ComfortMyPeople

In Croatian are some different rules about uppercase and lowercase letters in these sort of two words names, titles. Because of this, I wasn't careful enough about what it would mean in the English language. Croatian WT magazines are translated with small letter for word "Witnesses" in name JW.
When I connected the past and the present and all those various people who showed themselves to be "witnesses" for JHVH in some specific way, then that meant continuity. Not only or not at all the continuity of a legal entity - an organization, but the existence of a type of people, as individuals and as groups. That is something how JW organization and WT Society, as legal entities, looking on themselves ...as continuation, as heirs of true faith, as witnesses for JHVH, from the time of the all faithful man of old and old patriarchs. 
 
In that sense, a legacy that the WT Society draws from Bible Students of Russell (teaching, doctrines, ideas, beliefs, administration) legally belongs to today's JW as facts that created and been cause for future "destiny" of those who continued the work of founders in 19th century. In such way of logic, all Russell's teaching and belief system, later abandoned, stay as real history of this, today existed JW organization. Museums halls that exists in worldwide Betel's buildings (Branch Offices) proves this. JW of today are proud of their history and beginnings in 19th century (not before, because Bible pictures of faithful men and Israel nation is heritage that many other religions want to appropriate for themselves too). By publicly showing and talking and writing about that in such way, JW accepting all what was said (teachings) before 1931 as own spiritual heritage that must to be carry today (as sort of burden).    

CC, I understand how you think it "protects" the Governing Body's reputation if you don't allow any discussion of their past errors from before 1931, or even 1933, or even 1943, or even from before 1950. You stretch the truth here, but I understand your motive of trying to protect their reputation.
But you are really trying to protect them in such a way that we get a completely different view of them than truth, history, and reality offers us. I've always thought that cover-ups of any kind are dishonest, even if the motive seems praiseworthy.
In fact, the history of the Governing Body as the Faithful Slave, according to our CURRENT view, now goes back to 1919. They removed Russell from his membership in the exclusive committee, so I'll agree that discussing Russell's failings is not so relevant, even if it is important to show how easy it is for men to follow men. The last thing I'll say on that score (about Russell) is that the Watchtower NOW says that about 5,000 International Bible Students were active in 1914, and about 4,000 were active in 1919. In late 1916, it was admitted that THOUSANDS of Bible Students considered him to be, as a single individual, the entire "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This included Joseph Rutherford himself, and according to A H MacMillan, all the rest of the 'governing body' of that time, too. Rutherford even complained that Russell was being WORSHIPED, even though he was just another human, another creature. The Faith on the March book, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose book, and the  Proclaimers book admits that there was a CULT of WORSHIP around Russell.
It's true that love does not keep account of the injury. But trying to cover up their past errors is therefore not an act of love. Love believes ALL things that are true, it does not hide the truth. Love shines through even when it "bears" and "endures" all these true things. Perhaps it's easy to forget the final part of this passage:
(1 Corinthians 13:4-7) 4 Love . . .  does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 . . .  does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Notice, that this point is made even clearer in 2 Corinthians:
(2 Corinthians 6:6-8) . . .by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech, by God’s power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, 8 through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report.. . .

Right. Don't ever make a mistake like this:
*** w09 3/15 p. 16 par. 4 “Be Vigilant” ***
Since 1925, Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that World War I and the events that followed amount to sure evidence that Christ’s presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914.
*** w01 11/1 p. 25 “Religious Tolerance Day” ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses have used various methods to spread the good news. For example, in 1914—during the era of silent movies—the Witnesses were showing the “Photo-Drama of Creation,” a motion picture and slide presentation that included synchronized sound.
*** w98 9/15 p. 32 The War That Destroyed the 19th Century ***
For over 120 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to 1914 as the end of what Jesus called “the appointed times of the nations.”
*** w93 5/1 p. 12 par. 7 Shedding Light on Christ’s Presence ***
True to the prophecy, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the modern light bearers, have suffered persecution for the past eight decades.
*** w91 4/1 p. 7 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
Since 1914, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that, in spite of the persecution Jesus foretold—government bans, mob violence, imprisonments, torture, and many deaths.
In 1919 there were 4,000 of Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching this good news.
[8 decades from 1993 reaches back to the decade from 1910 to 1920]
*** w91 4/1 p. 5 Is It Later Than You Think? ***
In 1914, World War I started. Jehovah’s Witnesses of that decade were immediately on the alert.
*** w91 4/15 p. 6 When Will Lasting Peace Really Come? ***
For more than 70 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been proclaiming around the world the good news that Jesus Christ began to rule in God’s Kingdom in heaven in the year 1914.
And speaking of poor history, this last quote is saying that Jehovah's Witnesses began proclaiming this date for Jesus' rule as early as 1921 or before. The idea is that it was being taught in 1919, but this was not a clear teaching until about 1925.

