ComfortMyPeople

Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this:
Jude 4
I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives.
This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness."
(1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst?
Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels?
It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?

No surprise there!  
What I do NOT understand is the logic of the men who hate JWs.   They try to prove that we are impure and allow homeosexuality (when we clearly do not) and in the next breath critisize us when we shun unrepentant homxosexuals and fornicators in cases where we DO have sufficient evidence..  They neglect to remember that experts find it hard to gather evidence.
We are too harsh for our detractors when we shun when we have sufficient evidence and  too compassionate when we do not have enough proof.  We are too compassionate when  someone has confessed (the law protects lawyers and spiritual leaders from disclosure of confessions - especially if this can be used against them in court - and the government has not removed this law but wants JWs to act against the law of the land. The police must do their own investigation and come up with the evidence or the congress must change the law...... but I doubt this will ever happen because many high officials are child molesters) ) and JWs are too compassionate to allow people off the street to attend our meetings not knowing if they have been molesters. 
So the best is to do the best possible we can do and leave the rest to Jehovah.  Our detractors are angry because we DO follow the  bible and its principles and the majority DO try to live clean lives .....  they hate it because they want to feel more pure while not caring for bible principals at all  or still adhering to impure teachings such as trinity, immortality of the soul etc. 
That is a blanket statement and that usually is an indication of bitterness and resentment....... 

Fair enough and I agree with you on that. There is always a risk - even when we try to do the right thing, pray, follow scriptural principles, avoid bad areas... I'm sure you would also agree though, that some actions are riskier than others. i.e. jumping off a cliff is riskier than jumping off a curb - (unless you are jumping off the curb into traffic)  For instance, if you know an area of your city is known to have a high crime rate - especially at night, you might feel it prudent to avoid that area when you have a choice. True you may not be attacked, but the chances of that happening to you are significantly greater if you expose yourself to that environment. Not to flog this... (OK yes, I am flogging it ) One more example. You might not get cancer from smoking cigarettes, but the evidence shows your chances are greater of getting it. And in fact, even if you felt you were willing to take the chance yourself, would you be willing to set that example for your kids by smoking at home? They would see your example and possibly feel it's fine to follow your example, in turn putting them at greater risk of both addiction and cancer. That's the point I was clumsily trying to make. Personally, per se, I am not a dogmatic "opposer" of higher learning such that I would take it upon myself to punish others for choosing that option. But I would also candidly admit from real-life examples I have seen, that it poses a higher risk to spiritual objectives than other grades of schooling (which of course, as I recognize, can come with their own risks.) 

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?
I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

I am not in the U.S. and so cannot confirm or deny your comments. I can say that reporting is mandatory in my country.
I agree with that. After all the GB themselves have appointed men who were not whom they appeared to be (as have other levels of authority within the organization.) As for the rest, I assume you are referring to Deut. 18:20 which JW haters are so fond of parroting. You are going beyond the scope of your reference in your suggestion especially as to how JWs use the term as applying to themselves. The GB put out a video explanation of that for clarification as it seems some JWs needed to be clear on that issue as well. 
I was willing and planning to write a point-by-point response to the things you have written - including those I may agree with. But frankly, now I think it's just a waste of time. You clearly have an agenda that won't be swayed by what I consider "facts" and your hateful diatribe (from someone who apparently doesn't even believe in God in the first place) is to me, counterproductive. I am happy having a purpose in life, a wonderful hope for the future and a warm loving relationship with my creator and many friends. I wish the same for you, but of course, you may already be happy and content with what you have. We will have to agree to disagree - on some points at least. 
Umm...it's called being honest in case you don't recognize it. You noted correctly that I was willing to acknowledge negative things that may happen, but when I wrote what I considered to be reasonable explanations/positive points, you dismissively wrote it off as "excuses." Truly, there is no pleasing people who appear to have a hateful agenda and only see the bad. You are of course welcome to your opinion. It's just that on some points I don't share your opinion. Is that OK? 
I have been willing to honestly acknowledge both positive and negative things about us, but I've only heard negative, hateful diatribe from the naysayers here with not one positive thing to say in all these missives. There are millions of JWs who are good people by any standard, but if anyone bought into your nonsense they would all be viewed as bad or negatively. I may not agree with Muslims, Catholics, Pentecostals... but I can always find points of agreement when engaging them in conversation and things I like about them - even when it isn't a religious discussion.
So as far as I am concerned, you are not only unfair in your blanket characterizations, I simply don't find your association either enlightening, helpful or even fair-minded.

