ComfortMyPeople

As we're approaching to our Annual meeting, here it goes my list of wishes! Perhaps there is a chance some of them could be announced:
KNOW THE REASON FOR UPDATES IN PUBLICATIONS
When a new update is available in JW Library, I download it without knowing the reasons for it: we do not know if it is a small editing error, a significant improvement in translation, a more serious adjustment ... Anyway, I would love be informed of the reasons, especially when sometimes the Bible itself is updated. Perhaps I have used outdated information inadvertently and it would be nice to know that there has been an improvement!
WATCHTOWER WITH APPENDIX
Our study articles are nice, no doubt. However, in order not to make them excessively extensive for their study in the congregation, they lacked extension in some ideas. Perhaps in the form of an appendix that can be read by anyone who wishes delve into some subject
LITERATURE WITH REFERENCES
Years ago it was common to find in our publications references to McClintock, Vine, Barclay and others. Now this has almost completely disappeared. Why? So we don't waste time reading them? Not to be confused by reading different approaches? If it has been useful for decades, I don't see why we don't have those references again.
DISCONTINUE THE PIONERING(AUXILIARY-REGULAR)
I know, it sounds blasphemy. But given the advantages that someone could exhibit, I have seen in others and in myself these "collateral damage", nothing insignificant:
Preach not for love of God or neighbor, but for hours Feeling bad conscience about having to leave the pioner service to attend family, health or the congregation Feelings of superiority  And then, who would attend pioner meetings with C.O.? everybody who wishes! DO NOT REPORT THE PREDICATION
I mean in the current format "so many hours, books, etc." Was it reported that way in the first century? Don't we intend to imitate the primitive congregation to the fullest?
Reporting involves the following:
The elders falsely believe we know the "flock" for knowing the card The actual effort of the low quatitu of hours  is not included in the card, but you have to sacrifice a lot to do it There are brothers who feel ashamed for informing / preaching little and have to report it There are elders who only call publishers to ask for the monthly report The C.O. gets an idea of the state of a congregation by looking at some forms, that can be equivocal REFORM THE PREACHING FROM HOME TO HOME
In many countries (especially Europeans) the challenge of entering residential buildings to preach is enormous. People (myself) do not want strangers to enter buildings, not for religious indifference, but for safety and comfort. When someone manages to "sneak in", whether they sell gas, electricity, insurance ... or religion, the reaction is very negative about the product they intend to sell, for not respecting the privacy and security of the building. Solution? Nothing easy, but go through, in my opinion:
Abandon the idea of preaching entering buildings in many locations That must be determined locally: in the same city or congregation there are buildings where that would not be a problem, but in others yes Stop counting how many times a territory is made as a way to find out the intensity of the preaching of the congregation Stop preaching with a tie and suit (TJ uniform) but sit in the parks, or visit the malls, or a thousand different ways, and then take advantage to make conversations arise REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF THE SPEAKERS
Many are invited on the basis of their friendship with whom they invite, or because they appear on the list of speakers. If each congregation had a simple way to survey the speaker:  did you like Sunday's talk YES / NO? the people in charge of inviting would see that some better not to come much, and vice versa
INFORM ABOUT C.O.'s
Many of these brothers are a gift. Others are simply a test for everyone. I have personally met destructive travelers. It is very difficult to help, change or remove them from that job. Many years ago, in the annual report that each congregation sent to the headquartes, one question was, more or less, "Were the c.o.' visits upbuilding?" Of course, if a congregation says that it is very bad but 19 very good, it is known that they are prejudiced in that congregation. But if in 19 congregations the report is unfavorable and only one speaks well ... something should be done.
MECHANISM OF COMPLAINTS
Do I have a way to express my complaint about something that works badly, as the widows in first century? Yes, I will be told: you tell the elders, then the traveler. Of course, but if they tell me that I have to wait, that nothing else can be done, could I not write to the headquartes, even to NY? Well, I've already done it, and the answers that have come to me have been stereotyped.

It is very difficult for negative situations to escalate. There is a protection mechanism. If I express myself openly, it is interpreted as a lack of appreciation, of faith, of collaborative spirit. I know that is so. However, when you want to know the opinion - POSITIVE - of something mechanisms are established, for example:

On the occasion of the recent presentation of the Bible in Spanish, the c.o. sent us a request for reactions from the brothers to the presentation, yes, all positive: that we say what the brothers thought of the new translation, how they received it at the assembly , and so on.
Well, I would like you to ask me things like:
Do you think it is good that the branch of Spain spends a lot of money in reforming some huge buildings for the real use that will be given to them? Have you felt encouraged by this or that article? Why yes, why not? Etc THE QUALITY OF THE ANSWERS AT THE MEETINGS
In my area it is frowned upon to make a public declaration of faith, to express personal feelings. It breaks the scheme of the meeting, in fact, there is no time. The brothers are used to underline and respond. When the watchtower's question is personal: "What do you think about ...?" nobody raises their hand, or we respond by reading
WATCHTOWER WITH PREAMBLE AND CONCLUSION
99% of the Watchtower overseers I have seen in my life waste their time in introductory paragraphs during meetings. Then you have to go fast in the key paragraphs. Why not place an introduction that is not read, and a conclusion that is not read? 
SOME ROTATING POSITIONS
I understand that if there are 10 elders in a congregation, not everyone is qualified to be a coordinator, for example. But maybe 3 or 4 yes. I would like those 3 or 4 to rotate the position annually, to avoid "love of the chair"
REFORMULATE THE ANNUAL ASSEMBLIES
Many of us remember the assemblies of years ago. They were long, very long. Extensive speeches Many times in full sun, and we were expected to take notes as not to be distracted. Now however there has been an impressive improvement. However, I sincerely believe that many would benefit more if a national assembly was broadcasted by streaming to the entire country, and that most brothers saw it in the Kingdom and assembly halls. What would be achieved?
Savings for siblings who go through hardships to get to the city of assembly and pay for accommodation Central Savings Avoid the sacrifice of early wake ups, fix the children, travel from the hotel to the place of assembly Improvement in concentration. With a few hours of sleep you can't concentrate And the joy of crowded crowds? That is why there would be a few assemblies nationwide, in rotating cities, upon invitation.
EXTERNALIZE BETEL
That they print commercial companies, that the size of Bethel be reduced to the minimum expression. Let the bulk of the work be done by commuters, whenever possible
RESIDENCES OF ELDERLY
Many brothers who have spent their entire lives for the work, as adults, find themselves dependent on the goodwill of friends or a congregation that wants to support them. Bethel is not the place for elderly people. Places could be set up to care for these brothers with dignity and without having to beg for help
SUPERVISION OF THE WORK BY "NORMAL" PEOPLE
Well, I explain myself. What effect does it have on someone who lives, eats, sleeps, works in a secluded place? That he doesn't need to work secularly, or fight to support the family, who are never denied permission to go to meetings, or go to the assembly ... and surrounded by people with the same situation.
What I have seen is that there is a perverse effect. These excellent brothers year after year, decade after decade of living a different life to the rest of humanity and brotherhood have a distorted view of things and brothers. Not always, of course, but many times yes.