This is remarkable to me—the assumption that there is an obligation to patiently hear out and respond to anyone’s complaints.
Let us assume that 4Jah2Me has a complaint (I mean, he was DF’d (I think) for something) that he pushes and pushes and pushes to the point where he gets tossed out of the JW organization. He then engages TTH on the WNMF, pushing his complaint here, and simply assumes that TTH will open the door that elders have shut—patiently hearing him out and providing satisfaction after those unknown elders have demonstrated by their discipline (that he has rejected) that it cannot be done.
It’s not happening on my watch. What! This is a courtroom for malcontents to conduct cross-examination? I’ll respond and provide “actual information” any way I like.
What is the purpose of this forum? As far as I am concerned, it is the purpose of anyone who carries the ball. JW.org has a purpose. Tomsheepandgoats.com has a purpose. AlanF’s blog (I think he has one) undoubtedly has a purpose. But this one? @admin is not a Witness, nor I think anyone to whom religion is a top concern. His purpose is to indulge a hobby, keep abreast and comment on current events, and generate some advertising revenue. He has several times weighed in to the effect that he is dismayed and fed up with the quarreling that goes on here, but it is traffic, after all. Mostly he deals with other areas of his website.
@The Librarian (that old hen) is a Witness that I have described as an avant-garde one. She posts things both controversial and non-controversial and I would not be surprised if she was once resolving a crisis of conscience, and though this forum, has steadily moved toward loyalty to God, instead of away like AlanF. She would probably like to see more adherence to topics, but in the end, I think she is happy to see a good witness given, and that cannot usually be done by letting malcontents control the agenda, though JWI does attempt it and sometimes succeeds.
I could be wrong, but I think she is stuck with me, and she knows it. I may be a bad pupil, but after all, I am her pupil and I think she stands by me, even as she shakes her head sometimes. The purpose of this forum is whatever I want it to be when I have the ball—it is a human institution, and no more—and then others get the ball and the purpose becomes whatever they want it to be. Selfish? Sure—but why not? The unselfish channel for spiritual things is jw.org. “Please tell me what you don’t like about JW.org so I can smash you over the head with it,” say several obtuse opponents. I don’t think so. I’ll spill when and to the extent that I see fit. I am an apologist—not a “disgusting” one, like that fathead states, but one who strives to do what the word itself means—defends.
The old hen only has two genuine Witnesses on the controversial threads that reliably comment, and one of them is a little bit squirrelly—which one is in the eye of the beholder. Then there is a second buttressing level of 4 or 5 persons who are solid, but they also have lives to lead and most of them disappear for weeks or months at a time. I don’t think she’s ever going to mess with JWI or I, because if she does, she has very little left to represent JWs and she becomes simply another undisguised apostate website—which I don’t think she wants. So we two set the “purpose” here to a large extent, and our intents are not the same. He takes the topic in one direction, and I wrestle it in another. 
Someone from the second tier will have to step up to the plate if either of us go and I don’t think they have the time. Nope. It is my forum here, now. It will do what I want it to until someone else takes the snap. 
Will that someone be AllenS, who (I think) resurrects himself at will with myriad names, all displaying the same unusual combination of qualities, even inspiring guesswork as to who he really is? Is he an informed, though paranoid and cantankerous, brother of undefined standing? Is he an opposer who wishes to make JWs look bad by posing as one and showing intolerance, incessant bickering, and unreasonableness? Is he a genuine brother so determined to shut down “apostasy” that he floods the site with such unpleasantness that anyone who doesn’t drink unpleasantness as the elixir of life will flee the scene? Who knows? But he has as much right as anyone to carry on as he does, until the Librarian tosses him, which she has done, but there is hardly any point because he just pops up in another alias.
This is a lawless place. One must know that going in. Nobody really knows who’s who. AlanF, who surely must be one of the most unpleasant persons to ever walk the planet, has somehow picked up the notion that I am Vic Vomidog. With John Butler being “DFed” (says JWI—something I did not know), I am once more heading in the direction that 4Jah2Me is really a reincarnation of him. “Can’t you just accept me as me?” he says. No, I can’t. I mean, I can entertain the possibility, and I would rate it at about 60%—really quite high—but he surfaces with identical peculiar reasonings and even some exact words of John B, so I reserve the possibility that they may be the same.
It’s a frontier. It’s lawless. Someone else said that it is exhilarating operating in such an atmosphere, and I like that characterization. Still, it sure does consume time, and it would probably do ME good to get tossed.