@AlanF 
While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty." Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming. The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation. (While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen. True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing, but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.  
It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves. I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others. Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can. And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be. We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others. 

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COULD be a bit misleading depending on how literally you view that statement. Should we assume then that elders will do everything perfectly - as if Jesus by holy spirit has them on remote control - controlling every thought, decision and action within the congregations? If that was the case, the elders/GB would always act perfectly. Should we actually expect that today? Recall, that even while Jesus was letting the first century anointed elders know that they were accountable to him as to how they used the authority entrusted to them, what was actually going while he was yet speaking? Apostasy, immorality, lukewarm, half-hearted service that wanted to make Jesus vomit them out of his mouth... Why would that be the case when Jesus is in authority?
As we recall, we are often reminded not to expect perfection from our brothers and sisters - including appointed elders. The  apostle Paul candidly described his battle with good and bad inclinations. But there are other reasons too.                                    
1) Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. But humans are limited in that respect and sometimes mistakes are made. (i.e.. GB appoints an individual as an elder and later as a Circuit Overseer who turns out to be a communist spy that turns in the brothers causing some to stumble. Jesus didn't direct that to happen. After all, he would be working against his own interests - like a house divided. It was human limitation.)
2) Neither Jesus nor holy spirit take away a person's freedom of choice. (As was evidenced by what was going on even while Jesus was speaking). As we also know, in the first century, there were men in the congregations described as "rocks hidden beneath the surface." They weren't forced or directed to do that. That was their personal choice - which is important because our heart conditions are revealed by the choices we make. Anyone - including men in authority can make a wrong choice if they don't guard their heart. Freedom of choice is important for obvious reasons. 
3) If something isn't dealt with right away, does that indicate Jesus isn't in control of the congregation? No. As the comments point out, "if someone needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." And it should come as not surprise that it's always been that way. As 1 Tim. 5:24 states: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." Later?!! How much later? The Bible historically answers that too. Sometimes the sins of some men like Korah and others became publicly known leading directly to judgment (when the earth swallowed up the rebels.) But other times, faithful men endured injustice for years, or decades and some would never see justice until the resurrection. So at times, things don't happen when and how we think they should. Or when we think is best. But we can have confidence that, as in the past, they will be dealt with one way or another. 
4) The operation of holy spirit can at times, be hard to "quantify." The first century Christians had strong and undeniable evidence they were anointed by holy spirit and some even had miraculous gifts. Even so, they didn't always have a complete understanding of things and some expectations were premature - although they were very interested as to where they thought the spirit was leading them. Likewise today. At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much. Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. Well meaning, yes, but sometimes we forget that instead of making "predictions," (even while admitting we are not miraculously inspired prophets), our mandate is to preach and teach - not make up stuff that doesn't have a specific Biblical foundation. Historically and biblically there is nothing new to this. God's people have always had a gradual understanding of the outworking of God's purpose - and often leaning new things means we have to discard old things.
  But in all of this it's important to remember what is truly remarkable about benefitting from Jesus' authority as head of the congregation and what he has been able to accomplish using imperfect men. Miraculous some would say.
A) Jesus has been able to direct a world-wide preaching work using imperfect men, women, children and yes, imperfect elders. But it's much more than that when you think about it. We are preaching in Satan's backyard. He is the "god of this system of things" and has the support of powerful spirit creatures (henchmen) and world governments. And what is part of the message we deliver? "Satan is a malicious liar and that he and all of his spirit buddies, along with the world system he has spent thousands of years to develop, are all going to be destroyed." We preach that "right in his grill." How do you think that goes over? We would never be able to accomplish that if Jesus wasn't a powerful king in control of the congregation. So do we faithfuly follow the direction of appointed elders as to the details of accomplishing this ministry?
B) We have what everyone has wanted for thousands of years but been unable to achieve. World unity. Despite being from all nations, tribes and tongues - from different backgrounds and stations in life, we are united. But we aren't just united in a stalemate - "I won't attack you if you don't attack me." No. We are united because of the love we have for one another. The type of love that Jesus taught and demonstrated in our behalf. 
C) Many/most of Jehovah's Witnesses come from other religions. Even those born into the truth are exposed to many people from different faiths. And there is one thing we can all testify to: Spiritually, we are BY FAR, the best fed people on earth. More than that. We are the best fed group of people who have ever lived. We even know things first century Christians didn't know. Al of this is readily available. That is no accident. and Jesus continues to educate us using (imperfect) elders as teachers in the congregation. 
We benefit from a loving arrangement Jesus has by holy spirit set in place for our benefit. It's helpful to liken this arrangement to having good parents. As we grew, they fed us, cleaned us, clothes us, disciplined us, taught us, cared for and sympathized with us. When we were hurt they supported us. And even when we reach maturity, they are there for us and continue to love us. Again, this is possible by means of Jesus direction in the congregation and holy spirit.
  