I would like that especially the brothers who have to supervise the spiritual activity of others, have secular work, like any other brother. And in the afternoon, instead of the pionering, they could take care of the spiritual needs of others.
By the way, didn't Paul do that, work secularly?
THE BEARD
Yes, wearing a beard. In our publications only men who are not witnesses wear beards. When they are baptized they have always shaved it. Who decides these photos, how do you think they give freedom of choice worldwide? In theory you can wear a beard, but in reality it is badly seen in many places especially for videos and photographs in our publications. Let photos of JW's with beards come out, now!
DOCTRINAL
1914, PARUSIA
@JW Insider has explained it masterfully on so many occasions. Our 1914 doctrine simply does not hold. The parusia of Christ is his return, it is comparable to his coming. It has not yet occurred
PROXIMITY OF THE END
Of course we are near the end! Not since 1914, but since 33 CE. Since Christ left and said he would come unexpectedly, like a thief. That exactly teaches the Bible
DISFELLOWSHIPPING
Others, and myself, have bitterly written that our position is the strictest and most pharisaic interpretation of all possible approaches to expulsion. Especially when it has to do with relatives.
PHARISEISM
With sadness I perceive that, at the organizational level, we're becoming Christian Pharisees. We have been told that we should avoid that attitude, but the importance given to the dress, the beard, the belief that we are better than others, the ambition of the top positions... How I would like these attitudes to be eradicated at the root
SEXUAL RELATIONS
Clearly state that what the marriage decides to do in their room is only for both of them
HUMILITY
How much I would like that instead of exposing new approaches as the last truth, it will be explained that it is the most plausible, but not infallible, explanation. And that with time and study, a different one may look better.
 
There are more, but I better leave it here
 
 
 

There's trust as in the type of trust you have in a trusted friend, and blind trust in someone who turned out not to be what you thought they were. I don't think of the organization as the religion we trust in. True religion is helping people who we can best help - materially, spiritually, emotionally -- with the proper unselfish, loving motivation, and therefore without spot from this world. An organization, i.e., a publishing house, researchers, coordinators, a legal department, etc., are just tools that a group of sincere Christians might be expected to utilize for a more efficient method of getting the word out in the midst of a complex world. It's not something to trust blindly as if it is Christianity, or even as if it represents true Christianity.
(These are my opinions, of course.)
I think that a lot of persons get baptized as Witnesses with a kind of naive view that the organization is more than it really is. This might even be true of new GB members who are asked to join that particular committee of elders. Perhaps they are surprised at the difference between reality and expectation. But I think they are better prepared, since they have already worked at various levels of the organization.
I didn't mean to call myself JW Insider here. I intended to use "The Bible's Advocate" but when I joined someone was making a claim that was easily clarified by someone who had worked directly with members of the GB before. I had worked with members of the GB from 1976 to 1982. I worked directly for a member of the GB from about 1979 to 1982. I planned to tell some of the stories from that period, and therefore called myself "JW Insider" and allowed it to stick, in spite of some unintended implications.
But I mention this because if a person can work with (and around) some of these same persons for a few years, then they are already prepared for an experience that is quite different from the expectation of the average Witness. They have seen them in a bad mood, they have seen them curse and yell, they have seen them make mistakes, they have seen their prejudices, seen them connive, possibly even be dishonest. I have seen all these things among a couple of them, but I'm obviously talking about exceptions to their usual conduct and demeanor. And for MOST of the members that I knew, I never saw any of these things, they always came across as perfect "saints." But I would not have been surprised to learn of a different side, because of what I had seen in a very few others, even if I only saw it rarely.
I also had an advantage of an uncle who was a circuit overseer, and a grandmother and grandfather who seemed to know all the "big shots" from headquarters. (My great grandfather was a Chicago Bible Student who traveled with Russell and spoke at conventions with him.) But most of these relatives were apt to say things like, "Jehovah puts half of us here to test the other half," when referring to some of these same persons. Before going to Bethel, I heard a Circuit Overseer evoke laughter from another by asking, "Can you imagine how the Apostle Paul would have blown up if anyone told him he had to keep all these numbers [records] on everyone?"
So, I probably come at some of these human imperfections from a different perspective than most. I'm hardly surprised at anything. My grandparents who knew Rutherford thought he was sleazy. My table head at Bethel had a personal "hatred" of him. But Russell himself was apparently dishonest, too, sometimes. Both Russell and Rutherford weren't defined by these errors, because their greater goal was to spread the word about the Kingdom hope amidst expectations of the imminent end. And now, we've gotten rid of most of that chronology rhetoric and spend more time highlighting the positive, life-changing aspects of the message. And I see a great value, like a pearl, in the overall set of teachings we stand for. And I do tend to fall back on how the Israelites had asked for a king and got a range of kings, from evil to good, but none perfect, of course.
I am out for the rest of the day without much access, so I won't spend much time revisiting issues already covered. And I know the answers won't be satisfactory anyway. I should also say that I hope you don't lose your spirituality. Many exJWs do. Also, I wouldn't make too much of the fact that I used the word "apostate" when referring to the challenges you offer. I don't think of you as apostate as long as you are in a stage, as you describe, of anger and confusion. That could be understandable. I would hope you could see that there is a beautiful baby in that bathwater before you throw it all out.

