly. So when he got there, he greatly helped those who through God’s undeserved kindness had become believers;
Where testing the scriptures shows me that the GB are right, I support them fully. But I'm also a bit outspoken if I think they might be wrong.
I have a feeling that you are too quick to jump on any place where someone finds a reason not to support a specific teaching of the GB, and you want to explode that into proof that the GB are completely wrong on all things, when we are talking about very few things out of hundreds of perfectly good interpretations.
You recently asked about a translation issue where I think that the great majority of the 700 verses that were translated with the "prove to be" construct in the NWT were unnecessary, and some potentially misleading -but not linguistically wrong. But this is a translator's choice, and it was used to create a certain gravitas or "sacred" sound, much like quoting the KJV today gives a kind of gravitas or "sacred" sound when used in a sermon of otherwise modern English. (The NWT got rid of 85% of these "prove-to-be" constructs in 2013.)
But how quick would you be to jump on other translators who make translation choices? (Some other translators even made the same [prove-to-be] choice for the "causative" verb rendering in some of the same places found in the NWT.) In reading Joel in the NET version, for example, there are multiple footnotes that admit that words were added that were not in the Hebrew. For example, the note on Joel 2:25:
(Joel 2:25, NET) I will make up for the years1  that the ‘arbeh-locust2  consumed your crops3 
The footnote for "3" says:
3 tn The term “your crops” does not appear in the Hebrew, but has been supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
They simply added a couple of words to the Bible. In reality, nearly every verse is filled with choices for the translators. Just three verses earlier, it appears that they made a choice that I would disagree with:
(Joel 2:22, NET) Do not fear, wild animals!1  For the pastures of the wilderness are again green with grass.
The footnote says:
1 tn Heb “beasts of the field.”
For me, "beasts of the field," the literal Hebrew, was much more appropriate, because this is especially addressing the problem of animals that pasture, like sheep, goats, and cattle, which are often domesticated beasts. "Wild beasts" might be more consistent with how the NET translated the term elsewhere, but it gives the idea that it includes wild lions and bears and hyenas, for example. This particular choice can therefore end up being misleading. I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I took four years (7 semesters) of Hebrew in college, and I really love this kind of nerdy nit-picking when it comes to translation choices. But it's not that I think it's terribly important in the long run. It's not the kind of "adding to" and "taking away" from the words of a scroll that Revelation warns against.

All that repetition by JB about how the GB could be "taken out" either by God directly or through the hands of humans (and that it would happen sooner or later) was probably interpreted by some here as a semi-veiled threat. I remember exactly what you said at the time, and never took it as all that threatening. But someone did. Perhaps more than one person. And the action taken in removing JB was probably made at an admin level, not by any of those who might volunteer as moderators. I would not have thought you should be kicked out, but a website owner probably could face some kind of legal scrutiny if someone carried through on a threat, and they had let such talk go on.
Personally, I don't want anyone thrown out of here. There are many things I don't like about the content of several of your posts, but I'm sure there are things you don't like about mine, too. I can't believe all those "laughing" emojis I get from you are given because you think I am saying something comedic, especially when it's little more than a scripture quote that you appear to be laughing at.

Not exactly. Translation of ancient languages is an art. A lot of choices are based on context. I suppose we could get an online literal word for word translation that additionally has a pulldown menu when a specific word can mean 10 different things, and it could provide the thousands of choices for how to handle idioms and phrases that can change a bit based on context.
And, as Arauna mentioned, the causative (or reflexive resultative) can be translated with "prove to be . . ." The NWT is not the only translation that used this, although most other translators use it much more cautiously, because it can imply something in modern English that is not implied in the actual causative construction. In fact, one of those things it can imply is "proof" and yet it has nothing to do with the word "proof." That is why I brought it up here.
It is often appropriate in giving a certain importance to something that a person of power and prestige might say that is not so appropriate for the average person. And yet it is exactly the same verb construct for both, and consistency in a literal translation should acknowledge this. Also, there is always a certain amount of bias in any translation, and sometimes this bias is good, but even if the bias is in the right direction, it is still better to be as "neutral" as the original language was. If it's important to explain a certain bias in what it means, that can be done through teaching or commentaries.
A person, like Jehovah, with a self-directed purpose, actually means "I will prove to be," in the fullest implication of the words, when He says "I shall be." As a kid, I was once in a convention drama where a character kept telling another character, in a Captain Picard fashion, "May it prove to be so!" It was all pre-recorded, of course, but it was clear that it was more often used for "authority" because it has a more profound sound to it. For Jehovah, and for prophets speaking in his name, it still seems appropriate. And, as Arauna said, it is appropriate for Jehovah's use of ehyeh because Jehovah makes/conducts/reveals himself to display his qualities. This is why the Zondervan NET Bible (Full Notes Edition) has the following for Psalm 18:25 (and 2 Samuel 22):