 

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements. 
In my country years ago, both doctors and clergy were simply not allowed to go public with what was then considered private/protected/privileged information and if they did so, legal repercussions could arise. For instance, it wasn't until the '80's that the laws changed and doctors were required to report cases of AIDS for - which was then transferred to a national data-base. One of the reasons for this was that certain individuals were deliberately spreading AIDS and partners needed to be warned. Likewise as molestation cases came to the fore, the laws gradually changed. But even then, at times they applied in different ways and in different areas, or not at all. (i.e. ARC hearings...) We now have more comprehensive laws that address these injustices - requiring/allowing religious authorities to report them without legal repercussions. So to be clear, elders are REQUIRED to report these cases now and the legal department is involved to ensure they do just that. Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place. But we have made the changes. 
 If anyone in a responsible position is aware of child molestation going on, he is legally bound to report it to the authorities. But if he fails to do so and must face the legal consequences for his non-action, (which as we know can have devastating consequences for the minor) I can't say I'd feel sorry for him. 
Gen. 42:22 "Did I not say to you, 'Do not sin against the child,' but you would not listen?' Now his blood is certainly being asked back.
James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped. What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle. I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me. Then in my reply to you I said:
I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either (that is why I said something, and that is why my mum handled it). If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else? And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"? That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood. I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high. 
Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way. But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified (the accusation).

Anyone who wishes to share their opinions, personal experiences, (or the experiences of others) they had with Fred Franz, can do so here!

I have some time today ... so i’m moving a few posts not related to the title of the topic

The spiritual food can only be what is in the Bible. But obviously, this is not what you’re talking about, but rather the interpretation of the Bible. The Bible says it’s good for setting things straight …so man of God is completely equipped for every good work.  This concerns the basic teachings, as you say: "To be good, not lie, love your neighbor, to preach Kingdom, not have idols ....and similar". If that was all there was, then it would be a much thinner book. I don’t know, what percent is here of the basic teachings? I have not looked into that, but let’s say it’s 50% of the Bible. So that leaves the other 50% that concern other things. Should we say that there is no use for that other 50%? What is for example the use of the book of Revelation? It’s a “A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place”. Would it be of any use unless it was understood? Verse five (of ch1) goes on to say: “Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near”. You can’t observe it unless you know what you are looking at.  That’s great because not only is it a highly symbolic book, but its chapters and verses are not always in chronological order! It’s a real challenge to interpret the riddles that are in it. Have the JWs done this perfectly. No, I don’t think so. We have changed how we understood a few things already, and some we still don’t understand. Does that mean we should stop trying to understand, and just ignore it? The same goes for the rest of the prophetic Bible books, such as Daniel etc. They are there for a reason. Does it mean JWs didn’t get enough holy spirit if they made mistakes in some interpretations?  Don’t forget the holy spirit does not work on our terms. God is perfectly in control of holy spirit and knows when and how much to give, it’s not up to us to judge. The Bible is full of examples where it appears that God’s servants were not getting help from God. Think about Joseph, all the things he had to go through before finally things worked out for him.
I would not expect it to say that. It would be out of character of all the other scriptures. It stands to reason that there should be a centralized system of direction. As you say, organizationally it’s doing very well, but your problem is with the spiritual aspect. Why should that be a problem though? Jesus said that the shepherds were to feed his sheep spiritually. It started of as one congregation. But now it’s thousands. You just have to look at it that the whole world of JWs is one big congregation, being fed by shepherds that happen to be in Warwick. You are putting too much emphasis on 8 imperfect men, whilst what you should be looking at is the arrangement which has a Biblical basis.  Congregations are not autonomous spiritually. All JWS are one big congregation. What about interpretation? There has to be a centralized tenet of belief. Otherwise no one would be able to identify Jehovah’s Witnesses by their beliefs. Every religion has their doctrine by which they can be identified. Jehovah’s Witnesses hope to have a doctrine based exclusively on the Bible, free of pagan influences, and as close to the 1st. century Christians as possible. As for complicated prophecies, well, that is a work in progress, but that should not be a deterrent. 