Thank you for your good research.  I admit - since I last looked at these things I have been looking at other subjects....  You are welcome to correct me where I err. 
My friend, this is only a wish these days - justice is becoming a thing for the rich only who can afford good lawyers and get off.  An arabic word describes it perfectly THULM....... it means injustice but the consonants also stand for darkness.  As moral darkness descends on this world I am afraid that suffering is going to escalate because injustice will prevail.
I met an African woman in field service here who was trafficked to different countries because she did not keep quiet about the children taken by the United nations.  She was working at a school when the UN came and said they will look after the children...... and took the teachers with them.  A few days later she found the teachers in jail and the children missing.  She kicked up a fuss  and to quiet her down they took her into custody.  They sent her to an Islamic country and told them she was a criminal, hoping she would be killed..... but instead, they listened to her story..... 
High-up organizations are involved even some of the American Charity foundations.

I do the same.. You will notice that I do have my own opinions on some things.... which comes from meditation......  .  I  will of course not go and teach this to others.  I teach the basic core teachings to my studies and help them to appreciate that they must do self study for maturity...  I also prepare them for their time as a witness when they will see that everyone is not perfect....... they may even bump their toe on a rock below the surface of the love-feasts..
Most new witnesses face a test with fellow witnesses after baptism -  or a new congregations - it is inevitable..... just depends on how big the test is.  I also help them to get life-skills as a witness.  Some did not learn this while at home or had too many bumps in life.  The qualities to survive and the attitudes that assist in cooperating with others and being kind and fitting in.
The realit y is: we are social animals and want to fit in , be successful in the group and it is hard on some people- especially if one has some weird personality quirks..... Navigating life - no matter where you go - is hard.  For us the workplace can be a specially hard because people expect us to be "better" than others...... when we are just ordinary people like everyone else..... The only difference is that we try to be faithful to god........ to the best of our very imperfect ability. Sometimes we must face ridicule for that...so as ordinary people we have to build up courage and work on our social skills to navigate out of difficult situations.
I have a very friendly personality and stand out easily..... as a woman this is not always a good thing.  So I have learnt to be smart and gauge the right time to say what I think.  Last year I went to see two Arabic brothers and spoke to them about their attitudes towards women..... because Arabs have an inbred attitude which the truth does not completely correct.... years and years of training in a certain way is not just going to disappear.  I waited for the right time and managed to do it successfully....   did they take my concerns to heart?   I do not know....  but I seemed to do OK afterward.  As I grew older I learnt to not keep quiet about my concerns....... but wait for a long time until the time is right and then talk.  Every time I was successful, I grew in maturity.  Now I help the young sisters to also grow strong and become pillars in the congregation. 
 

Good, because I know we've had that discussion before. Russell and his associates thought of this as a very powerful and important doctrine that gets partially repeated about a hundred times. Also, partly because they had not moved very far from the Trinity doctrine yet, they put a lot of emphasis on the idea that Jesus was a God (their capitalization, not mine) and that this doctrine put them on the divine plane as Gods. The Watchtower spoke of the 144,000 as "God manifest in the flesh." Based on the way Russell understood the Scriptures he has used, this teaching actually makes some sense. But I know of no other religions groups who were teaching that not only represented the Christ, but who would go so far as to claim that Jesus alone was not the Christ, but that the Christ included his Bride members, the 144,000.
The Christ would therefore include Russell himself, while on earth in the flesh, as long as he remained faithful.
When the world sees you it sees a member of The Christ, not in glory, but in the flesh. R455
Now we appear like men, and as men all die, even as others; but in the resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods—partakers of the Divine nature (R473)
Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they think we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"—"partakers of the divine nature." When we claim, on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten to a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods. . . . Thus there is a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons on the divine plane, being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief or first-born. [R474]
The Prophet like unto Moses, the great Law-giver, the great King, the great Mediator, will be the foretold "Seed of Abraham," in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed. . . consists of our Lord Jesus, as the Head, the chief, and all of his faithful elect Church as members . . . [R2859]
I never mentioned or implied any kind of guarantee, because I never had that impression myself. So sorry if anyone got that impression. Russell taught that he and others like him were "perfect" and "justified" as long as they were faithful, but that no one had a guarantee. They all had to endure to the end. As you point out, in some quotes you provided, this was part of his "faithful and wise servant" doctrine: that although it was a single individual, that God would replace that individual if he proved unfaithful.
I think you are still missing something here. I am not concerned at all with the any kind of "guarantee." That's something you added to this conversation. But it does seem you are trying to imply that Russell didn't even consider himself to be "that faithful and wise servant."
We know that would be a false impression. Just because he didn't publicly claim the title, doesn't mean he didn't make it clear that he was that individual. When he explained that it must be one human individual (at a time) and not a class, he added the idea that people might think him immodest for pointing this out, but he couldn't go against the obvious meaning of the Scriptures. If he didn't think it was himself, then why would he have though modesty should be a factor. He published letters that referred to himself as the "faithful and wise servant" often just called "that Servant." He was introduced at conventions with the title, and accepted the title without trying to correct anyone. And then the Watchtower printed the fact that during his life he had "privately admitted" to being that faithful and wise servant. The Watchtower admits that THOUSANDS of persons got this impression.
This information comes straight out of the Watch Tower magazine and publications. Straight from Russell's pen. And straight out of the Biography of Charles Taze Russell published by the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford. It also comes straight out of the speech that Rutherford gave at Russell's funeral. It would be very strange to claim that anything Russell or the Watchtower said before 1931 belongs to "Freedom Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." All JWs who have read the "Proclaimers" book are not going to be fooled by such a claim.

