ComfortMyPeople

So much can go wrong with trying to read too much into the numbers. Even if there is a database of 12,000 or more pedophiles, this does not mean that all of them were found to be actively committing crimes in the congregation. A big reason for such a database is clearly to keep a lookout for danger even if the person had been convicted or suspected long before becoming a Witness. Some were probably cases of incest, and crimes of opportunity, where the children are no longer in direct danger after they leave the household. (And this is another reason why the WTS would want to protect the privacy of such a database.) Many of the persons involved are likely dead by now. Remember that the brother who estimated this percentage was giving a rough estimate, not of how many are currently in the congregations, but the number that a typical congregation might "have had." If it was 1% over a period of a couple decades, then I would suspect it's more reasonable to conclude that there was another 1% or so who got away with it. But even here, we are talking about a period of decades, not a current number.
Recently, closer attention to the subject has helped to drive down the opportunities. It has helped parents stay more alert and better equipped to protect their children. I think you remember that years ago, on this forum, I complained that the WTS had not yet done nearly enough to change the process and the basic direction of the way such crimes were treated. In the last year, I have explained that I agree with the current direction. I have seen important changes to these processes, and important changes to the basic direction of the judicial focus. (There is no longer an implied element of protecting the reputation of the congregation, and the focus has shifted almost completely to the protection of children, and recognizing that the shame is on the perpetrator and no one else.) I am satisfied that the WTS did about as much as it was possible to do for now, and that most of the current issues are carry-overs from prior to these last changes.

True, UNESCO has promoted a new curriculum in most countries of the world for the past 20 years.  Poor countries see their fundi cuts if they do not comply. Under child sex education they teach children about worst forms of porneia and how to find pleasure in sex - oversexualizing them at a very young age.  If you think this generation is promiscuous - wait until this generation hits young adulthood. You can already see the effects of the school education on the youth at universities right now. They have NO respect for life and the rights of others to have an opinion. The lawlessness and rioting (for whatever the reason) is beyond normal behavior.
 

I think two reasons...one for protection of the sheep...and one for their own protection.
True apostates are devious and incredibly selfish...con men and women who speak artfully contrived things and aid in scattering the sheep who are already beaten down and wounded,....Apostates were stumbled..and need to have ones think like them to justify their stumbling.
Keep in mind many who are branded Apostates are not True apostates...I’m talking about True Apostates here,
Secondly  
They truly have been used by Jehovah in advancing Gods work and knowledge of his Great Plan....BUT....pride and humility And abuse of such a position may also prove to be their stumbling stone...
 

If it was JWI, you’d still be reading it. 
Because that “merely” is a pretty big merely. 
What if my roof caves in tomorrow and I decide it’s God’s fault? What if I park on the Kingdom Hall lawn, the elders tell me not to, and I say, “Oh yeah?! Well I show you right here on my blog!!!!” If I do it at Bethel, the GB will “merely” decline to put their stamp of approval on my rant—they will put me on potato-peeling detail in the kitchen instead, and call up someone from the bullpen who has his head screwed on straight. But if I am a loose cannon with my own blog—there is nothing anyone can do when I go haywire. That’s why I don’t ever expect to be acknowledged for my self-appointed role as an apologist, much less commended for it. Even the real apologists of the early centuries have not fared will at the hands of the writing committee, that tends to focus on things they got wrong.
No, the “merely” is a big deal. It makes for constancy and consistency. Call it a “think tank” at Bethel if you will. It is a concentration of gray hairs and experience, of meeting trials, of knowing they are to be judged for their actions (or inaction), of following up on having brought understanding of the sacred writings to begin with. 
I can just shoot my mouth off here, say whatever pops into my head, insult 4Jah whenever he deserves it (which is almost always), praise the Benoit Blanc movie even though there is crude language—and perhaps I have never faced a care in the world. But they can’t. 
What are my morals? I could (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) “be respectably married—or running a whorehouse in Buenos Aries.” Nobody knows. But the Bethel writers are vetted, not just for being good writers, but for being good Christians. They take it for granted that if your conduct is sullied, somehow that will come out in your guidance, even if it doesn’t seem to at first glance.
I had a friend that, eccentric though he was, had a gift of making complex things simple—even oversimplifying to drive the point home.  I can still hear him recounting to someone just how it works in Jehovah’s organization: “At Bethel, the Governing Body study their Bibles. An idea will occur to one of them. They will discuss it among themselves and when they all come to agreement, it will appear in print.”
“Now, the thing is,” he continued, “you also study your Bible. The same idea might have occurred to you, maybe even before it occurred to them. ‘And if this were Christendom, you’d run out and start your own religion over it.’  But because you know it is not a free-for-all, and you know that Jehovah is a God of order, you wait for material to come through the appointed channel.”
So if they have called themselves “Jehovah’s  mouthpiece” in the past, I can live with that. They have the greatest think tank collection of gray hairs that per the scriptures denotes wisdom, of experience in Christian works, in safeguarding and extending the king’s belongings, in knowing the will be held accountable before God. They have the  greatest sense of direction and following up on momentum. No, I will not do a Miriam and say—“does not Jehovah speak through all of us?” I am happy to have a thought that makes sense—I don’t go thinking I am God’s gift to the brotherhood for it.
The trouble is that there are so many literalists who see the expression “crocodile tears” and take it as proof that the one shedding them is a crocodile. There are so many literalists who do not strive to think of how phrases like “Jehovah’s mouthpiece” might apply, but they strive to think of how they don’t. It is the same with “being led by spirit.” It is almost too explosive a phrase to use because of the literalists—if you go to the bathroom—well—how can you be guided by spirit? since holy spirit would never do THAT!
It’s the same with elders and servants being “appointed by holy spirit.” How do you know they are? To my mind it is because the qualifications are in the Book inspired by holy spirit and the judgment as to how they measure up is made by a (small) “think tank” of holy spirit, and seconded by a traveling minister patterned after scripture—another repository of holy spirit. It works for me. But there will be some who think that if an appointee ever goes bad afterwards it must be that they were not appointed by holy spirit. I think not. Any of these terms must necessarily be “watered down” some when put in the context of humans, “in whose heart the inclination to do bad” is ingrained from youth up.
I think of certain brother appointed upon the recommendation of the BOE. The circuit overseer, an older and very experienced man, okayed the recommendation, with the observation: “He’s not the most humble brother in the world.” He didn’t have to be. All he had to do was to meet each of the qualifications to an acceptable degree. Alas, the CO should have listened to his gut, for the man in time went apostate. He was the one who was a history buff and used to impress the householder by answering, “Because I’m an historian,” when asked how he knew this or that about the past. Once I said to him, “Will you knock it off?! You are a history buff. An historian is when other people acknowledge you, not just you yourself!”
I could be wrong, but I bet the GB has learned to be very leery of such phrases and terms as “mouthpiece” and “inspired” and “spirit-directed”—not just for all the literalists, but for all the critics (who are often the same).  Some things if they say just once, it is magnified 100 times. Other things they say 100 times, only to find it ignored. “Don’t save seats for everyone you know,” they would say about the Regionals, “think of the elderly.” Finally, they gave up, and said to let the elderly in early, and everyone else only after the oldsters were seated. Innumerable directives went unheeded. Yet if they speak just once about “forums,” theIr words are enshrined for all time. I alluded to this in Tom Irregardless and Me. The organization would say that the Governing Body does not endorse such and such, and the friends would accordingly have a helpful sense of priority and focus. And then Oscar or someone would be found doing it, and Tom Pearlandswine would descend to tell him that the Governing Body DOES NOT ENDORSE!!! such and such. You never know what quote will be magnified and what will be forgotten, but I bet they are advancing on the learning curve.