First of all, before I begin answering, I wanted to say that I have long expected that any JWs who go online to defend their views publicly will see more and more of what is beginning to happen here. The specific challenges coming from you (@4Jah2me), @Witness and @Srecko Sostar (and a few others) have lately seemed like a stronger "anti-JW onslaught" than this forum has seen before. Personally, I think it's a good thing that more and more JWs are prepared for just this type of barrage. At the moment they are all coming apparently from ex-JWs that we would call "apostates." But the Internet easily allows anyone to become capable of bringing these exact same challenges to us. So they are not specifically "apostate" challenges.
Of course, I've brought up some of these same challenges myself, because I think we all need to think about them before we answer with our typical, traditional responses. I believe that we need some doctrinal adjustments, and therefore, I'm not exactly defending the GB position against your challenges. I like it that @TrueTomHarley is standing in for me, but he is probably also concerned that, on my own, I'll end up throwing the GB under the bus.
I'm not talking about some of the minor throw-away complaints (like 'Bible Studies are really just Book Studies' and we're trying to replace the Bible with these books, etc.). The GB challenge is probably the most difficult to address in a way that can rationalize some recent inconsistent statements, the play between spirit-directed and inspired, modern "apostolic" precedent, the GB's request to be trusted while admitting that some of the teachings and processes are bound to be mistaken now and then. And we have the challenge of when and whether conscience comes into play, whether legalism has gone too far, and truly difficult doctrines to defend such as overlapping groups within "this generation" and overlapping blood components with blood fractions, etc.
Yes. The GB dictate to the congregations and, unless the dictate is seen as unconscionable or unscriptural, the members of the congregations are expected to obey. Naturally, this can go too far, but the reason for this should be easy to understand.
For the following situation, for now, you might just want to insert your own view of what a proper Christian is, if you completely reject the possibility that a JW can be a true Christian:
Hypothetically, a Christian may find himself/herself in a place with no fellow Christians to associate with, and all efforts to make disciples might fall on unproductive soil. But let's say that a Christian in this situation is happy and zealous for what he has learned from the Scriptures, has followed Jesus' command to make disciples so that others will know what Jesus taught, and is successful in converting 40 persons to Christianity and they all, because of their Bible reading, want to establish a community congregation to try to follow closely their view of the 1st century congregations as closely as possible. 
As everyone has unique abilities, and was converted at various times, the congregation will naturally have members of various levels of experience, and they likely want an orderly process for meeting and teaching and participating in the activities that they agree are important and consistent with their beliefs. Not everyone will want the same meeting times, not everyone will be teaching from the platform, or leading or suggesting the activities. There will be compromises as to meeting times, topics discussed, the depth or simplicity of those topics, how much to spend on activities, building maintenance, color of carpets, etc.
Most will appreciate that those who qualify as "elders" Biblically, will also be capable of making those decisions in a way that benefits the majority in the congregation, even though it's not perfect, and no decision will be right for all members. Some of the decisions will be compromises, some will be about process, and very mundane things.
But some will be about teachings, and it's likely that new things will be learned, and questions will be asked that make persons rethink something that might have been taught a different way than before.
I hope you can see that, even with JWs out of the picture, you could probably accept this entire situation as a possible, and even normal, Christian congregation. So now we take it a step further:
The excitement and joy in this congregation of 40 soon becomes 80 and 160 as more and more share in Jesus' command to make disciples. They are now spread over 100's of miles, and need 4 congregations. This turns to 400 miles and 20 congregations. We would expect that some of the qualified elders would be chosen and invited to give talks and instruction in some of the other congregations? News of congregation events and experiences in one congregation might want to be shared to build up those in another congregation? Perhaps a newsletter is in order that's shared among all 20 congregations? Perhaps even some of the more successful methods of making disciples could be shared? And these 20 congregations might find it nice to have a chance to gather together will all 20 congregations of those related to them in the faith on special occasions.
It will soon be useful, perhaps necessary, to have certain members of these congregations specifically involved in (assigned to) tasks related to coordination, writing, topics for sermons, administration duties, and some assurances that their doctrines are being "double-checked" against the Bible so that one congregation is not teaching something that another congregation would find unbiblical or even offensive. The doctrine checking would no doubt go to those elders most experienced at teaching and preaching and who had experience visiting multiple congregations.
I believe that most of these ideas would not be offensive to you, when you think of how naturally they occur in various denominations all around the world.
With JWs, a large body of doctrine has been built up, and remodeled, over the last 135 years or so. Those elders who act as elders of multiple congregations instead of just one local congregation will see themselves as the "guardians of doctrine." (The term, as used by Brother Jackson, sounds too much like a protector of traditional doctrines, but I think he truly meant it as guarding the doctrines so that they remain consistent with the Biblical "constitution" even when amendments are necessary.)
What I'm saying is that it is quite natural that we have a GB function. And I don't think it starts with how much they think of themselves, but the very high regard they have for the unique value of the doctrines in their care that makes them accept that they are handling a very special function. So they have looked for a Biblical way to highlight that value and ended up creating a doctrine (in 2012) about the GB being the same as the FDS, not even including the "Helpers." It's based on the one parable that highlights the way spiritual food is distributed to the entire congregation. (It appears they also considered using the parable of the loaves and fishes, but this one has too many participants in the distribution.) To me this is a doctrine that will likely need to be adjusted back to what it was from about 1928 to 2011, where the few in charge of writing and publishing doctrines only spoke of themselves as "representing" the rest of the FDS.
Their function would be the same, however, with or without their current explanation of the FDS parable. But that doctrine itself has caused some problems in that it tends to highlight the importance of 8 persons when the entire focus should be on the overall value of the unique set of doctrines. I don't think any of us should have a problem, however, with the idea that a small group of elders who are seen as "faithful and discreet slaves" would perform many of the same functions as the Governing Body are now forming.
They are elders, and they deserve respect. Most JWs think the GB are the equivalent of the FDS, so this is not a problem anyway. But I'm sure there are many who have already put this idea to the test, and it makes sense to them. Many others have put this idea to the test and they realize, as I said above, that it could be a doctrinal mistake, but would have no great effect one way or another if the doctrine were changes. (In fact, I have found long-time Witnesses who thought this had been the doctrine for nearly 50 years, since the GB arrangement.)
Also, those of us who have remained JWs, even after questioning that particular doctrine, do so because we believe the majority of the basic doctrines being "distributed" are correct, otherwise there are other denominations to look into. My own criteria, based on the Bible, immediately knocks out just about all the other denominational options at a glance.
I don't see the same huge difference. Paul spoke of the removal of the gifts of inspiration. So even if they were inspired, we should not expect inspiration to take the same form today. Also, the GB model themselves, not directly on the apostles, but on the Council of elders at Jerusalem, which was best known for correcting a big mistake that came right out of their own congregation, from under their noses, which Peter and James (not an apostle) had even hypocritically participated in. Also, even the apostles were not "inspired" at all times. 
No one goes to the door with the overlapping generations message. Our message is that the time for this wicked system is short, and that the Kingdom offers the perfect solution, so lift your heads up and rejoice, and if you really want to do some good, join us in spreading that same message to others. 
Haven't seen that invoked for a while. It gets drummed up by exJWs from some old 1950s Watchtower. It's been used again since 2000, but it's in the context of preparation for persecution as a possible way to be "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves." The basic idea is not to give more information than a person is entitled to, especially so as not to put our brothers and sisters unnecessarily in harm's way.
Yes. I know the quote, and I've heard others like it. It's an imperfect statement made by an imperfect man. But the motivation from context is the idea (perhaps patronizing) that most of us are like children who need a lot of reassurance. A parent wants a child to show trust even though the parent knows that he or she will make mistakes. But because the motive of most parents is loving, those mistakes will rarely outweigh the value of a child's trust in the parent. A good shepherd will show love to the flock under their care as if they are like his "children." I'm not offended because I think the phrase was properly motivated. 