When AlanF distorts Watchtower history, I'll call him out on it. But you have said that I did not read Russell's book correctly. You pointed out how, but you were wrong about it. Russell did believe he was of the High Calling and therefore found it appropriate to refer to those with him sharers in "our High Calling," an expression he used dozens of times. He even explained how, while faithful, he was "perfect" and acceptable and justified in this calling:
Therefore because God has a "better thing" for us—our high calling to joint-heirship with Jesus Christ our Lord,. . . . so when we come to realize that we are justified we esteem it a privilege to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service." It is acceptable because it is holy; it is holy because it is justified; it is justified because Christ died.
To your second question I reply: It certainly is true, as you say, that none but perfect beings can keep God's perfect law, and I will go further and add that none but perfect beings are acceptable with God.   But as we have just proved we are perfect beings, being justified by Christ Jesus and therefore are acceptable with God by Jesus Christ. [R193]
But although you incorrectly addressed a minor point, I notice you avoided the actual point that I made, that Russell, for example, thought it was proper for those of the High Calling to be referred to as "The CHRIST" ("The Savior" "The Mediator" etc.)

Of course he mentioned how the 144,000 are part of the kings and priests going to heaven. And of course he knew of the possibility that he might personally not be "guaranteed" to be remain among that number. But he never said anything about NOT being a part of that number while he was writing articles, sermons, books, etc. In fact, the Watchtower's own BIOGRAPHY of Russell said that he privately admitted to being the "faithful and wise servant." 
Even more, Russell said:
but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual (R3355)
Who do you think this particular individual was supposed to be referring to?
This servant, if found faithful, would be intrusted more and more with the distribution of every feature of Present Truth as represented in the parable, by his being given the dispensing of the food in due season to the household. (R3356)
Can you think what person for as long he was being found faithful, considered himself to be dispensing every feature of Present Truth to the household of faith?
. . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost . . . . (R3356)
Who might Russell think it is? Hmmm. We don't have to worry about it, he tells us directly:
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. (R3821)
Of course, I think you knew this already.

I should add that the meaning of 'persons who say "I am he" ' is probably best spelled out in Matthew's version:
(Matthew 24:23-28) . . .“Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
It is ironic that Russell put out a book called "The Time is at Hand" AND simultaneously taught that the solution to the "great mystery" doctrine was that those who were of the higher calling, including Russell himself, could rightly speak of themselves as "the Christ." The Christ was not just Jesus, but the full 144,001. Therefore, it was even possible for those who considered themselves of the 144,000, the Bride, the Higher Calling, to refer to themselves as:
"the Christ" "the Saviour" "the prophet greater than Moses" "eternal Father" "the Mediator" FWF was said to have often hinted in the 1940's and 1950's that this doctrine was still in effect. It was one of the reasons that "great crowd" were not invited to the Memorial for several years. But in the 1960's the Watchtower clarified that the expression "The Christ" could not refer to the rest of the 144,000. Even after that point however, books written by FWFranz, including "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" used the expression 144,001, which had evidently been a reference to the older version of this doctrine.
*** w63 9/1 p. 539 Names for Christ and His Congregation ***
“THE CHRIST”
We come now to a consideration of those terms or titles that apply or are used to refer to Jesus Christ apart from his body members. . . .
But what about the expressions “the Christ” and “Christ”? Does the use of the article with “Christ” designate something different from when no article is used? Might it be that, whereas the term “Christ” refers to Jesus Christ alone, the term “the Christ” could also include the 144,000 members of his body? Do the Scriptures support this thought or distinction?
No, they do not. . . .
In fact, the expression “the Christ” of itself at no time includes the members of Christ’s body. So the title “Christ,” with or without the definite article, refers to Jesus Christ, the article serving to draw attention to or to emphasize his office as the Messiah.
And of course there was no little disruption when FWFranz yelled at all of us one morning at Bethel breakfast because a few (somewhere?) had been balking at a recent article that said Jesus was not the Mediator of the great crowd. The much earlier view that had not been repeated in many years was that the 144,001 WERE the Mediator.
 