Note E says:

 

@TrueTomHarley I know what you are saying, and I understand why you are saying it. It's similar to being a literalist. But that quote " proof they have God's backing" says  exactly what it means, and essentially boils down to this: In context Br. Glock was talking about apostate lies putting doubts into peoples minds about the GB. So, "In case you doubt the wisdom of the GB because they are imperfect and sometimes make mistakes and you want proof that they have God's backing, well here is proof". (Despite the fact that anyone can issue similar guidelines, and HAS issued similar guidelines). But sorry, all it proves is that the GB have been diligent in watching the world, are wise in applying the Bible's wisdom, wise in applying the authorities' advice and that they are concerned for us and want us to stay safe..
Really, the praise goes to all the hard working CO's, elders, and publishers who willing cooperate and actually make all this work! Without the co-operation of everyone in the organization, the GB can give wonderful advice till they're blue in the face and have Jehovah standing right behind them what would it prove?
Come on Tom, just admit it, it was not the best argument to prove a point ( Br. Glocks) or choice of words. And you must admit that this is somewhat of a clumsy effort at reassurance that the GB do have God's backing and that we can trust them. I believe there has been some success on the part of opposers in bringing the friends away. It was confirmed by a trustworthy elder, as I already mentioned in one of my posts. Br. Glock's talk is what the opposers like to call damage control. I won't call it that, because I am not on the opposers side. But I can see how some could think that! Actually, to be honest, I find it rather exciting as it may indicate something drastic is going to have to happen soon (oh, you don't say!)
By the way, apart from the "trust the GB because we have proof they have God's backing" bit I thought the talk was very good.
 

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).
prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1
for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."
Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."
In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."
Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."
And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")
Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."
(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .
(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .
(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

I haven't really changed my mind on the original position either, but if more Glockentin-style utilization appears, I will think its use has evolved. NOT necessarily that it was the original intention. I fear that we are discussing a very narrow "improper" usage of the topic among a much larger and obvious "proper" usage of the example. If I don't respond fully, it's because I think some will just become more confused in thinking that this is a complete rejection of the usefulness of the excellent counsel and leadership of the GB and their response over Covid-19.

Funny you should say that because after listening to the video for the 3rd time (!)(we had it as our local needs item on Tuesday) I was beginning to see why you used that explanation, and it started to make sense to me. I don't think you were wrong.
The thing is, obviously br. Glockentin didn't just get up there and speak off the cuff. He had a script, and that script was obviously vetted by the GB. The point is, when members of the GB speak, they do not want to appear like they are praising themselves, they leave that up to the helpers or someone else (I thought it was funny when some months ago one of the GB read out a private letter addressed to them, where Br. Christensen is thanking them and praising them) Br. Glockentin's talk reminds me of a situation in the past where the GB begun to be worried they might be losing the trust of the flock. I think you know which period I am talking about.    Just as a side point;  I thought the talk had an irrelevant title, "do not lie" yet it had nothing to do with counsel about how we should avoid lying to oneanother but everything to do with how others lie, and how we should avoid them....

It's not that God is giving separate and advanced knowledge about covid to the GB. The GB collect information from worldly experts just like anyone else can. But the difference is that many people do not consider the Bible's wisdom in their lives. All that the GB are doing is applying scriptures a.k.a wisdom from God. For example, Br. Morris quoted Proverbs 14:16 "The wise one is cautious and turns away from evil,But the stupid one is reckless* and overconfident." and applied it to covid 19 in that recklessness and overconfidence have literally cost people their lives. Then he quoted Ecclesiastes 7:12  "For wisdom is a protection just as money is a protection, but the advantage of knowledge is this: Wisdom preserves the life of its owner."  He said our aim is to make wise balanced decisions that protect lives. The next scripture was Proverbs 22:3 "The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself,But the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences" to which he said that we should not develop a casual attitude.
So all he did was apply these scriptures to the present covid situation and encouraged everyone else to do the same. He urged that we must not have a casual attitude. He said this because many people are relaxing in their caution, including probably the brothers and sisters. All that the GB are doing is reminding people that covid is NOT over. We hear the same from worldly media. We also know that countries which have relaxed their restrictions are facing a covid come back. Countries are relaxing restrictions so that people can get back to work. It is vital for the economy. But as Br. Morris said, we care about life more than money. 