I am creating this thread in response to all the non-sequitur replies all the other threads get. 
I will try to not care if someone responds with a Turkey recipe or True Tom spams us again. 
This is me throwing up my hands. Officially.

Evading the real question.  The cambrian explosion refers to an explosion of so many different kinds of animals in  a short period of time without any hint of " precursors"  found in earlier layers of the earth........... and you turn it into an argument of the jawbone during this time - totally missing the point.   
Explain the sudden appearance of wings, explain the explosion of all the different kinds of mammals without any hint of it in previous layers of the earth.   The jawbone is a side issue..
 

When my children were young, preschool, at the Kingdom Hall I required them to be quiet and respectful, but did not require them to pay attention.  I let them scribble, and do coloring books, and play silently with very small toys in their seats.
Today my oldest is an elder, and all three are strong and active in the truth of the Truth (to the best of my knowledge), have very good jobs and married well ... VERY well. 
It was more important to me for them to have HAPPY childhoods.
Meantime, I know many elders whose children all left.
.... but then again ... I am a Barbarian and a loose cannon.
...  silly me.

I quite often think about that also ... and lament the burdens we have to bear because of legalism, verses common sense, love, mercy and justice.
Under the current environment and polices, if we DO "rescue a sheep on the Sabbath", we will be disfellowshipped and ostracized.
I know this, not on a theoretical level, but from recent personal, painful experience.
Fortunately, I was tough enough, and experienced enough to survive the experience.
...many, many .... are chased away forever.
 

Definitely, I do not get pro-creation papers in my mailbox......I read the newest information to see the flaws in it - for myself.
For example:  when they found more than 10 proteins in dinosaur bones-  it pointed to a younger earth.  The next paper was a rebuttal.  They postulated that the iron in the blood must have preserved the proteins in the bones. They proved in the paper that iron CAN preserve proteins - which is the only information I agree with.
The problem I had with that  postulation was is this: large amounts of blood are not available in the bones and  while one may find a centrifuge in a lab to concentrate the iron for a test ......  I have never seen a dinosaur bone with a built-in centrifuge to clump the iron in the blood together to preserve the bones.  No-one spotted the absurdity that one cannot compare what happens in a lab to what happens in nature. 
I can give you another example with Mr Dawkins.  He made a big do about analysing and cutting out the nerve of a giraffe on TV  and demonstrating how unneccesary it was for the nerve to curve around the heart - he said it was bad "design"..... a left over from evolution.
As an African I immediately spotted his lack of understanding of animals and lack of thinking things through.  Giraffes have exceptionally long necks and need the heart to get feedback of the pressure to get the blood to the head..... the design is perfect...... there are other reasons as well......in our bodies "everything"  is connected ...... which is one of the several complexities which  point to design.
For example: one needs the brain to interpret what the eyes see.  The eyes in its complex design cannot see without the brain, which interprets the information.  Which one came first? They eye or the brain.... when they both need each other to functio, it means there was pre-existing  "information" that the other organ would exist. This indicates a presence of "coordinated information" or "pre-knowledge"......... a form of intelligence.
Male and female organs that developed separately yet are perfectly biologically coordinated.... each providing only HALF of the genetic material needed to produce a new life etc..... I can go on and on....
Obviously - one of us is a fanatic about " religion" ...... and I know it is not me.   SCIENCE is not as infallible as you thought.... scientists are often egotists...... they do not always go in the direction the truth leads them but in the direction where they can publish papers.  So your Mommy Science has fed you a lot of claptrap and it does not even have good motives. 
..... 
According to science there was an ice age inbetween..  and the  "goldilocks" conditions " over such a long period of time is a fallacy.   
 