@Thinking True. Mankind is imperfect after all. Perfection sheds no mistake whatsoever, but it's counterpart, imperfection, will commit to a mistake here and there, despite improving doing better in some instances, there is no way it can be immune to making no mistake.
That being said, I am sure everyone here has made some mistake in their lives, be it minor, or major... Perhaps even embarrassing.

I don't think they put two and two together....
I wonder why he had the need to add that "correction"
Yes, I noticed that too and wondered what this had to do with the covid situation. Following those instructions makes perfect sense from a human perspective! Unless by human perspective the GB mean anyone who is naive and of lesser intelligence, or someone who lives in a cave.. However, those who follow the developments in the world and read the guidelines as proposed by human agencies (as you mentioned) will know this pandemic is by no means over, and may last a very long time. We don't need the GB telling us what we already know. However, we do appreciate their reminders and concern. But to cloak this in a way that insinuates they have more knowledge, when all they do is follow the same developments that are accessible for anyone else to read and study, is....well, funny. As an after thought, they do mention following the guidelines of these human agencies. So this is just such a bad example of "might not make sense from a human stand point" because they kind of contradict themselves half way through. When this phrase was used in connection with instructions for the GT, where we might be told by the GB to do something that "doesn't make sense from a human stand point", is it something like this they had in mind? Lol. 
Food for thought more than anything 🤪

Wow Tom, that was a long reply! At first I thought it was JWI 😂. I am just playing, no disrespect to either of you, I do the same I know, especially when I get in my rant mode.
Gotcha!
I think you meant that Jehovah will raise up a prophet like Moses in reference to Jesus, the future Messiah. Which shows that Jesus became the "greater" Moses. What does that make the GB? That is why I don't think they can be viewed as Moses. Jesus already filled that role. We both agree they have some similar tasks in leading the people organizationally, and providing Bible literature, but as for having the status of being Jehovah's "mouthpiece", (or similar) I am not so sure about that. Many friends do think that, probably because the GB in the past have referred to themselves in that way. Is it any wonder then that some have this idea that the GB are more than what they actually are. And this can create problems, and has created problems where people leave the Truth because of this erroneous understanding. You inadvertently point out the problem: (in bold)
Those in the crowd might be less inclined to view things that way if the GB were NOT behind a curtain in the first place. And saying things like "we are Jehovah's mouthpiece" and "we will give you instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point" do not help.
But I agree with this though:
 
When I said the above, I was not comparing you to Furuli. By publications I meant the WT etc. I meant you could write them. Anyone with some intelligence and Bible knowledge could. My example was to show that the spiritual food provided by the GB is nothing that isn't there already (in the Bible). Just made more understandable and applicable in practical terms, which you could do as well. (in fact as we know, the writing department does all this, the GB merely proofread and put their stamp of approval on it). So how can it be said that God is communicating through the GB, (the FDS) if it's nothing new, and if you could do the same? That is what my argument was about. But you already explained what you meant.
Thanks (blushing modestly). No but seriously, it has done me some good too, I feel the same way:
Just gives you a broader view. I think any and all knowledge is beneficial, whether to deter you from doing bad, or encouraging you to do good. But then am I reasoning like Adam? Why would he want to eat from the tree of knowledge? Hmmmm.....
That's off topic, but maybe it could make an interesting topic!
I thought you quit that long ago. I have. There is no point. Maybe Reddit is different and compels you more to respond. I don't read Reddit. There is only one apostate forum I check on every now and again just to see if there is anything new. Not in their reasoning, that's the same old, but they are the first with leaked videos etc. That forum is more like a club where people of like mind associate. It helps them to cope with what they've left behind as they find encouragement from people of like mind and situation. If there is a JW club, (not here, I mean JW-Talk) you know there has to be an ex- JW club too.
 
 Yes. And poor Amber. I do actually feel sorry for her. (bold mine)
"Why wasn't she better prepared for the contrasting view"? Yes, it may have helped. But have you ever wondered why the likes of me, you, JWI, Arauna, Outta Here, ComfortMyPeople, b4ucuhear, JTR and others, although we have become familiar with the "contrasting view" we have not gone "rogue"? I have though about this quite a bit and my opinion is that those who fall away, do so not necessarily because they find out something "shocking" and thus lose faith, but because they find out something that gives them an excuse to fall away because they were already subconsciously that way inclined. Amber was unhappy in her marriage. I think overall she was not content with her life, hence looking for something different (China). Then comes along a charming kindred spirit that "opens her eyes" to the wonders of another world outside the JWs. She falls in love. And there you have it. The perfect end to a concoction to finally do what she really wanted. I can't speak for the others, but I have no need for any of that. I suppose I have matured enough now to see through these things. And yes, really making the Truth your own is key. Ok, I don't want do a Peter here and say we can never be stumbled and fall away, we can, but I would hope it would be a temporary lapse like it was with Peter. We are all weak in varying respects....but what is there outside of Jehovah? A brother asked the other week for us to imagine for a moment how we would feel if suddenly Jehovah stopped existing. I know how I felt. Is that perhaps another key to understanding why some leave and some stay despite man's (GB) imperfections?
Got to go, will continue later.
 