My brother, the analytical chemist and toxicologist (researcher), went to prison for 3 years because he refused to assist the government in secret with poison to kill dissidents.  He later did research in metallurgy, and then programmed computers  for scientific projects.
He wanted a break from programming and took a job in research with L'oreal cosmetics.  Research is his first love.  After a while the company started to pressure him to do a doctorate they needed. He resigned......  He would have loved to do it but realized it was a bad example to his sons and the congregation. 
But in my experience, I have seen the blessings that come from sacrifice done in faith.  Just remaining strong in the truth is a blessing some do not really appreciate.
University education is now a trap, especially with the new humanities.  I lost one of my best friends who did a masters in this newfangled social engineering sciences - He was like a son to me.  He is now apostate and I have not seen him for a few years.   The heartbreak of this made me realize the pitfalls of higher education anew.
 

Just to mention one thought: churches teach the immortality of the soul - so even if they profess that they believe in the sacrifice of Jesus ..... they do not teach that Jesus "really" died. The bible says Jesus put his "soul" in death ...... he did not exist at all for 3 days but   after 3 days jehovah resurrected him with immortality. Jehovah  gave him immortality as a reward for his faithfulness.  He was the first to receive immortality.  
I just want you to think how important it is that one must understand the death of Jesus to call yourself a Christian. I can bombard you with many scriptures to prove the above truth to you but I do not think this forum  is the place to do it.
The same goes for the teachings about the Jehovah' s name, the future kingdom of God etc.  These CORE teachings of truth are not adjusted. Other things regarding prophecy, better understanding of illustrations etc time related teachings, have been adjusted..... but the core teachings - which make us totally different to all other religions  - is core teachings of truth from the bible.
Hindus, Buddhists, Islam, and most other religions teach the immortality of the soul........ which is a lie from satan. Its origins come from ancient Babylon in teachings of the "underworld". Some of this has led to the teaching that people will burn forever in a literal fire because the soul cannot be destroyed..... it is immortal.   But the bible says: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.  Ezekiel 18:4. King James. 
We were talking about modern times.  I should have remembered you always revert back  to the past.
The GB are 'now' very careful to not infer anything which can be interpreted as a date for Armageddon because of the maliciousness of enemies who dig up things to accuse. 

I came in the truth 45 years ago while a young student in Africa (lived there for 45 years). I have worked and lived also in USA (15 years), England, Sweden and now retired in Republic of Georgia. I worked as a reporter and after that in PR for several companies.
I find most Americans (not all) myopic and inward looking and entitled. What I learnt in my travels is that 'cultures' give people certain values that they cling to - which can make them difficult and unadaptable.  And this is also true of people in the truth. Personality traits and values which are so ingrained that if the person is not prepared to work on it themself. Hence, they can make it almost impossible for Jehovah to work with them or for them to fit in. So some people - as a result of this, think the elders and GB are controlling.
If they look closely - they will see the fault is their own.  Sweeping statements such as  "workbook " wich seem to be a mandatory way for preaching  shows an ignorance of the truth. It may come from deepseated rebellious inclination to any authority. 
I work with youth in the fieldservice all the time. While they do not have the experience to talk off the cuff - I always do.   They follow the prescribed workbook ideas perfectly and do well enough but they can also see how my life experience, additional knowledge and knowledge of other countries,  can help a person with small talk and much else .  
I watch politics all over the world and understand how large corporations work. Most of the criticism I see against GB comes from the inexperience of not understanding that the GB deal with a different set of laws in each country and had to learn the hard way that American law is not universal law....... and laws are not applied the same everywhere. 
IF I were a GB member I would also have given the same preaching suggestions to new or shy people and encourage them to stay on topic so they can at least have a positive experience.  I am here in a foreign language congregation and the repetitive field presentations in the "workbook" help those who are learning a new language. A good question to always ask is this: what would I have done if I was a GP member?   
OLDER  members who have heard the basics over the years at meetings definitely  like new ideas to meditate or "chew" on. So  I usually prepare and answer to this effect.... which usually gives young or newer ones in the congregation incentive to do more research.
Recently we had a section on cleanliness.  Why?   Well,  I had a student/study from a very poor part of the world. Her children used to smell, she had no sheets on her beds, etc. Etc. They came to meetings this way.  We had to teach her these things.   Some countries  have merely the bare necessities - they do not use sheets...or have enough water to wash. So never be arrogant and view the GB as being "prescribing", silly or harsh.  How to feed your family in a healthy way with very little money is not a subject fit for USA but very important in other parts of the world.
In Africa,  we have terrible practices which come from spiritism and superstition..... people sometimes revert back to old ideas..... so one has to speak to these persons and maybe discipline them.  Is this harshness or ensuring that Jehovahs standards are kept?  One always finds the personality type which is not easily adaptable.  If I tell a white person that they will share the paradise with a black person and they don't like it?  Who is closing the future hope of living in a paradise for themselves? The GB, the elders, me or the persons own bad attitude? 
I am a natural rebel, could never follow rules and still hate rules. Dont like it when elders use a suggestion from GB to make it into a rule.  I have also seen them being corrected for doing this...... On the other hand, I also do realize the necessity to have a mild spirit, a yielding personality - not quick to criticise those who try to serve jehovah to the best of their ability. BUT I have also worked on obtaining a strong sense if what is right or wrong morally.....so I can smell an amorral  rat or thought quickly.  
Do not be misled- I see secular attitudes on this forum all the time. Where brothers and sisters have lost the ability to see danger where it is lurking because they have become too secularised in their thinking.  After all?  Was the test of Adam and Eve not the choosing of their own morality (right and wrong which affects every situation in life) and the  rejecting of Jehovah's good and bad?    Never think you are "sophisticated" or "reasonable"  or "scholarly" when you adopt secularized opinions......and those in opposition to the bible.
The GB and elders are there to keep suchlike ones from not influencing the flock.....

Yes, it is a man made rule, but based at least in part on scriptural principles. Also these are man-made rules coming from those who should be in a better position to see a wider set of statistics and experiences as they get reports from all around the world. Elders are sometimes called "epi-skopos" in Greek, meaning overseers. When we consider those who literally watch over a flock closely, we might expect them to count the number of sick, the number who die, the number eaten, the number of sheep in various categories: mottled, speckled, young, old, male, female. They also know the dangers of taking them through "Wolf Ravine" or making them wade through "Poison Water River." Similarly, if the elders working at headquarters got 100 reports of divorces right after holding an international convention in Las Vegas or Amsterdam, but no reports of divorces every time they held the same size international conventions in Helsinki or Reykjavík, I think it would be a wise man-made rule not to schedule international conventions in Las Vegas or Amsterdam. Not all traditions make the word of God void.
The WTS had a program to pay for Law School for selected individuals already working full time at Bethel or other full time service who showed promise or aptitude for such. This program was dropped, and you can be sure that there those at HQ who were counting the cost, much like those shepherd counting the survivors of "Wolf Ravine." They reverted back the previous system of using volunteers who had finished Law School before becoming Witnesses.
Age 17.
But all scores that count are measured at the end of Junior year, not Senior year of American High School. Therefore it requires a conscious choice to pick the maximum number of advanced placement classes which could result in the best choices and scholarships and would therefore be a path chosen by age 15 or 16 at the latest.
Local papers print up the bio given by a Guidance Counselor office of each high school reporting on the scores of their "Valedictorians" and those who are accepted by certain colleges.
Asked and answered in a prior post.
So far, I believe well more than half of the GB says.   
I believe that since WE, if we hope to be noble-minded individuals, are responsible to search the Scriptures and see whether these things are so, then this must be WE not only THEM. And there are many ways to tell someone about the Kingdom hope, the paradise, the resurrection, God's purpose, God's government, and why it's got to be a sight better than what we are putting up with now. Sometimes the CLAM workbook is spot on, sometimes it doesn't fit my style at all.