I think I am going to find that quote, cut it out, have it laminated, and keep it in my wallet, as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card for future use.
Several years ago I was Df'd, and at one of my many reinstatement hearings over a period of three years, the last one where I was reinstated, the C.C. asked me something along the lines of "What do you think about the decisions of the Governing Body?"
I looked at him in the eyes and replied "I will have to agree with what was stated in the February 2017 Watchtower, that they are neither inspired, or infallible."
Dead silence as if they had been bonked on the head with a wooden mallet.
Then the C.C. said to the other two Brothers' surprise "Oh, yeah ... I remember reading about that ...".
I was reinstated the following Wednesday night at the Circuit Overseer's visit.
 

I don't have any way of telling. As of about the last four or five years, the last of the writers I might have generally recognized are failing in health and getting very few, if any, new assignments. (Aulicino, Smalley, Wischuk).
I noticed that in the preceding paragraph there is a point about "greenhouses" that appears incomplete. This is sometimes a hint that it was edited down from a talk that had once expanded on the greenhouse illustration. Perhaps someone remembers who gave such a talk?
*** w19 September p. 23 pars. 10-11 “Come to Me, . . . and I Will Refresh You” ***
10 Jesus created a peaceful, inviting environment for his fellow workers, and he enjoyed training them. (Luke 10:1, 19-21) He encouraged his disciples to ask questions, and he wanted to hear their opinions. (Matt. 16:13-16) Much like plants in a greenhouse, the disciples flourished. They absorbed the lessons that Jesus taught and produced fruit in the form of good works.
11 Do you have a position of authority? If so, ask yourself: ‘What kind of environment do I create at work or at home? Do I promote peace? Do I encourage others to ask questions? And am I willing to hear their opinions?’ Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34.
There is no specific reason to reference greenhouses as they are not mentioned in the Bible. There is just as much reason to say above "Much like plants in a fertile, well-watered field, the disciples flourished." The reason to mention a greenhouse is to speak about a closed environment "independent of external circumstances" and independent of "world" conditions. That is not done above, but was the previous use in a 1997 Watchtower:
*** w97 1/1 p. 4 Why Should We All Praise God? ***
It can be cultivated independent of external circumstances, just as plants can grow in a greenhouse whatever the weather is like outside.”
In general, the proofreaders would never question something like this. It's the type of thing that an editorial committee (and/or GB) might question. But only if they were thinking in the mindset of how it might be used against them. When editors are reading it as counsel only for others and not for themselves, it's easy to say things that might sound hypocritical or self-incriminating.
Of course, I prefer the idea that Brother Splane, for example, is using an opportunity to create a more open Society. Perhaps opening up a question or suggestion box on JW.ORG. Perhaps allowing suggestions to be upvoted and downvoted by millions of JWs. 😀  Splane, of course, was the one to make the biggest use of Luke 10 to highlight Jesus' methods of teaching in his Annual Meeting talk in 2014, and this is echoed in paragraph 10.

The focus on only supporting future wars to be led by Christ Jesus directly, has promoted the idea that we really are expected to be pacifists. Also the idea that we focus ONLY on spiritual warfare leads to the same conclusion. As late as 2003, a convention talk mentioned this:
*** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joyfully Assemble ***
The second speaker in this symposium addressed questions relating to neutrality. Early Christians were not pacifists, but they recognized that their prime allegiance was to God. Likewise today, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold firmly to the principle: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19) Since tests of our neutrality can arise quickly, families ought to make time to review the Bible’s guidelines on this subject.
Generally, however, the impression is given that we are very much like pacifists but don't want the label because it's often associated with protestors and radicals. However, the farther back one searches in the publications, the more we see that the discussion could include acceptable self-defense.
*** w64 8/15 p. 484 Those Who Pursue Peace ***
Actually, Jehovah’s witnesses are not in “rebellion” against the activities of any government, but they do maintain uncompromising neutrality as to the world’s political and military affairs, as they follow the Scriptural injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ They are not pacifists. They do not oppose any government’s program of military conscription or demonstrate against it, but they submit themselves to God’s arrangement of things.
*** w55 8/1 p. 478 Questions From Readers ***
However, this refusal to pay back insult for insult does not mean Christians are to be pacifists or that they must never resort to self-defense.
 