 
 

Aaah Tom you talk a lot..you have a lot of words.....and you at times come over as a bit self righteous...why did I chose thinking,,,not for the reasons you so wrongly presume....thinking was ..because I simply often dont know...what to think...is this right...is that right?...is he right...what if I’ve got it wrong?..Am I leaning on my own understanding??....always thinking..because I cannot afford not to...not having your confidence and assurity of one self...so alas..as old as I am...I have to keep thinking...to make sure...You are to cocky Tom...too self assured....but hey...every Congs got one....
If you read his book he clearly explains he spoke up because of the many who were disfellowshipped wrongly ...he had first hand experience ....and there was a lot of truth in this section of his book.
there were other reasons also...but that one stood out to me the most...
I guess he fell on his sword because he felt it was the right thing to do basically..he is getting old..his time is short...maybye there are other reasons..but I don’t know the brother myself..not personally.
ive never spoken to him...never watched him with other brothers and sisters...I have not read his other books....but that would prove nothing....Personally I think he would have done more good staying with in the cong..But he must have thought speaking up was worth the sacrifice.
your on a forum..I’m on a forum...JWI is on a forum...Billy the kid is on the forum.....but that’s okay...our sin is not as big as Rolfs sin after all...Is it?....ours is just a little sin...so we should be right....after all...a forum is different to writing a book isn’t it....Rolf did on a big scale what we do on a small scale...
you gotta give it to him...he had more guts than me and nearly everyone else on this forum...name and picture up for all to see....
we all use monikers ( not you ) because we know very well if we published our names and pictures we would be marked or out in that back room like jack flash.
we have been warned from the platform about forums...when we had meetings...I have anyway....
thats one point he was making in the book...
I totally agree with you that all the scholarly knowledge means nothing with out the basic love...And words are just as useless with out love too....Now I’m writing a novel...picking up your bad habit I think 😉
 
 
 
 

I see what you are saying, but this is like comparing pumpkins and slippers (Thanks to Arauna for the expression, possibly inspired from Cinderella). You are doing quite the opposite of what it appears that Furuli has been doing. I agree that the narcissism label is fraught with problems. But it is not evidenced in people who admit that they will likely agree with someone on things and disagree on other things and simply not understand one way or another on other things. This is already good evidence that you are NOT a narcissist.
I don't think Furuli is a narcissist simply for writing a book that trashes the current accepted view of the GB. As you probably know, I agree with much of what he says about that same subject. Just as I agree with what Fred Franz said about the subject from a scriptural perspective. And I have long presented my view that the "faithful slave" is a lesson for all of us, not a lesson about a clergy of appointed slaves to serve spiritual food for the good for nothing slave laity.
The idea of narcissism comes from the scholastic dishonesty he has engaged in. And, believe it or not, from my own perspective, I'm giving him a generous rationale for his scholastic dishonesty. If it is based on the inability to see where he has ever been wrong, then this is an explanation for why he cannot deal with evidence that shows he is wrong. A person can engage in scholastic dishonesty without being purposely dishonest in the sense of being devious. A narcissist will create such an extreme bias to protect their own ideology that it produces a mental block against rational handling of counter-arguments and counter-evidence. Extreme bias can make one engage in dishonesty without making them a purposeful liar.
On the topic of 607, this really has nothing to do with whether the date is right, or whether Furuli or anyone else has the doctrine right or wrong. It's simply about his many cases of obvious scholastic dishonesty. Even if he was absolutely right about 607 he still handled the evidence dishonestly.
I agree that it's quite possible I'm wrong. But if it has no overriding mental basis, I'd be inclined to see his past actions as absolute, purposeful, devious dishonesty just to keep his reputation intact. I have to admit that I think he has at times, engaged in this type of dishonesty, too. One time, on a very academic Biblical language forum he said something that was proven to be absolutely false, and he couldn't deny it. He couldn't admit he was wrong, so he claimed that what he wrote had started out as a purposeful presentation of the wrong side, that he had sent without the correction. To me, that was either a mental inability to admit being wrong, or it was purposeful "devious" dishonesty. 
And, as you say, he may be right on many of the points made in this latest book, but many of them continue in this consistent pattern of having promoted a certain ideology, from somewhere around the 1970s, for example, but with the inability to admit that anything that changed after that point had ever have been wrong in the first place.
I'd like to think that this latest book is a complete turning over of a new e-leaf, and I could dismiss the past foibles. Yet, he still wants the creative days to add up to 49,000 years.

Don't know who has had the midweek meeting yet. But the CBS this week is chapter 120 of Jesus - The Way, The Truth, The Life. The comments showed that so many were taking to heart that all of Jesus' disciples are the branches, and all should bear fruit, and this fruit is especially shown by following the commandments, and the greatest of these commandments is "love one another." Everyone was perfectly in sync with how this can and should apply to themselves.
To me, this is part of the great progress we have made in applying the lessons from Jesus' teachings to everyone. And then, at the last paragraph, a very knowledgeable older brother, makes a long comment that showed how an older WT said that bearing much fruit can apply to the effort in the ministry, not the success rate of making disciples. That was OK, I guess, but then he added that another older WT from 2002 says 'but of course the branches represent only the 144,000.'
It made me wonder whether some of that enthusiasm the whole congregation seemed to share in those previous answers might have been dampened just a bit by this idea that it doesn't really apply to most of us after all.
Earlier in the meeting, of course, there was the Covid19 announcement that implied the GB were in no hurry to open things back up. (There is a separate rumor that the current plan includes extending Zoom*style meetings all the way into 2022 in many countries, and seeing whether this might even be a preferable way to go forward in some countries.) During that part, the idea was repeated a couple of times that the GB ["slave"] had given instructions to be obeyed even though they didn't make sense from a human perspective at the time. The chairman commented after the video that instructions about Covid were the equivalent of spiritual food because it's about being cautious and saving lives, and that the video had included a couple of lessons from Proverbs and a lesson about following the secular "superior authorities" too, based on Romans 13. I don't see anything wrong the instructions, but it made me think about the fine line between spiritual food and just good advice, and how closely this "spiritual" admonishment was the exact same thing as the "secular" advice we are simultaneously getting from governmental agencies.
In a kind of "worst case" scenario, I wondered if a brother in Chile might have read a directive from the WTS that said they needed to put up the national flag of Chile on the KH property because of Romans 13, and then thanked the GB for the "spiritual food."