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

Thank you @Anna I totally agree with this point. 

I am sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. I understand your concern about what the GB think, as they are supposed to be providing food at the proper time, and we are supposed to trust that this food is faultless. But sometimes it isn't. We know that although doing their best, the GB can still make mistakes. In that case, what is ultimately more important than what the GB says or thinks, is what Jehovah says and thinks. This is what I had in mind. By reading several related scriptures it becomes evident that the answer to your concern is that we have to leave it in Jehovahs hands, fully trusting that he is the reader of hearts and is perfectly just and loving, and would NEVER destroy anyone unjustly, even if in our opinion they did the most horrible things. So within this framework, it really doesn't matter what the GB think. Again I apologize, I really did not mean it to sound unloving, just factual. 
So when you mention that we have to be in line with the orgs. thoughts, yes, but first and foremost we have to be in line with Jehovah's thoughts.

Don't know if it's related, but I heard of a lawsuit or two where a Hall and property were just recently remodeled and spiffed up to be worth, 3 million, for example, but the Society was so anxious to cover financial expenses that they forced a quick sale for only one million, and now the congregations are separated to various Halls, not-so-nearby. A brother was removed because he wanted to raise this into a financial issue. But there might also be a kind of problem showing up that some get too attached to the properties that they have helped to find and fund. (Like a rich person that donates a lot for a church, or buys a pew to get his name on it.)
As you say, I'm not sure that each of these cases has been handled with proper communication. Also, I'm not sure the term 'financial benefit' is fully appropriate either. In some cases the impression was 'financial necessity.' I heard talk of financial instruments (bank loans) that would have been embarrassing not to be able to meet. The Catholic church is not afraid to announce that they have had a diocese here and there on the verge of bankruptcy, which is sometimes really no more than loan restructuring. But I don't think anyone is ready for terms like this to be used about us, yet I believe that there was a real concern about one such loan. If it becomes public elsewhere, I will post some of the information I base this idea on. If not, consider it just unsubstantiated rumor. Not worth repeating.

I don't think they're hiding that we need money, (periodic reminders of how much things cost). I just think that sometimes creating new ways of saving money is put forward as a spiritual benefit, rather than what it is, a financial benefit. There's a rumour going round where I live that 25 elders have been demoted because they wouldn't cooperate with the arrangement. I wonder what was on the elders minds? The spiritual benefit, or the financial?
Interesting
@JW Insider let me illustrate what I mean, I have mentioned this on here before. After the fall of communism the brothers of one small town in Europe got together and with their own hands and own resources built a beautiful Kingdom Hall. The congregation was thriving well for the next 30 years. Then two years ago, one night at the midweek meeting, it was announced that the KH would be put on the market. No one knew anything about it and it came as a shock. There was a lot of upset, not only about the KH but also about the logistical aspects. There were many old timers there, who did not drive, and relied on the friends in the town to swing by and pick them up for the meeting. Now, the KH everyone was assigned to was 1 hour away.....
This is not an isolated case. I have heard of many other cases similar to this here in the US. We just had a married couple move into our hall for the same reason. They were given a choice where they wanted to go, but every KH was 2 hrs away, so they moved into our territory. It wasn't too much trouble for them as they are a young couple and both pioneers. Not so sure what the older ones did....by the way, the territory this pioneer couple lived in was very country. I guess now it will become one of those once a year worked territories.
PS. I wanted this last bit to be separate, but it still got merged with the previous reply...

It sounds like a lot of JWs are treating all of you as if you were all apostates.
I've seen situations in households that sounded similar where the persons who were not disfellowshipped were still associated with as a way to continue to keep tabs on other persons. I've see situations where the non-disfellowshipped members had the exact same views as the disfellowshipped but family members continued to associate with the non-disfellowshipped ones as a means to continue having the semblance of some kind of family: especially to see children, grandchildren, etc. Also, I have seen cases, and this includes one of my now deceased uncles, who was baptized young, and disfellowshipped when he left as a teenager. Long before I was born, he would say stupid and terrible things about JWs and Jehovah, just to get a rise out of my mother and grandmother (his sister and mother). But over the years he settled down, got married, raised kids, took good care of his wife and his share of taking care of his mother and other elder aunts and uncles of his. But he couldn't come back to the JWs if he wanted to, because he was now an "affirmed" atheist/agnostic with no interest in religion - but no interest in speaking out against religion, either. By the time I was growing up, we never went out of our way to visit him and his family, but they were often over at my grandmother's house.
So, a disfellowshipped person, who is now an atheist and who doesn't focus on JWs is somewhere near the middle of this spectrum.
Some of the groups on the spectrum therefore include:
JWs in good standing who apostasized from other religions. Former JW's who were not DF'd, but who drift away because they have no interest in speaking out against JWs. These would not really be distinguishable from those who drift into inactivity for unknown reasons. Former JW's who were disfellowshipped and or who left because they couldn't live up to moral standards. Former JW's who were disfellowshipped for any known reasons but so long ago that a kind of unwritten "statute of limitations" has run out, especially for purposes of associating with family and relatives. Former JW's who were "stumbled" by something they saw, or experienced: abuse, 1925, 1975, changed teachings, etc. Former JWs who didn't want to be disfellowshipped, but who were "cast out of the synagogue" because they felt a conscientious need to speak out against one or two specific teachings or practices. (Those who did not "push" away but who were "pushed.") Former JW's who speak out against specific teachings or practices, but for whom their confusion is chalked up to a mental illness they have no mental capacity to overcome. (I'm talking about an obvious mental illness handicap of some kind, not merely an accusation.) Those DF'd for apostasy, but who we never hear from again. Those DF'd for apostasy, but who continue to make noise against JWs. Those NOT DF'd for apostasy, but who make a lot of noise and accusations specifically against JWs Then we also have a category, of those who are truly apostate, but who are not found out and remain in full association. Perhaps they find ways to undermine fellow JWs or manipulate, sometimes in a more subtle way, perhaps by a haughty attitude, perhaps by giving them a bad reputation in the way they take advantage of others. Some may find semi-anonymous settings in which to create contentions, and make strong judgments to "curse" others. Some may get away with their own immoral practices and defend themselves in ways that draw in the vulnerable. These are like the rocks/reefs in Jude 1:12:
When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, they are like dangerous reefs that can shipwreck you. They are like shameless shepherds who care only for themselves. They are like clouds blowing over the land without giving any rain. They are like trees in autumn that are doubly dead, for they bear no fruit and have been pulled up by the roots. (New Living Translation)
 