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.
It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.
Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.
Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.
Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.
(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 
In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.
It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.
When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.
Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God." I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically tried to turn away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization. (This is enough, and it is even reflected in the new way of announcing those who leave.)
@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.

On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. It is similar to what has been said by @4Jah2me more recently, and @Witness, too.
The idea is that if Jesus had in mind an ongoing feeding program from an appointed "faithful and discreet slave" where these teachers of the kingdom would teach things both old and new, then they should be inspired in the sense of having something like a "double portion of Jehovah's spirit." This does not mean "inspired" in the same sense as "apostolic succession" but aliases associated with @AllenSmith-38 have argued for something very close to "apostolic succession" or at least "apostolic precedence."
I think that TTH's blog was actually dealing with a real question about an idea that the GB should really be inspired, even infallible, and that they should produce "perfect" food, which of course, they don't claim to do.

I'm sure it's been pointed out under the many prior 1975 topics in this forum.
The fact that the prediction was for the 1970's, not 1975 is easily seen from the articles called, for example, "What Will the 1970's Bring?" and the Circuit Assembly badges we wore that asked: "Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970's?"
The reason for 1970's instead of 1975 was because of articles and talks that made the following points:
*** Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ.  . . . It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
If that difference between the end of six thousand years since Adam, and the end of the "sixth day" could not be a matter of years, then this means that it must be less than two years from the autumn of 1975. After the autumn of 1977 it would have become a matter of years, not just months.
Then, especially after the 1970's, the focus of the prediction moved to a time before the year 2000:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."
Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!"
"Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
"But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest  "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"!"
Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
 

It was believed, until quite recently, that every sinner can change. Even homosexual pedophiles. "This is what some of you were", says Paul at 1 Cor. 6:11.  I am assuming when Greenlees was appointed, it was believed he belonged in that category of "some of you were, but are no longer". The appointment, as all appointments are, was based on qualifications outlined in 1Timothy 3:1-7. I am assuming he met those qualifications at the time he was named. It is now understood (although I believe the society balked at first, being convinced that the scripture applies in absolutely every case, no exceptions)  that people with these problems are for the most part incurable, but can fool others, including themselves, into thinking that they are cured. I find it difficult to believe this man would be appointed, knowing he still had that problem. What would be the purpose? Surely there would be plenty of other brothers, and there were, I think 18 at that time. For JWS, the Bible is a template for practically EVERYTHING. Much to the irritation of people who wonder how can someone be directed by a book thousands of years old. Without a doubt, JWS have made mistakes in their interpretation of some Bible passages.  Perhaps one of these mistakes was misunderstanding the scripture at 1 Cor 6:11. It can not mean that those who have "been made clean", will always stay clean or that they are cured. We know that from evidence. Greenlees being a case in point. The scripture is talking about those particular disciples, it does not mean it applies across the board, to every single person especially with regard to homosexuality. The apostle Paul had to pummel his body, and lead it as a slave, and he was just an ordinary sinner, no homosexual or pedophile. So no one is ever going to be faultless and yet, according to the scriptures, they have the potential to be forgiven and accepted by God if they stop.  With regard to the sickness of pedophilia, these people have got to be kept away from children, so that they are not able to molest them, and so that children are safe, because they cannot stop.Today, no one who has a history of CSA, can ever serve in any capacity in the congregation, ever. We have an old man in our cong. who has some kind of history in the distant past, and he is not allowed to do anything, except comment, and he must be accompanied by a brother in FS, without exception.
Part of the changes are no doubt due to the ARC, and the recognition of the truthfulness of some of the issues raised there. But I am sure that some of it has been because it was recognized that in the past, elders had been hoodwinked into thinking that someone with pedophilic tendencies has been reformed, and will never repeat the offense again. This realisation was unfortunately at the cost of other children being molested, not just the original child.
So, if it was today, Greenlees would have never been appointed not only as GB member, but he would have never become an elder or ministerial servant either.
 
@Vic Vomidog stop it!

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me?
Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog.
I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. 
I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.”
In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. 
Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all.
While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!”
I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me.
I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers.
My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. 
I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day.
I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat.
“Dear Mr. Putin”  is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots.
And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. 
In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. 
I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday.
Does that answer your question?