I am not sure, but do you mean that God communicates with us through the GB? If you do, then I do not agree. I do not think the GB are like Moses, or any prophet who Jehovah used in the past to communicate with his people the Israelites. Jesus did away with all that, he is the only high priest, and we have the holy spirit to help us. This goes for both the annointed and the great crowd. Not much difference in my opinion. Now do I agree there has to be organizational leadership, yes. I also think there has to be someone who makes sure the Bible is followed and upheld. So the GB calling themselves "guardians of the doctrine" as per Br. Jackson is ok too. Also the "spiritual feeding" is understandable as well, as long as it's not made up food and is always based on the Bible. But as for communication, well doesn't Jehovah communicate with us through his written word?  I know whenever this is discussed "Bible publications" are brought up, which is also ok, but those publications are not rocket science. You could write them. Would it then mean that God was communicating through you? Not unless you wrote something which was an interpretation of a scripture. And we know  what happens with that, some were wrongly interpreted. That's hardly Jehovah passing on information. 
Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I finally convinced my hubby that the GB are like the rest of us, except somebody has to take the lead....and the great thing is actually, GB agree with me 😁

Yes. It's the same old record. What the WT represents here is still a possible interpretation, as I've often said. But it contradicts the most likely interpretation of several other Bible verses, and it uses unlikely definitions and interpretations of the original Greek terms.
You already mentioned one of those potential contradictions, where Jesus couches all these "signs" in language about not being misled because even if you are seeing these things, the end is not yet. Of course, at some point in history, it may not be these particular signs, but there will certainly come a time when people will just simply "become faint out of fear, not know the way out." But we know that this is the time of the actual "end" or "synteleia" (the full [destructive] end of all things together.) But the rest of the chapter in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17 & 21 let us know that people will still be milling, farming, buying, selling, and getting married right up until this point in time. Therefore it comes as a surprise, as if without warning.
It should be of concern to more Witnesses, I think, that 1914 is sometimes defended as follows: Chronology, archaeology, and history say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE. But if we count forward 2,520 years from 587 we reach 1934 and we all know that nothing happened in that year. (Furuli uses this argument in his new book.) Therefore we look to 607 as the destruction of Jerusalem. He can do what he wants with shifting the evidence around to support the 607 date. What is of interest is the defense, 'it can't be 1934 because nothing happened then.'
If nothing happened in 1934, then why do we speak of a time starting in 1914 when critical times hard to deal with will go from bad to worse? If it was bad in 1914, then why wasn't it so much worse in 1934? Why has the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses been reduced to relatively nothing in 2020, if Satan's anger is based on knowing he has a short period of time? Does Satan no longer have a short period of time? If it all had to happen in 1914, then where were the earthquakes? Why are the most notable ones a decade prior to 1914, and decades after?
The reason is actually pretty clear. The Bible predicted that bad things would be happening in places, as always, but it would still be generally during a relatively peaceful time when people would be likely to take notice of peaceful and secure conditions around them. The Bible said that people, just as they were already doing in Peter's day, would be wondering if this promised spectacular judgment visitation (parousia) was really going to come upon them, precisely because conditions would be a lot like before the Flood when people kept living their life normally. That's what would make the parousia come upon them suddenly, like a thief in the night (and spectacularly, like lightning).
It should also be curious why Jesus spent time on the topic of an invisible visitation (parousia). He promised that the parousia would not be invisible. There is always a tendency of people to want to be seen as prophets or having special insight and discernment. So they will be saying that even though Jesus is not visible in front of you, that he actually has returned, but he's over here or over there, or in some hidden room somewhere. This idea is that someone would claim special insight or knowledge about Jesus parousia that you don't yet have. Jesus indicated that this idea of an invisible parousia is nonsense. After saying not to fall for those persons who say he's here or there, but invisible to you, Jesus said that the parousia would be like lightning that flashes from one horizon to the other. Even the very word "parousia" when used in Greek with reference to a visiting ruler, was not just about the "visititation" which would be enough, but also about the visible spectacle and the parade and the entourage and the trumpeted fanfare. No one has this special insight or discernment of the parousia to claim to others, because everyone can see such a great lightning flash at the same time.
So, you asked for my opinion, and that's it. But what I think is "false" information about it is not specifically the GB's opinion. They inherited it from old "Bible Student" tradition just like all JWs inherited it. Most JWs merely wait on the GB before thinking about changing their opinion on things because it makes for peace and order and unity in the congregation. Such doctrines are not the defining characteristic of JWs.
Also, as far as teaching the GB's teaching on this, the primary purpose of the teaching is to create urgency. There is nothing wrong with urgency. The Bible promotes it, too. Jesus may have begun the "Messianic" kingship in 33 CE, and that was in the distant past. 1914 is in the distant past, too. So it's not a disaster in terms of its effect on our lives. The "GB" teaching is that Jesus is invisibly present. This is not a disaster either, for the same reason: Jesus said he would be invisibly present starting in 33 CE. ("Wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus' name. there he would be (invisibly present) in their midst." Also, as soon as Jesus was resurrected he said: "Look I am with you [invisibly present] all the days until the "synteleia" (the full completion/full conclusion) of the system of things."
The basic message is that Jesus has begun his kingship, he is invisibly present, and he will shortly judge the entire world. This is not so far off, except in its chronology. And chronology shouldn't matter.  It did matter for as long as the WT was teaching that someone born before 1914 who was old enough to see the war in 1914 would not die out before the Judgment/end. This created a chronology error, a false teaching. It's been taken care of now that all those people died already.