Good point. I also read an article written after Hawkins' death wherein he also "debunked"  string theory by indicating mathematically that 23 universes are not possible.
Let me make it clear to all visitors here: my "faith"  that God exists is not a blind faith but a faith based on evidence.  Evidence in the magnificence of creation in the infinite number of small wonders and the cosmos out there.  
As I said before: I have studied the intrinsic logic of the main theme of the bible for its cohesion and continuity.  I believe the bible is the only reality which is still ongoing.
I studied it in the light of project management principles and even did a risk assessment of the entire globe.  This is when I started to look at certain political developments in the world in certain sectors to determine where we are in the stream of time........and where we are heading.  
As truetom Harley indicated earlier -  even non-Christians admit to irreconcileable problems/hate in the secular political system.... it is not just in USA. It is everywhere!    The less than one persent of people in the West who own the money of the world (they own all the major corporations, press and surveillance capabilities)  see one world system as the only solution to create "peace and security" for its inhabitants.   We are already in the transformation stage of the process.......  these people see China as the model to follow.....
Stick to Jehovah through the difficult times.  Atheists, who are humanist, will  believe the UN when they bring in one set of laws /values for everyone and persecute those who do not conform.  Atheists will conform to save their necks but will not have the favour of jehovah when it all falls apart. And fall apart it will because humans were not made to rule themselves. 
The propaganda is doing its job - leading to Armageddon...... it is discrediting all witnesses in every possible way and promoting atheism.

The Bible says that everything that God initially created was "good". Everything that Satan created was bad. The world then became a paradox of good and bad. The question arose whether the arbiter of what was good, was justified to decide what was bad. Obviously, since he was the supreme judge and arbiter of all things. On top of that, was he justified in destroying or removing what was bad. The answer has always been yes, because his love, together with justice dictates that this must be done. 
Creation; predators, eating other creatures is not bad, since the predator depends on the primary consumer for survival. My great grandmother kept rabbits for food. She loved them all and took good care of them, they all had names too. When it came time for Sunday dinner, she lovingly took one out of the pen and bopped it over the head. Benjamin had no idea what had hit him as he blacked out within a split second, was dead within a minute, and cooking in the pot within an hour. His buddies never even noticed he had gone missing. Was that an unloving thing my great grandma did? I suppose it depends on who you ask. But the one to decide whether this is unloving or not would be the creator. Humans have differing views, but the rightful arbiter is God.

Oh, give me a break, you pompous pillar of pettiness! I think far more deeply than you.
You have a incredibly broad knowledge of a certain aspect of a narrow topic. Beyond that, I wonder if you know anything at all.
I bring to the table free-ranging, out-of-the-box thinking on a variety of topics. You bring strait-jacketed, legalistic thinking about one.
I bring wit, imagination, and humor in all its varieties—self-deprecating humor as well as the kind of humor where you make fun of yourself.
You bring niggling, blustering nastiness, insolence, and an astounding capacity to insult all creatures great and small with childish taunts.
You are a precocious, smart, and mean-spirited adolescent who finds himself in the body of an adult and thus imagines he is one.
You don’t want to know just what high position he occupies.
A he who is characterized as a she. If I were you, I would ask no further questions.
Of course! That’s why he repeatedly said just the opposite in his life experiences.

No. I voluntarily stepped down years ago primarily over the college issue (going to and sending my children to college). It's not mandatory to step down, by the way. Although some congregations might see it this way. I'm fine how things are. (I spend time on sites like this and I have trouble with a couple of doctrines.) I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines. I have no idea who the administrators or moderators or Librarian is.
Within weeks of starting at Brooklyn Bethel in 1976 I was assigned to the Art Department. I was really only an average artist (good at landscapes, lousy at portraits). I had lots of small projects, but only a couple of the big ones. So I always volunteered for any research assignments, which I really loved. (e.g., What did an anvil look like in the first century? What armor and weapons would a Philistine have? What did a rich man's house look like? What did a poor man's house look like?" What did a 1st century fishing boat look like?) 
This soon turned into a couple of requests from ONE member of the GB who asked me if I would look up information for some of his projects. This turned into a lot of research projects. I continued working for him until 1982.
But anyone, could be assigned to work directly with members of the GB. Bethel assignments seemed a lot more random than most people realize. You don't have to be qualified to get a good assignment, and people who were very qualified for a specific assignment often got something completely different. Bethel leadership was actually quite proud of this method of assignment and Sydlik often made the point to new personnel that a brilliant scientist might be assigned to clean toilets. It was a method of teaching humility. (In reality I never saw anything like that, although menial assignments would be given to some as punishment/humiliation. There were only a couple of these punishments going on while I was there. Seemed to be pretty rare.)

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though.
In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with.
In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. 
So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.