Here's just a few off the top of my head, and I could include a dozen more:
We got back to the higher powers (superior authorities) being secular in the very early 60's. Made smoking a DF offense, which has probably improved the health of thousands. We went back to an elder arrangement. We dropped the District Overseer. We reduced the quotas for various pioneer titles. We replaced the separate meeting for the "book study" to be replaced with personal/family study and more focus on field service. Allowed our consciences to accept blood fractions, which has probably improved health or even saved 1,000. We opened up the possibility of the first resurrection from 1918 to a wider range of dates between 1914 and 1935 with the possibility that it could be even as late as the great tribulation. We opened up our understanding of the first resurrection to include the possibility of a "rapture" (as long as we don't use the word). We now see the cleansing of the temple as no longer tied to the situation in the organization in 1918. We now read several prophetic concepts that were once tied to 1914, 1918 and 1919 as no longer fixed to those years, with one now reaching back to the end of the first century, and a couple others now tied to the time surrounding the great tribulation. We got a much more accurate Watchtower history book which helps researchers understand the context of several of the major accomplishments along with several of the mistakes in our history. We now tell parents and guardians that they are free to inform authorities about child sexual abuse without concern for anyone's reputation. We now include elders informing authorities as part of the process wherever it is the law to do so.
It was a core concept with Frederick Franz. Everyone else knew that our chronology doctrines were always the most susceptible to change. Changing, moveable doctrines can hardly be core.
It was serious. But many are too embarrassed to admit it was serious, and are happy to repress their own reactions, or the fact that it came from the WTS, not rank-and-file members of the congregation who were pushing ahead. But you should know that there never was a "prediction of 1975 Armageddon." The prediction was for the 1970's based on 1975 being the end of the 7,000 years since Adam. When that failed, the prediction was for the period up to the year 2000. There never was a specific 1975 prediction.
I see nothing wrong with thinking of the GB as anointed. Saul was anointed. David was anointed. Judas was anointed. Peter was anointed. Thomas was anointed. I'm sure they diligently try to live up to the reputation of a faithful and discreet slave. I think Jesus meant for the phrase to apply to all of us, including them. Most JWs probably know that we all need to be faithful and discreet slaves, but that this is a way of seeing their particular ministry as special.

I do not participate in the large "JWN" forum. I've tried but there is no way to actually have a Biblical discussion due to the number of non-believers and ridiculers of all things spiritual.
I have participated in forums for studies of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and Biblical Greek and Hebrew, but it's been years since I tried to get questions answered there. I got invited to a chronology forum based on a correspondence with Rolf Furuli. This "theworldnewsmedia" is the only one I have looked at in months. I think it makes a good place to write out my own opinions and concerns and usually get some thoughtful feedback. It's not too crowded, and I'm pretty sure it's small enough so that no one from HQ will take much interest. I'm sure it's not run by elders, btw. Mon 25 @ 11:50 Ong

So true. I am not impressed with his so-called knowledge.  Hard to reason with anyone who ignores or spurnes other people's reasonable arguments and just grabs something egotistically he can elaborate on which  is a form of intellectual bullying. It does not get my respect.
It seems he has done a lot of research about the inner circle problems the GB had at one time - to the extent where it can be called a  tabloid with all the little titbits about the rumours about some individual's sexuality and preferences ..... real gossip column stuff..... etc. 
I do not read tabloids and neither will I bother to get the inside story on which GB member did what to whom.  As I demonstrated earlier: Jehovah himself appointed a loser in Saul.  Jesus appointed Judas iscariot...... so who are we to get it right every time?  Tests come in all forms and can be exasperating.  Some will lose faith because they put trust in men.  (I know the truth and I know where I learnt it).    Many top brothers may fall out and do bad things  but my faith in the core truths are solid.  Yes, there may still be shame in the pipeline as retro-active law suits are placed.  That is inevitable and part of life as there are Judas' and Sauls everywhere who bring shame on Jehovahs name.  
He is not interested in reason or justice, just destruction.  To win at all cost....... not the ideal kind of person to reason with...... why would he respect a human when he does not respect God?

I think that if there were a lot of new things, many folks would just complain that it represents things we had wrong and had to change. The basic foundational beliefs have been around for quite a while, and we wouldn't expect any big changes in any of these. But we've gained a simpler message even though most of the "deeper" ideas are not discarded.
I think that we can be a bit humbler now because we aren't so often trying to compare our level of scholarship with others. We are not into the scholarship that proves the Trinity wrong, or Christmas wrong, even though we understand that our position on these things is much better than Christendom's.
I think we are wrong on a couple of less important doctrines that should be revisited in a scholarly manner. But if the WTS decided to never revisit some of these things, and could help us completely replace our concern instead with showing love to our fellow believers, and then showing love to our neighbor, and helping us learn patience, humility, peace, joy, love, kindness, moral cleanness, I would not care at all about a couple of mistaken doctrines.