There are some who do speak up and offer false or confusing teachings, or maybe even true teachings but in a way that creates disorder and confusion.
We should remember that there were those who would speak up in the early Christian congregation with a saying or a bit of knowledge or a tongue, or a translation for someone who had been moved to speak in a tongue. Not all of these bits of knowledge would make sense to everyone. Paul knew that. John knew that. Not everything would build up. Sometimes the utterance would be worthless, or worse, might appear to have been from a demonic spirit. These gifts were causing confusion, and Paul wished to bring some order to the congregations. Ultimately, a simple solution was apparently implemented. If it promoted Jesus Christ as Lord, let it stand.
(1 Corinthians 12:1-3) . . .Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 . . .  3 Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.
(1 John 4:1, 2) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God,. . .2 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.
(Revelation 19:10) . . .For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”
Because of the wide variety of persons both inside and outside the congregation to watch out for, I think a lot of the onus is on individual Christians to decide who is good or bad association for themselves. The apostate may feel himself under no obligation to stand off from us, so we have to "apostasize" from them, especially those who continue to associate. We "mark" them. But if they have not stood away from us, and still want to associate, then technically they might not even be "apostates" and we should not judge them so harshly. But if we feel they are not building us up spiritually, and we seem not to be able to offer them anything, then they can be to us like a man of the nations or a tax collector. We can therefore associate as needed, but always, as with anyone, we keep a view to how this association might build us up or tear us down, and therefore we are very careful of such associations.
When we use the expression, "they went out from us because they were not of our sort," we have to be careful that we are referring to the sort of people we should be. We should be the sort of persons who will continue to show love to all kinds of persons, even our enemies. We have to be careful that we have not become the sort who judge harshly, or who push people away just because we don't understand them, or because we are too haughty to be questioned.
 

All the redrawing and reshuffling of boundaries and the sell off of some Kingdom Halls and the merging of some congregations is probably because a few financial experts were finally allowed to sit down and ascertain the efficiency (or lack of) of the way Kingdom Halls were being used. They called it equalizing. When I hear brothers say that obeying the restructuring, and cooperating with moving to different halls is obeying Jehovah, (was also in a video) I can't help wondering why they don't just say it's because it saves money. Why bring Jehovah into it and make people feel like they're sinning against Him if they don't cooperate. 

Or technology per se?
The scripture spoke of a time when men who were delegated to care for mundane tasks required spiritual and secular qualifications in view of the context of their work. This required appropriate selection.
Similarly today, secular background is required to implement technical solutions for spiritual tasks effectively. The acquisition of secular skills is sometimes erroneously viewed as antithetical to spiritual endeavour. Therefore an important and enlightened balance needs to be achieved and maintained to avoid waste. This of course will have to incorporate the principles of Ex.35:30-35.
Quite a challenge, but apparently met is my observation.

This viewpoint is personal and not only unreasonable, but unscriptural.  In fact, it is also out of line with Jehovah's Witnesses thinking by at least 29 years. As Melinda above said, do your own research in the theocratic literature, and avoid some of the clumsy blundering presented by cleverdicks more interested in their own opinions
*** g90 9/8 p. 23 Suicides—A Resurrection? ***
Stunned friends of a suicide victim may thus take comfort in knowing that “Jehovah has shown mercy to those fearing him. For he himself well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust.” (Psalm 103:10-14) Only God can fully understand the role of mental sickness, extreme stress, even genetic defects, in a “suicidal crisis,” which, the National Observer noted, “is not a lifetime characteristic [but] often a matter only of minutes or of hours.”—See Ecclesiastes 7:7.
Granted, one who takes his own life deprives himself of the opportunity to repent of his self-murder. But who can say whether one driven to suicide might have had a change of heart had his fatal attempt failed? Some notorious murderers have, in fact, changed and earned God’s forgiveness during their lifetime.—2 Kings 21:16; 2 Chronicles 33:12, 13.
Thus, Jehovah, having paid “a ransom in exchange for many,” is within his right to extend mercy, even to some self-murderers, by resurrecting them and giving them the precious opportunity to “repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance.”—Matthew 20:28; Acts 26:20.
 
*** g00 2/22 pp. 6-7 Given a Desire to Live ***
Yet, never forget that Jehovah God raises up the dead and that this might well include our loved ones who because of depression, mental illness, or despair took their own lives.—See “The Bible’s Viewpoint: Suicides—A Resurrection?” in Awake! of September 8, 1990, pages 22-3.
While suicide cannot be justified, it is comforting to remember that the future prospects of our loved ones rest with a God who fully understands that weaknesses and frailties could push one to such desperate action. The Bible says of Jehovah: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, his loving-kindness is superior toward those fearing him. As far off as the sunrise is from the sunset, so far off from us he has put our transgressions. As a father shows mercy to his sons, Jehovah has shown mercy to those fearing him. For he himself well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust.”—Psalm 103:11-14.
 

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

Don't think it is new light. Don't be disturbed by anything you hear. Start doing research.  It is easy when you are on the computer.
People in the organization always used to think one would not get a resurrection if they committed suicide. However, please read  the powerful statement mentioned at the end of this answer to a question from readers (in 2002). Go to the article and read it in full. Continue to do research.
 