I think nearly everyone accepts that staggered generations exist. The staggered generation might even include people born more than 90 years earlier than the point identified (1914) and more than 90 years after the point identified (1914). I believe you might have even commented on a chart about a year ago that was included in a post to prove that we SHOULD accept "staggered generations" in the expression "this generation."
The problem is that you start out making claims about the generation of 1914, and say that there are 180 years worth of staggered generations from 90 years prior to 1914, and 90 years after 1914. That's fine. But you don't have the right to just move the starting point to around 1992 instead of 1914.
When you account for persons being 10 years of age to "discern" 1914, then the staggered generations, as you showed yourself, could range from perhaps 1814 to 1904 to 1994. (With variations depending on how old people need to be in 1914, or with a "proper" age of anointing.)
But the Watchtower doctrine uses some (unintentional?) sleight of hand to move that starting point of the staggered generations from around 1904 to around 1992. This way it can start an additional 90 years or so, beginning around 1992 or so and therefore it can for another 90 years or so from there (up to about 2082 if necessary). 1814 to 1904 to 1992/4 to 2082/4. This means that your staggered generations have been changed from a total of 180 years to 270 years. What's to stop them from being defined as 360 years, or more, if that ever became necessary. 1814 to 1904 to 1994 to 2084 to 2174, etc. (And we certainly hope it would not be necessary.)

I found an old discussion where Anna had wondered about the purpose of the "overlapping generation" if one could surmise that it didn't really make full sense, to most people. I found that the closest related "hints" to these types of changes, even if they turn out not to be true, is that they keep us on the watch, and they are used to invoke urgency.
But my own guess was not about the GB particularly. I was basing it on evidence that is still with us, but mostly from past evidence from the time that the "Service Department" was treated as a separate entity from the "Writing Department" and was allowed to make unfiltered use of any points about "urgency" to make sure that it translated into more hours, more return visits, more Bible studies, more literature placements, etc. From the old "Bulletin" to the old "Informant" to the more recent "Kingdom Ministry" one could see a very strong correlation between "urgency" and "activity." I have two letters I picked up while at Bethel from the Service Department to District and Circuit Overseers that were written during 1976, and one of them refers to "continuing the good work of building up urgency" in the form of "setting congregational goals" through meetings with the elders, and "emphasizing the closeness of the end of this system." I have seen several of these letters, but only kept a couple of them. In 1976 it didn't really occur to me what was going on, but by about 1978 I had noticed that the Service Department acted almost as a totally different organization. It was a works-based organization and it was not totally aligned with the Writing Department.
The Writing Department --and 5 or 6 of the GB at breakfast "morning worship"-- were speaking a lot more about undeserved kindness, and how our works are really not counted as anything, when done in comparison to anyone else, but that works are only a by-product of our love for Jehovah and our neighbors. Any works that are accomplished for a different purpose, such as comparison to others, hope for a greater reward from Jehovah or his organization, etc., were not worthy in Jehovah's eyes. We are not rewarded for our works.
Yet the Service Department still seemed to put out information like in older days when the idea was spelled out very clearly that we were to create a 10 percent increase in subscriptions, a 15 percent increase in publishers, a 10 percent increase in this or that. It was the Service Department that had "produced" and trained the District Overseers who might preach talks like: "Stay Alive 'Til '75!" But this was a time when publishers were not as aware of some specific goals anymore, because the Circuit Overseers were beginning to set "quiet" goals with the elders, and then check to see how well the elders were helping to guide toward those goals, by checking back every six months or so.
Now, there is much less emphasis on specific service goals, and literature placements are mixed with electronic placements, anyway. There is no more need to tie goals and campaigns to the printing needs of factory facilities to estimate new inventory or reduce stacks of old excess inventory. The last few decades have eliminated almost all of the "secular" business-like methods of running a printing organization, and this allows for a wider range of ministries that we can still consider 'sacred service.' It allows for a closer alignment between the Service and Writing departments. And there is a much closer alignment now between the GB and Writing.
I have a feeling, of course, that you are waiting to pounce on something I said or perhaps mis-worded above. But I believe this has resulted in more focus on "spiritual" qualities, especially in the last couple of decades. I'm disappointed in the GB's view of themselves and how this has resulted in what Furuli calls "veneration" (but not "idolizing") by the rank and file. And I'm disappointed in the typical compromises and lack of candor that is always associated with trying to act like we have special knowledge of the times and seasons. But outside of those areas, the attempt to lead us spiritually has been exceptional, worthy of imitation, and a very valuable core set of teachings remain. I know of no other religion that promotes such a valuable set of core teachings, like a pearl of great value, that we don't want to just hide in a field.

I absolutely agree. I don't think any of us should need to know that many details about Watchtower history, either. Most history is actually very mundane. But I know that it was a really big deal in Bethel research. Doctrines and other historical facts about the Society often changed incrementally and more details were needed than just what was reflected in the "Publications Index" (Beliefs Clarified). And, as you are surely aware, most of our book-format study publications keep referring back to our own Watchtower history.
Some people obviously take more an interest in such history than others, and I'm pretty sure you are implying that I take too much interest in the details. But the only time I bring it up is when it might effect our CURRENT beliefs about that history.
There are also times when people CURRENTLY tend to believe a different version of Watchtower history than the original Watchtower articles tell us. Naturally there is often a reason for these disparities, and the reason is of interest to me.  Even when the Watchtower itself CURRENTLY "rewrites" its history, and there must be a reason for it, and I would think that reason should be of interest to all of us. Is it accidental? Is it to impress? Is it wishful thinking? Is it just something we believe because we trust that someone else before us already did their homework when they didn't? Was someone before us honest, or was it an accidental mistake?
For example, a person here just claimed that Rutherford became Russell's lawyer first before he became a Bible Student. I don't think this detail should be the least bit important to anyone, whether it was true or not. But I immediately recognized it as wrong. So I am interested in why he would say that. What was the motive? Was it to impress that he has knowledge no one else has? Was it an honest mistake? Does he have information that the Watchtower publications didn't know about? Did he hear or read it from someone and never bothered to check the veracity before repeating it. Was it just a misunderstanding?
Those of us who take a strong interest in history, also take an interest in how accurately it gets reported and repeated. I like to see what kinds of things get in the way of accuracy. This includes the way people are treated if they bring up a correction, especially how people are excused for repeating false history that tends to support an ideology, and how people are judged for bringing up a correction that tends to go against the "desired" beliefs.
I do too. That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying about the usefulness of a central body of elders.
This just means you don't have the same level of interest. I'm sure that's perfectly fine with everyone here. But you might have missed the fact that I never bring up the past unless it has a direct bearing on what is being taught NOW! And it is NOW that we are teaching a NEW doctrine about this that just changed recently. We are teaching that a governing body such as we have NOW was appointed in 1919. Why do we think it is important to keep repeating this? Especially if it is a falsehood? What does this particular falsehood do for us now? Was this falsehood an honest mistake? Was it an unverified repetition of something someone else said? I'm sure you get the picture. It's all about honesty, and doing our due diligence in paying attention to our teaching.