I think that several items of information in my last post cannot be found in ANY of the thousands of ex-witness websites.
I have never mentioned the Pierce, West, Lett, Beagle incidents before, and I doubt that C.A. has publicized anything. I would be extremely surprised if you found the case of the mother who got a letter from TJ about her daughter, or even which circuits that Beagle and Pierce were sent to, and which circuits West and Lett went to. In a previous version I gave the state and even an indication of how the story came up again recently. I removed it because I realized that it involved too many specifics about a living person.

@AlanF Haven't seen you around these parts for a while. I see the name @scholar JW pop up in a "Who's Online" box now and it always reminds me of the fact that he seemed to love a 587 debate, wherever he could find one. I always appreciated your knowledge on that topic (although, you also scare me with your evolution/atheism arguments).
But back to the point. I did not know that you knew this much about the Lloyd Barry and Ted Jaracz situation. I was going to start avoiding using so many names but, yes, of course you are talking about the same people.
In case you are even more aware of some of these details I would like to run another situation by you, especially since it sounds like you might be aware of details that would clarify or adjust what I think I know. I had just decided earlier today NOT to share this part of the story because of how unbelievable and contrived it might sound. But I'm going to go ahead and put it out here, and I'll take a cue from you and use names this time:
And by the way I don't know if you know C.A. (still alive) but he is the WTS source for most of this particular story, either directly or indirectly. He is currently living in a residence just off the Bethel campus, and is not doing that well health-wise. I prefer that his name is not spelled out here, because I'm sure he would have preferred that these issues were not widely publicized in a forum such as this. I embarrassed myself in front of him on my first day at Bethel over 40 years ago, by telling him about a problem with the pay phones in the Bethel lobby. He listened and then shrugged as if he could not have cared less about it. I don't know why it still embarrasses me so much, but it doesn't matter, we got along very well from that point until even long after I left Bethel. He himself got involved in some even more embarrassing situations at Bethel, which I think you know about.
He was in the Service Department under Miller and Jaracz, and shortly after I left Bethel, he was "promoted" to the Writing Department.
But this story is primarily from back in 91 to 92. After the 91 article, brothers and sisters thought it was good to start telling their stories of sexual abuse to the elders, to the Society, and to professional therapists. The situation was very unnerving for the Society and for local elders too, especially when the accused were those they knew and wanted to defend in some way. There was a big new controversy over repressed memories and whether all these accusations could actually be false. Elders in California, and a couple other states were actually starting classes in "repressed memories" and trying to learn what they could about psychiatry. Victims were coming out of the woodwork.
So Brother Jaracz who tried to keep it "anonymous" from the rest of the Service Department, talked to several of the brothers who were known to be on the rise and who had requested or were being considered for Bethel positions in the Service Department. These were Brother Pierce, West, Lett and Beagle, possibly among others. Pierce and Beagle were sent to California to handle circuits that TJ had been in, and West and Lett were assigned to Wisconsin, at least, there might have been other areas and brothers involved too.
To give you an idea of who these people were, Beagle, Pierce and Lett were called in to work as C.O.s and D.O.s around the NYC area. (West may have been too, but I don't know what happened to him.) This is a commonly known sign that they are being watched and in close communication with the Service Department, and Bethelites "in the know" start guessing at this point that they will soon be called in to Bethel for "top jobs"
CA, in fact, predicted when Beagle would come in (he was immediately assigned to the Service Department) and CA guessed in advance that Pierce would go straight to the Governing Body. I think he may have had some inside information.
The two most intimidating were Beagle (six foot six) and Pierce (short but a bulldog with a smile). The intimidation campaign actually produced letters complaining about both of these persons, which was another reason for moving them to NYC. Pierce (from the Salem OR area) had a range of complaints about his "weirdness." 
An old accusation from 1991 actually ended up revealing clearly that it was TJ behind the anonymous campaign, as he sent a letter on his own letterhead (his codes) to a sister (a victim's mother) whose daughter was sexually abused by more than one elder since she was young. The mother died, and the daughter is in possession of letters between her mother and the WTS, including at least one from TJ. And based on the content of the letters, she recalled that it was West and Lett who met with her to warn her and her mother that they would be disfellowshipped if they exposed the story.
This part of the story, if true, would provide further confirmation that Lett and West were involved in the same intimidation. I already knew something of Pierce and Beagle because of relatives in California.
Brother Beagle, by the way, (young) died suddenly of a heart problem shortly after he began his assignment in the Service Dept. Brother Lett, of course, is now on the Governing Body and made himself famous to this victim (and exJWs, and probably other victims) by implying that apostate lies were behind the spread of rumors about the WTS covering up child sexual abuse.
[edited to remove some of the state locations and too many specifics about the victim and victim's family. If you copied a previous version, please reload the page to get the edited version.]
 