*** w02 6/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
If someone commits suicide, would it be advisable for a Christian minister to give the funeral talk?
….
Any future prospect for the dead is in the hands of Jehovah, and no one is in a position to say whether the deceased will be resurrected or not. The minister can concentrate on the Bible truths about death and offer comfort for the bereaved." End Quote
 
Underscoring = mine
 
 
 

1.)  Jesus was on a mission that required him to walk into a trap, and be executed. He willingly did this knowing he would die, in a manner most painfull, where agony is an understated word.
In the Military this is called a "suicide mission" ... a concept that EVEY civilization INCLUDING the armies of ancient Israel fully understood.
2.) Jehovah NEVER prohibited suicide, and was well aware that there were circumstances where it was the only option available, as in the circumstances of King Saul's last battle.
3.) Jehovah never even prohibited cannibalism, which was widely practiced in Jerusalem under siege by enemies.... it is a CULTURAL taboo, not a prohibition from God.
Same thing with suicide.
As Brother Splaine of the governing body said in a video awhile back, "we" once had opinions on ever imaginable subject, and they were presented as inspired directives and pronouncements from God. The example he gave was the hidden and profound meaning that it was downhill from one town to Jerusalem and that camels walking downhill had one symbolic meaning, and camels walking uphill had another symbolic meaning.
To be kind, this was some writer's opinion only ... but it was presented as profound insight from the Word of God.  What it really was was unmitigated crap.  I had a LOT of respect for Brother Splaine as being the only sane person in the bunch, until he came out with the "overlapping generations" chart, and tried to explain that nonsense as TRUTH.
I suppose he could be reassigned to the basement janitorial closet of Bethel laundry room if he did not obey the directive, and that is why he did it.  Of course, again, I am trying to be kind.
How many THOUSANDS of times can you be wrong about everything in everyday life and still have credibility? I would have to quote Circus Master P.T. Barnum.
Four years ago my Siberian Husky got cancer in her right eye, and after several thousand dollars we thought it was "fixed", but it spread, and she was being eaten up by cancer, and we took her to the Veterinarian and had her painlessly executed. It was with great anguish on my wife and my part to have to do that, but that is what love and compassion required of us.
LOVE NEVER FAILS ... remember that one?
FOLLOW JESUS  ... remember that one?
What EXAMPLE did he set for all time, in considering whether suicide is or is not ALLOWED by Jehovah God?
He committed suicide by deliberately walking into a known trap, for the EXPRESS purpose of being executed.
AND JEHOVAH RESURRECTED HIM !
When the Governing Body admitted for the first time, and only time, that they were NEITHER inspired of God, or infallible, in the February 2017 Watchtower, my reaction was ...
DUH!
 
 
 
"Quod est necessarium est licitum"
That which is necessary, is legal
Like, AS JESUS POINTED OUT, rescuing a lost sheep on the Sabbath, when doing work on the Sabbath is expressly forbidden.
How much more that principle can be applied when there is no prohibition whatsoever.
Playing with and manipulating words and phrases to conform to cultural taboos that you already believe, all the way to your bones ... DOES NOT COUNT!
I am saddened by knowing that when my time comes ... and it will all too soon .... there will be no one at all among Jehovah's Witnesses  to show me the same love and compassion that I showed my dog.

If he's honest, he surely admits that he has caused people to view scripture differently than how Jesus taught it. Otherwise why would he give a talk in October 2014 where he said that a very well ingrained method of teaching the scriptures was about to change? And the basic reason for the change was because he said it didn't currently line up with the style that Jesus used when he taught. It was NOT the way of teaching that God approved.
Somewhere between 100 and 200 doctrines changed, based on that talk he gave in 2014. They were changing because, as his theme scripture stated, the Governing Body was to become more faithful and discreet and follow Luke 10:21 which was tied to "how Jesus taught" and which said: "Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."
Now if he was changing 100 doctrines to become aligned with the teaching method Jehovah approved, then he must have believed that he was previously NOT following the teaching method that Jesus used: the method that Jehovah approved.
If you don't believe this, then you might as well say that the change was made just so that things wouldn't seem stale.
Of course, based on our history, it's always quite possible that some teachings have been currently been added which cause us to view scriptures differently from the way it was taught in Scripture itself. What caused us, for example, to decide that the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were God and Christ when Russell and nearly a thousand years of Christian commentary had it right. Surely, you admit that the teaching in 1961 was wrong, and this is the reason it was changed in 1962.
Up until a few weeks ago, we taught that the "locusts" of Joel 2 referred to Jehovah's Witnesses, and just now Brother Splane ( https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/2019-Annual-Meeting-Summary/ ) has stated that the locusts refer to God's enemies, just as nearly 100 percent of Christendom's commentaries have been saying for hundreds of years. This teaching was already "clarified" in 1961. ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1961883 ) and is still on the website as current in the "Revelation . . . Grand Climax" book. ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988022 ) Again, you might have guessed that Russell had already claimed that the locusts could not be God's people. D543 R362:3 R5527:1 Q23:7
So this is not really clarification at all. Russell teaches that the "superior authorities" are secular not God & Christ. Rutherford "clarifies" this (1929) to say they are God & Christ and not secular. Then in 1962, it is "clarified" again to say that it is secular and not God & Christ.
Same with the locusts. Russell teaches that they cannot be God's people. Then the Watchtower "clarifies" that these locusts are God's people. Then Brother Splane "clarifies" that these locusts are not God's people. So far, the website only says the following.
Brother David Splane clarified our understanding of the prophecy recorded in Joel chapter 2 describing a swarm of locusts. We look forward to studying this clarified understanding when it appears in The Watchtower.
I think it's easy to see that this will clarify that the teaching was wrong up until a few weeks ago. A wrong teaching is always misleading. But it does not necessarily follow that the person teaching it wrong is "mentally diseased" as you said would be true of any who taught something misleading.
Several would say that the overlapping generation teaching is wrong the way that Brother Splane explains it. You might say that anyone who teaches that this explanation is wrong is misleading by the teaching of Christ and God's words. But what if Brother Splane, next October, begins to agree that the way he explained it was wrong, and says that a new "clarified" teaching is now going to be taught? It seems like you would say that the persons who were right were misleading, and Brother Splane was not misleading when he was wrong.

Revision is a great thing if we are revising something that was wrong before. Otherwise, there is nothing stale about the original most basic understanding of the Scriptures. Even the most basic message about how Christ Jesus fits into Jehovah's purpose is exciting, comforting, wonderful, and never needed anything to be added or removed from it.
(Revelation 22:18) . . .“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;
(2 John 9) 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.
(Philippians 4:9) 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you.
(Colossians 1:23) . . .not being shifted away from the hope of that good news that you heard and that was preached in all creation under heaven. . . .
(1 Thessalonians 2:13) 13 Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers.
(2 Timothy 1:13, 14) 13 Keep holding to the standard of wholesome words that you heard from me with the faith and love that result from union with Christ Jesus. 14 Guard this fine trust by means of the holy spirit, which is dwelling in us.
(Hebrews 2:1) . . .That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away.
(1 John 2:24) 24 As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you.. . .
(2 John 6, 7) . . .This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should go on walking in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, . . .
(Galatians 1:8) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.
(2 Corinthians 11:4) . . .For as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you receive a spirit other than what you received, or good news other than what you accepted, you easily put up with him.
(Hebrews 13:9) . . .Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them.
Sorry about all the scriptures. Feel free to just pick any one of them. 😊
Also, beyond the basic message about Christ, there are some very important teachings that needed revision, not because the original text of Scripture was ever wrong, but because so many religions had veered away from truth. (Think: Trinity, Hellfire, Halloween, Easter Bunny, eternal soul, all good people go to heaven, God is on our side when we go to war, etc.)
But if all of that had been perfectly noticed in 1919, for example, I don't think Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses before us would feel that things had gotten stale, and that we needed to go back and forth on some of these items. It would have been just fine, if all these things had been seen right away, with no need for revisions.