I think that all this of the generation could have, in fact, a very simple explanation: Jesus was only referring to the living people in his day, and that they would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70.
What complicates it "a little" is the intersection between the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the prediction of His return, of His parousia.
The apostles, in their ignorance, MIXED both issues. So Jesus' response could lead us to MIX the fulfillments. Even more complicated if we look for TYPES and antitype between the first and second fulfillment ...
What I see less complicated is that the ONLY statements unequivocally referring to the parousia, on his return, are those of
(Matthew 24: 29-31).?.?. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30? Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31? And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
All these followed by verses Mt.24: 36 and until the end of chapter 25
 
The fact that the statements about the "generation" appear in the midst of statements that ONLY will be fulfilled in the parousia could make us think that they CAN ONLY refer to the parousia
It happens that the biblical writers did not record the words of Jesus in a logical or chronological order, as we would do in our time. Many times they used a linguistic model called chiasm. This mix -apparently- the ideas forming an X (... topic for another day)
Thus, we find in the conversation of the Mount of Olives a mixture of events that had to do with the year 70, then for the parousia, and then back to the year 70.
(Luke 21:11, 12).?.?. And there will be fearful sights and from heaven great signs.
second coming
(Luke 21:12). “But before all these things happen, people will lay their hands on you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons.
year 70
(Luke 21:25) . . .Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars. . .
 
second coming
(Luke 21:29-32) . . .With that he told them an illustration: “Notice the fig tree and all the other trees. 30 When they are budding, you see it for yourselves and know that now the summer is near. 31 Likewise also you, when you see these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all things happen.
 
year 70
So perhaps the famous words about generation are some kind of interpolation between the 70 and parousia fulfillments, but related to the fist one. year 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem:
If we apply the generation statement to the period 33-70, the discussions of 1 / when it starts 2 / how long it lasts 3 / when it ends ...  IT ENDS! what happiness!

Agreed. But possibly for slightly different reasons. And it's all based on this word "immediately" in Matthew 24:29. If only that word had been more associated with "soon" or "after that" or "next." I have seen other reasons not to think of this as any kind of measurable generation if it can be said to apply to the generation before the synteleia/parousia in 70.
We have good reason to see this part of the prophecy in Matthew 24 as applying to the final parousia, but there is very little reason to apply anything else in Matthew 24 to the final parousia, except for the lessons we are expected to draw from everything that happened to literal Israel*Judea*Jerusalem:
(Romans 15:4) . . .For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope. . .
(1 Corinthians 10:11) Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
So for the final parousia, we will still need to be on the watch, but this time with no life-span measurable generation. We will still need to be careful not to be fooled by things we think are signs, like wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilence, etc. -- because this parousia is something we must always be ready for. We will still need to rely on the holy spirit when persecutions come and we need to defend our faith, or give a witness about the Kingdom to the entire earth. We still expect the faith of the greater number to cool off, etc. If it happened over a period of less than 40 years for THAT synteleia/parousia, then it will obviously happen in great measure over the 1000's of years that Christians might have to wait for the final parousia.
You already know that I love to weigh in on this topic, perhaps too much. I'll definitely continue this discussion later.
 

Sure, it's Acts 15:24, highlighted further below, but you'd probably want to see the context. And keep in mind that I am just interpreting, too. In Galatians, where Paul clearly makes a point that he did not get any apostolic authority or theocratic assignments from the "so-called pillars" at Jerusalem. Paul says in Galatians chapters 1 & 2:
"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was. . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me .  . . .But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;  we did not yield in submission to them, . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. On the contrary, . . . . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . . However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong.  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek, hypocrisy], . . .
So this is the backdrop of Acts 15. The NWT cross-references "the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy" to Acts 15:1 and 15:24:
(Acts 15:1) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,
It's not as important but "men from James" is cross-referenced to Acts 12:17, evidently to show that "James and the brothers" was a way of referencing the Jerusalem congregation. The WT uses this idea to say that James must have therefore been the "chairman" of a governing body at Jerusalem.
So, putting it all together, the situation is that JAMES, was one of the highly regarded men, who SEEMED to be important. But JAMES had sent spies to see if Paul was really preaching against the need for circumcision. But these spies, were evidently just supposed to spy for James, and report back to him. These men from James evidently did NOT have instructions to begin subverting Paul's preaching by promoting circumcision.
At any rate, you can see from Acts 15:24 that, in the message that went out from Jerusalem, it admits that these men "went out from among us" and "caused trouble" and admits that they were "trying to subvert." James says they did not give them instructions, which is a nicer way than Paul would have said it, of course.

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Furuli's Introduction and Chapter 1 are important as a foundation to the topic, but we can skip them for the purpose of a discussion. We'll go straight to Chapter 2 which starts out with a summary "review" that I have copied below.
Furuli opens up the discussion with the words I put on the left, and I'll add some comments on the right. They are color-coded to match up which paragraphs are being commented upon.
THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE -REVIEW
In Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, the presence (parousia) of Jesus from 1914 to the great tribulation is mentioned four times, and his coming (erkhomai) as the judge in the great tribulation, at the end of his presence, is mentioned eight times.
 