I was talking about a situation from 40 to 50 years ago, and it might have been a good thing, in that it revealed the tension that is seen before a necessary transition. There had been a time up until the years before 1975, when the strongest voices in the Writing Department and from the Vice President were considered to "gospel" for the Service Department. The Service Department was in charge of pushing higher and higher activity goals and was given a lot of credit when goals and quotas were met. But the Service Department also handled correspondence for serious lifestyle questions that came in, and ultimately handled disfellowshipping rules and practices. This tended to "bleed" back into the Writing Department so that "suggestions" and "principles" were being turned into Watchtower dogma. (For example, question about marital practices in the bedroom, or organ transplants based on the musings of Fred Franz turned into matters of disfellowshipping, when they probably should have been left up to the couple or individual. But after enough disfellowshippings over such things, the rules had to be set in stone.)
The head of Service wasn't ready to stop being a hard-liner when the Writing department had begun to realize that they had no reason to be hard-liners on every topic. So the tensions were necessary to get clarification, and hopefully the Writing department would win out on certain flexible points at a time when the Service department wanted to be unbending.
There was a time when elders all around the country sometimes said "The Society is actually Harley Miller" because it was Harley Miller who was in charge of the way questions were answered when the elders needed clarification. The brother I mentioned before took over for Harley Miller. (Sorry about that, I am trying to no longer use names but I've already mentioned FWF and HM.)
It seems to me now that the WT is much less likely to promote harsh handling on several of these points they once fought over. The Service/Correspondence departments are now evidently completely in line. And one of the reasons I think of the current GB as less likely to have "pedophiles" in their midst is that there are fewer, they appear to get along better, and I think they realize they must be much more careful about past mistakes and past reputation. When questionable persons were asked to join the GB during the 1970's, there was a rule that past mistakes of elders could be ignored if they were long enough in the past and they were not currently causing a reputation problem in the congregation. The point was that there was no need for any type of public reproval that the congregation needs to know about if it were far enough in their background. This is no longer true of any connection with child sexual abuse. No exceptions are to be made CSA, even if they were in the past.

Yes, @Anna, it's possible but the compatibility issues  usually affect the platform, the software, not the data, in this case the publications. If a matter of compatibility affects, let's say, the Watchtowers of the Library, ALL of them should be updated, not just a specific Watchtower.
Well, it is not a matter of life or death. I guess they are often minor problems
 
Frankly, I have not seen too much the problem of pride in the pionering. The vast majority of pioners do it (we have done it) as a show of devotion and a sort of help to give one hundred percent. So far so good.

BUT ... remember that although we have incorporated the example of the Nazarites as a "type" of the pioners , in the Christian era we did not find any example that there was anything similar: commit to preach x monthly hours.

And, the real problem that I have seen is something surreptitious, unconscious and unwavering that has happened to many pioners: that we do not balance our own spirituality, our family, the congregation, rest and other important matters for an obligation, NOT BEFORE JEHOVAH , but before a commitment to the organization. The only commitment to Jehovah has always been and will be to serve him to the fullest.

Then, when one begins to realize that something is not going well, or to increase his stress, it turns out that many feelings of guilt arise from abandoning that service, or the wiser decission is postponed . Anyway, it's what I see
 
oh dear Anna, YES there is regulation:
Of course, there are many countries where this will be different. I have only preached in the Dominican R., New York (Spanish territory) and in Spain. But in all these places the congregation has (logically) assigned a territory. As you know, this is divided the parts that give us in the meetings. And we are encouraged to COVER ALL BUILDINGS in that territory. If territories remain uncovered when you visit CO, we already have a problem.
Regarding Bethel externalization. Yes, slower than I would like
 
Yes, but there is no world policy, based on the Scriptures, that impels us to extend this service everywhere. Here in Spain I know lifelong servants who at the time of old age  the non-believing family have take the control, preventing them from going to any meetings, or the Memorial. Others have their own means and defend themselves, but we would have to worry as an Organization and not leave the matter in the hands of the local congregation.
Anna, I very much appreciate your weighted opinions