No Allen....I mean Tom. Revision is a good thing. The problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind. The equivalent is maybe what psychologists do, they seem to change their minds, one time they say it's better to let a child do what it wants, and then when negative results are reaped, they say it's better to discipline a child. A kind of trial and error approach. Similarly, when what JW's teach does not work out, then we try the next "theory". Think generation.

Hate to say it, but @Witness is right on this. The Watchtower source is very recent, and I have previously quoted it on the forum. I assume "Witness" has quoted it here too.
Unfortunately, you would be wrong on that question, too. "Witness" says he was referring to the more subtle meaning of setting oneself in a position of authority like God, which is not done with a direct claim. But there are quotations from quite a bit further back in the Watchtower which taught a direct equivalence between the words of the Governing Body, and the words of God. Prior to that, the Watchtower claimed that those of the higher calling, the Bride of Christ, could be spoken of as the "Mighty God" and the "Everlasting Father" and the "Prophet Greater than Moses."

A brother in charge of the PR department at Bethel for a while told me that probably 90 percent of those who drift away because they no longer believe what they once believed are never heard from again. The 10 percent who make noise probably make noise mostly because they are angry that they have been cut off from the love of their family. They can no longer see their grandchildren, their children, parents, or grandparents, or cousins, aunts and uncles. To him the apostate problem was the loud voices, the negative interviews they gave, and the protests at assemblies and headquarters. He thought we could resolve almost all of the apostate problems if we merely changed the one rule about cutting of the natural affection of the family. There was some vacillation on this point for a while.
In those days, he said that the only two serious negative issues to deal with for a PR department were "blood and blood." (Meaning blood transfusions and blood relatives.)
His worst nightmare was when a baby died, or a child died, when all evidence showed that it was because the parents refused a blood transfusion. Pregnant mothers died from lack of a transfusion, too, after a delivery, and this was almost as bad. Custody issues also tended to focus on the way one parent, the Witness, would handle a blood related emergency. The other topic, stated above, was about cutting off family members who were disfellowshipped.  Today of course, there might be other issues people are speaking up about, such as CSA.
I tend to agree that it is mostly those who harbor some kind of anger who rant on about 1874, pyramids, the Millions/1925 campaign, Miracle Wheat, Salon Society, Beth Sarim, Blood, Transplants, etc. A tiny percentage had their own issues with blood, but the people who scream about blood policy the most are those hurt by being rejected from family ties, not because they had any experience with the blood issue. Today, I'm guessing that most of those who make noise about CSA have never had a personal negative experience with CSA.
Obviously there are exceptions, and who knows about the 90-percent/10-percent estimate anyway?
But I think we should be careful about judging everyone who leaves by the noise that the noisiest apostates make. I've never seen a crowd of apostates bigger than 40 or so, and some of these same persons make plans to travel around the world to keep the numbers of protesters looking large. Compare that to the MILLIONS now living who no longer believe the JW doctrines.
I also get the feeling that many of the loudest voices don't really even believe that CORRECTING Witness doctrines is all that important. Perhaps "Witness" and "Pearl" are exceptions, but I think most of the loudest voices don't really think that correcting JW doctrines is any more important than correcting Catholic or Mormon doctrines, because they most likely have no specific Christian anchoring of any kind. But they focus on JWs because that's where their anger or even hatred is focused.
I read something from one of the loudest voices against CSA (whose last name is a type of tree). There is a real hatred for elders. It's obvious. At the assembly, we were told that it wasn't about those who had drifted, but those who "push" away and show prideful arrogance and bitterness. I think we've seen cases where prideful bitterness and arrogance and hatred have been nurtured to truly become a mental disease. Diagnosable and certifiable. I won't point to any specific names, but there's that guy who stuck his name on "silent lambs" for example, if the stories I've heard are true.
Still, we can't judge generally of the millions who have drifted away, and just don't want to revisit something that has become painful to them. Even among the brotherhood, there is more and more evidence of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of Witnesses who are PIMO (Physically in, mentally out). A few months ago, I had no idea that there was such an expression, but I just "reddit" and discovered that there are many who plan to leave quietly, without raising their voice, and not making a scene. Mostly it looks like they do this to keep the family bonds intact. Relative to "sickness" it reminds me of this verse:
(1 Corinthians 11:30) 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and quite a few are sleeping in death.

Wow! Then you were one of very few who saw it back in 1980 when it was a makeshift "9th floor" of the 8-story factory building at 117 Adams. I only saw it because I would sometimes give special request tours. I seriously don't believe that more than 50 brothers out of 3,000 New York Bethelites had ever seen it. It was even left off the route of those who did night guard duty, and they provided their own janitorial services. It was not really even gaining traction yet by 1980, and ultimately would not be end-to-end testable until 1985.
Also, back in 1979 and 1980, persons from the Home Art Department got a tour of the APS5 machine that would someday hook up to Wallkill's MEPS system for typesetting. As early as 1978, artists could go down to the "Photoplate" department's large camera darkroom, where they could use a small manual machine to "set" headline type, one letter at a time, exposing it from a negative strip of letters and shining it down onto a piece of film below. This way one could use a calligraphy font for example, and get the letterspacing just right, and then use other darkroom cameras with exposure tricks to produce special effects, to create an outline font, Gaussian blur and drop shadows, for example.
By 1985, it was well tested, and before they declared a success, they wanted to make sure that any of the machines could produce disks to work on any other machine. They had every conceivable accent mark for all languages that the Watchtower was printed in by then, and made a big splash in 1986 by setting several of these machines in branches all over the world. The small team of brothers in Wallkill had a huge success, and all training on the machine would be handled up at the Farm. It was delicious irony that all the experts had been down in Brooklyn for most of this time.
The most important thing is that it "got the lead out." For many decades, all typesetting for the publications had been done with small metal blocks that were lined up the way newspapers had done it, and these columns of blocks created a "mold" that was dipped in hot molten lead, then electroplated with zinc to last a bit longer. Some factory floors literally contained a ton of lead. The presses also were fitted to run with these lead plates, so that probably 25 percent of the factory workers handled lead during some part of the process.
The new typesetting machines could now use a computer keyboard, and film could now be moved directly to "offset" plates made out of film for offset presses. By the early 1980's, no more new letterpress presses would be purchased. Offset was closer to a mimeograph process, but so accurate that you could line up 3 and 4 colors onto the same rolls of paper. (Playboy had been using 5 colors, I learned from one brother in charge of an offset process.) 
Sometimes "spirit and wisdom" was deemed to be the equivalent of the "number of years managing a small corner of a factory bureaucracy." Ultimately, a world-class typesetting solution was delivered, by volunteers, and it still works today, 35 years later.