The faithful and discreet slave is mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47. The previous view of the GB was that the coming of the master (v. 46) occurred in 1918, and the slave was appointed over all his belongings in 1919. These belongings included the branch offices, the Kingdom Halls, and the preaching work.
The present view is that the coming (v. 46) is future and will happen in the great tribulation. Then the slave will be appointed over all the belongings by receiving a heavenly resurrection. This new view excludes any connection between the coming (v.46) and the presence of Jesus.
Nevertheless, The Watchtower of 2017 says that the slave was appointed in 1919 to give God's servants spiritual food at the proper time during the presence of Jesus. But no evidence has been given for this claim.
Luke 12:35-44 discusses the faithful steward, the discreet one, which, according to the context, is the same as the faithful and discreet slave in Matt 24:45. One slave was put in charge of a master's household to give the other slaves literal food at the appointed time. Such a slave is mentioned in Luke chapter 12, and when he faithfully is giving the other slaves food when the master returns, thus doing his job, he will be appointed over all the belongings of the master.
The situation is the same in Matthew 24:45-47. That the slave gives literal food to the other slaves is his job. When he is doing this job faithfully when the Lord arrives in the great tribulation, he will be appointed over all the master's belongings. The focus is on literal food and not on spiritual food. Thus, "the slave" refers to individual Christians who are faithful when the master arrives and not to a class of persons.
In Matthew 24:48-51, the wicked slave is mentioned. The GB says that Jesus is not saying that a wicked slave will come, but points to the possibility; this is correct. However, neither in Luke 12:42 nor in Matthew 24:45 is Jesus saying that the faithful and discreet slave will come. But Jesus asks who the faithful and discreet slave will be. In other words: "Who will fill the role of the faithful and discreet  slave in the illustration of Jesus when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation?" The whole setting in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 is:"Who will be on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge"?
Furuli still supports the idea that the "parousia" began in 1914 and goes on  until the "erchomai" (Judgment Day). Most Bible scholars believe that the "parousia/ synteleia/ telos/ erchomai" are all nearly synonymous, which coincidentally results in the same outcome as Furuli sees here. That's because the FDS illustration is specifically tied to the erchomai and there is no specific to to the beginning of the parousia.
Furuli is setting up to show how the doctrine got "confused" over time, and pieces of the interpretation are still based on older versions of the doctrine which are no longer consistent with parts of the new version. That's because the doctrine began when the erchomai was not "Judgment Day" but a judgment based on Jesus "coming in 1918 to inspect the temple." After the FDS passed the test in 1918, they were then appointed over all his belongings in 1919. Those belongings were said to be the properties and purview of the WTS. (I think that Kingdom Halls weren't added to this list until around 2006.)
It's not like the GB hadn't thought if this, because (as Anna pointed out in the other thread) they are now only supposed to be appointed as FDS prior to the "full reward" which allows for an appointment in 1919, it's just that there is no specific scriptural reason any more to place this appointment anywhere between 1914 and the future erchomai (Judgment).
Furuli's logic has started to weaken. He's right, of course, that there are no longer any scriptural reasons here to point to 1919, except to fit the GB's own view of themselves. There is no more reason to pick 1919 than 1915, 1935, 1972, or maybe even 33 CE. But nothing excludes a 1919 date either, even if one doesn't believe an invisible presence and kingship started in 1914. However, if Furuli really still believes in 1914 as he says he does, and he expects a single generation in which a preaching work occurs in the midst of trials and tribulations, then why not provide an FDS specifically or that special generation? If 1914 works for Furuli, then there is some logic to appoint an FDS shortly after that generation begins.
Nothing to see here. This is fairly obvious that Luke 12 gives the same illustration with exact same idea and only a few words added or changed.
I personally agree with this. Jesus was talking about persons who have a responsibility to do a job, that of giving literal food to the rest of the slaves in a household when the master is gone. A slave who is handles such a responsibility faithfully can expect a reward. Especially because it would be so easy to slack off and take advantage while the master is away. It doesn't have to be a prophecy about "spiritual" food  It's not a prophecy. It's an illustration just like others Jesus made about readiness.
Furuli is not giving credence to the WT idea that this must be a prophecy because it's found in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. Also, it starts out with a "who is" which has been taken to be a command of sorts to go out and identify who is meant here. Furuli seems to treat it like any other illustration, as if reminding us that we don't automatically create a type/antitype out of the carcass and the eagles in verse 28. We don't automatically look for a pregnant woman class and the nursing baby class from verse 18.  Who really is a householder that will know in advance when a thief is coming to break into his house? (v44)
At first it appeared that Furuli was agreeing with a linguistic reason from Greek that the WT uses to downplay the possibility of an evil slave coming. But this is really just agreeing that there is nothing definite here about a wicked slave coming. And this is paralleled with his view that this illustration is also not saying anything definite about a faithful slave coming, either. That's a surprising turn, but I suppose it's really like Luke 11:11 saying "Who really is the father who will hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?" It makes a teaching lesson, not a prophecy about when such a situation will prove true. Furuli treats it as if Jesus is saying what he said in Luke 18: 
(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”
 

I already gave my opinion that there is nothing wrong with the structure the Watchtower is using in the attempt to imitate the first century. There was a similar congregational structure in terms of their bodies of elders/overseers. And I don't see a problem with trying to imitate the body of elders at Jerusalem, which does appear to be a respected council of elders. Up to a point, this is a very good thing.
It seems fairly clear from what Paul said to the Galatians that, to them, Jerusalem seemed to have a lot of respect for having some of the most famous "pillars," James, Peter and John. So there was no doubt a tendency to give extra credence to what came from Jerusalem's body of elders. No doubt it would be a great privilege to actually visit the congregation(s) in Jerusalem and hear eyewitnesses of Jesus speak and teach.
But I don't think the letter of Galatians would be included in the Scriptures if there was not also a limit to the respect given to imperfect humans, even apostles. We know that in Galatians Paul accused at least one apostle and other persons of hypocrisy. But he went much further on what he thought of the concept of treating that body of elders at Jerusalem as a "Governing Body." He directly answers your question about whether apostles should feel that they had some obligation to go before them in the sense of a "governing council."
Paul showed that there was no reason for an apostle to feel obligated to go before such a "governing council."
(Galatians 1:16-20 to 2:6) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. . . . But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
So, apparently, Paul never had to go to the see the council of elders in Jerusalem until some of those elders from there began causing problems. Because some of those elders in Jerusalem needed to be set straight, Paul received a revelation that he should go there. So he went, even though he previously had only one short visit in the last 14 years or more. Paul knew that he needed to help set things straight with them or else they could ruin all the progress he had made, and he would therefore be be running in vain against that body of elders. Paul had to go to great lengths to explain why, if they were pushing a different gospel, then they meant nothing to him even if they were apostles, or even if they had been angels!
I think the point was that, of course there was a body of elders in Jerusalem, it was natural that there would be, and it was natural that people would think of them as highly regarded, and that they would seem to be pillars for all the congregations. But this was dangerous for people to have that kind of respect for humans, because, in reality, that Jerusalem council should not have tried to push its influence on the congregations around Antioch, which teachings had now reached all the way to Galatia. Because of Paul's visit, the body of elders in Jerusalem issued a statement showing that it was their fault, and that they had gone too far in trying to encroach on the consciences of Christians in other places.
Instead, evidently, each congregation should have been more like those 7 congregations in Asia Minor that we find in Revelation 2 & 3. Whatever contact they had with each other was not important to mention here. So they are shown (symbolically) to be held before Christ himself as judge of their actions. Each of them were praised for taking their own action against false teachings and those who called themselves apostles. The counsel from Christ Jesus is never about the idea that they had not listened to this Jerusalem Council, or a group of apostles, or even an elder/overseer like John who may have known those seven congregations of Asia Minor through some kind of shepherding or circuit work for many years.
That said, I don't see anything wrong with having councils of elders in our twenty-first century world, which should include a variety of "gifts in men" including those who claim and show evidence of being anointed. And I think the most "gifted" in teaching, would be appropriate. They would be elders of course with appropriate experience in taking the lead, and as elders they would deserve an extra measure of respect. It appears to me that we have already have the right idea, but if we listen to Paul's letter to the Galatians, we can also see the dangers of giving such a group of men too much credence, respect and authority.
The end result of having the apostles stay in Jerusalem together, for a time after the holy spirit anointed them in 33 CE, was no doubt to help them straighten out necessary scriptural questions and provide that "holy spirit" for us today through the inspiration to produce the Christian Scriptures.
We know there would be a natural human tendency for such a body of elders to want to impose their conscience on others, as they might feel it was more experienced, and a more Christian-trained conscience. With good intentions, they might wish to be the governors of another person's faith. All of these natural tendencies are already counseled against in scripture:
(1 Corinthians 10:29) . . .For why should my freedom be judged by another person’s conscience?
(1 Corinthians 4:3) . . .Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . .
(2 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.
 