So it's no so much that God is giving separate info to GB, anyone has access to the Bible, the same info, but it's more like the GB are paying attention to it and applying it, and urging us to do the same because many in the world are not.
Here is the video:
#en/mediaitems/StudioNewsReports/docid-702020283_1_VIDEO" ipsnoembed="true" rel="external nofollow">https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/StudioNewsReports/docid-702020283_1_VIDEO
 

Jehovah and Jesus can use and bless the efforts of any who have a zeal to do his will, even if not always according to accurate knowledge. If we can appreciate this, we can enjoy the blessings Jehovah offers to any who gather together in his name, who try to do what is right. And we need not get wrapped up in the idea that salvation is coming through the GB. We don't put our trust in earthling man, in whom no salvation belongs. But we can appreciate their work and efforts, even if mistaken on certain points.
We want to give a double portion of "honor" to those who take the lead in teaching, and we appreciate the teaching: especially as you say, the foundation doctrines. So it's easy for some to begin to confuse or misuse what it meant by double honor.

Yes. That is the point. And it was not just the statement about Covid19 that I was responding to in the speech, even though it was the only example I focused on.
If an example of good guidance proves that Jehovah is with the GB, then someone could just as easily point out that examples of bad guidance must be proof that Jehovah is not with the GB. Most of us who have been Witnesses over a long period of time will recall how a continuing theme of our meetings, especially the book study, for years had always been about how examples of bad guidance in Christendom is proof that they are being guided only by Satan. This can result in the same hypocrisy. But worse, it can make brothers, like the speaker above, feel that he must try to hide negative information away from the average Witness who can't face anything negative. It has made brothers like him in responsible positions try to declare that false doctrines had a good purpose in the past to filter out those who were weak. (This has been done for several of the big falsehoods like 1925, superior authorities, 1975 expectations, etc.)
If it ends up making us call what is good, bad, and what is bad, good, then we should point that out.

That is exactly how I feel. I hazzard a guess that I'm not the only one. It has actually been one of the things that I have found difficult to get my head around. I am glad that others see this paradox as well. What I find concerning though is when the same people who see the illogicality of it will then say something to the effect that they will just obey regardless. That's a bit scary. 
I like the way you explained what you think might have been the steps to rectify this situation. I meant to reply to your other comment a few days ago, just haven't got around to it yet!

No. That would actually be cynical. I was only saying that the idea I mentioned would sound cynical. Instead, I was proposing that someone wrote the original with no intent of implying anything ominous or "cult-ish." The GB would have checked it and it would have sounded perfectly innocuous, because they were also on the same innocent "wavelength" as the original writer.
Then as some others read it "in print" months later, they might have noticed the negative connotation and pointed it out. So the GB had a choice to clarify, or even admit it implied an unintended overstatement. As it was in a November 15th issue, it would be studied in the following year, and would have already made the bound volume by then, so that it was too late to edit it out. Later, in the February 2017 Watchtower, perhaps they thought that the statement was mitigated by admitting there that the GB is neither inspired nor infallible, and saying that may make mistakes not only in doctrine but in directions given.
But someone might have pointed out that this could sound even worse, admitting that we must be ready to obey fallible, mistaken direction.
So, since they probably originally intended things that would be understood better at the time when such issues came up, then the matter would best be cleared up when that type of issue might soon come up. I thought that the type of direction might come up with some of the brothers suffering persecution in Russia. As a made up example, perhaps some Russian brothers might be asked to stay and keep a low profile, while others might be asked take flight to Finland and Norway. "Why go there, so far away, when it's easier for us to just move to Crimea?" some Witnesses might ask. But the direction given might have been based on data that the central HQ of the WTS receives from many sources, perhaps even secret sources, not just the local information that Russian brothers might have had before some of their communications with WTS HQ broke down.
Anyway, the Covid19 case helped show that the original statement could easily refer to important, but potentially mundane directions, and didn't have anything to do with ominous or scary blind obedience. It was still a "weak" example as Anna pointed out, too. But it does help to defuse the overreach, so the GB were happy to use it.