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed, it just says that Peter should feed the little sheep. it does not logically follow that no one else should imitate the good example that Peter was to give us. It's the job of a shepherd to feed his sheep by guiding them to pastures where they feed.
Look what Paul says:
(Acts 20:26-28) 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, . . .
(1 Peter 5:1-4) 5 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
(Ephesians 4:11, 12) . . .And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:
I would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and
other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation, the GB
has been accused of having directed elders to hide such crimes from the authorities.
The first time such crimes were known to elders in Norway was around 1990. Since
then, elders have been advised to take particular measures to protect children, and
always to cooperate with the police. So this accusation is wrong!
Much earlier in the book he did mention it in one paragraph, but not anything controversial:
When I preach the good news, I often say that we Jehovah's Witnesses
believe in the Bible and the Bible alone. We do not accept any creed or
dogmas that are made by humans. In a big organization engaged in
worldwide preaching, there must, of course, be rules made by humans, as
also was the case in 1972. For example, elders in the congregations need
advice on how to deal with different issues, such as the molesting of
children and different legal matters. I am not speaking about such matters.
But I am speaking about decisions made by the GB that interfere direcdy
in the lives of individual Witnesses, and which are not based on the Bible.
 
P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

Your question can be taken in several different ways, so I can't assume which question you are asking. Are you asking in what sense the 1944 article explained the Elder arrangement, or 1969-1971 until now, or about elders before 1931?
In general, the 1944 article explained that it should be the way we are doing it now. It was just ignored for 25 years until it came up again for serious consideration around 1970. Before 1931 the congregations would have a larger say in who they thought were meeting the qualifications for elder that were found in the Bible, based on the idea that "as you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith." It's not like Russell and the Bible Student congregations had ignored the qualifications found in Titus and Timothy. But this had resulted in some persons who were not loyal to Rutherford's changes. In some cases elders were too stuck on Russell's ways, and in some cases elders were trying to use scriptures to show how Rutherford was abusing his power. And some were mixing both messages, pro-Rutherford in some ways, and anti-Rutherford in other ways. So Rutherford needed better control of the message for the sake of unity, and changed the whole system to be hierarchical from the Society on down. This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord. It continued through the 1940's and 1950's, which is probably why the Bible counsel printed in 1944 was never implemented until 1971.
If you think I am removing the GB from this structure it is only because the GB did not exist from well before 1919 and continued to not exist until the 1970's.
Yes, I understood that when you compared the Sanhedrin to other "governing bodies." I understood that you were not misusing it. And neither was I. No problem there.
I still don't believe it was Raymond Franz' ideology to bring back the voting rights of the congregation. Nor do I support the view. Where are you getting that from?
From everything I've read in his books, I'm sure he did NOT. If true, that kind of "news" would have been spread everywhere, but I don't see anyone even thinking about claiming this. But I haven't finished all of "ISOCF." Perhaps you have some evidence?
There are many pieces of evidence that are even admitted from Watchtower publications themselves that there was NOTHING at all like a GB under Russell. Even the way in which the term "governing body" was typically used for many years (from the 40's until the 70's) tells us that there was no governing body in the way we now define it. And there is evidence that Rutherford was even MORE like Russell in personally deciding all matters of any importance from a doctrinal perspective. Still, there might have been small areas where others handled responsibilities that Rutherford didn't care to handle. Ray Franz claims it was still like this even after the governing body was expanded to include additional members besides the board of directors in the 1970s.
My understanding, for it's worth, and that's not much, is that every organization does better with something like a governing body. Religious or secular. And it's human nature for some to take the lead, and human nature for others to prefer following the lead of others. And as I've said on the other thread, it makes sense that some elders would be better at presiding, decision-making, organizing, speaking and teaching. Just as some would be better models for others in the way they bring up their families and provide for them, or show hospitality, or encourage the weak, or find opportunities for charity, visiting the sick, etc.
Therefore, for some elders, being part of a decision-making council makes sense. I would expect it in almost every large religious organization. But especially in our own, due to the importance and magnitude of the preaching work, translating work, distribution of literature, managing assemblies, writing for publications, answering issues that arise, handling legal issues, etc. 
Also, because of our desire to match to the first century, we are generally pleased with the idea that, if they had something like a governing council in Jerusalem, and we know that at least 1 of those persons on that council was an apostle, then we should expect spiritual men with a good level of experience and spirituality to be assigned to such a governing body today. And, while we know they are flawed and won't always say and do the right thing, our current 'governing body' is known to have successfully worked at varying levels of responsibility in their assignments and ministry.
So I have no problem with a 'governing body' even though I think that specific 'title' stuck for secular/legal/bureaucratic reasons and is probably not the right name to represent the position these men should hold. Some of these additional opinions of mine are trivial, however.
On the question about a governing body in the first century, I think that's a little more germane to the topic. I'll get into that if time permits.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 
His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.