ComfortMyPeople

I thought these were all excellent ideas. And I have to agree with them, especially the one where you mentioned me. 😄
I thought an excellent opportunity arose in advance of the Love Never Fails theme for the conventions.
(1 Corinthians 13:8-13) 8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, 10 but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.
For me, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to take the exact context of that verse, and develop a theme about ways in which the Governing Body can show that they are now reducing all the emphasis on attempted prophecy. (What will happen next before the end? A more pointed judgment message? Anointed "raptured"? Babylon the Great fallen? "Other Sheep" replacing the Governing Body? Cries of Peace and Security? An attack on Jehovah's Witnesses corresponding to touching Jehovah's eyeball? Gog/Magog? The order of the earthly resurrection? Who will teach whom? What happens at the end of the thousand years?)
1914, 1919, 1922, the 1260 days, the 1290 days, the 1335 days, the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 7 times, etc. These can all be de-emphasized now and replaced with a new message about ways we can show love to one another. This could include caring for aging parents, new counsel about caring for our families materially, caring for the sick and poor among us, even caring for disfellowshipped ones at our own discretion of personal conscience. Becoming known as a group who shows the greatest love among ourselves would be our new "calling card." Preaching could still have a "last days" theme, but it would always be about the sort of persons we ought to be in showing love for one another, knowing that the end could happen at any time, or that our own end could happen at any time. Our hope, and our faith in that hope are still a big part of the good news, but our love right now is the greatest theme of the good news.

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
 
 
 

I’ve said it before but not lately. The forum is good for me because with it I can hone my writing. 
If I post a Jumping Jehovah’s Witnesses photo on the JW only forum, someone will give me thunderous applause. If I truthfully say that I think such photos are stupid, someone else will counsel me to turn my frown upside down.
For the most part, I like the atmosphere of unity on what is most important, but there are times when it will not do. Better, from a writing point of view, to be here.
Here I can reference some JW foibles, even missteps, and not suffer rebuke. More importantly, here I can write something favorable about them and know that there are villains that will promptly hurl it back in my teeth. I analyze the response, like a Hadron collider scientist. Sometimes the results tell me that my comment was a logical train wreck. Even friends here will tell me so. When my remark brings mostly taunts, insults, and ridicule, then I know that I have hit bullseye.
A writer needs a muse but he needs more than a muse. He also needs a villain, so I hang here where there are villains galore.

Even on this forum, when anyone brings up what the Watchtower publications said about expectations for 1881, 1910, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1970's, 2000, we sometimes hear an excuse like: "Can we really be blamed for having tried to put a time frame on the time of the end? After all, don't we hear about the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if Jesus is going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at this time?"
What makes this particular excuse troubling is that we don't expect anointed elders, or Governing Body members say that they believe they should be in a better position than other anointed ones when they are in heaven, perhaps even in a position much closer to Jesus himself. Yet can they really be blamed if they tried to do that? After all, the disciples themselves appeared to have involved themselves in such jockeying for position:
(Matthew 20:20-22) . . .Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.”
And of course, Jesus knew it wasn't just the mother asking which is why he addressed the two disciples themselves. But notice that the answer contains a mild rebuke when Jesus says that this is not even his to give, but it is in the Father's jurisdiction:
(Matthew 20:23) . . .but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Similarly, Acts 1:7 contains a similar mild rebuke to the question about the time period for end-time events:
(Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
And of course, similarly, when Jesus' disciples asked him when the temple walls were going to fall, and they asked Jesus to give them a sign for when it would occur, Jesus didn't start out with a time frame, but created a context, starting out with the words:
(Matthew 24:4) 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you,
(Mark 13:5) . . .So Jesus began to tell them: “Look out that nobody misleads you.
(Luke 21:8) He said: “Look out that you are not misled,. . .
There is plenty of variation in the details each gospel writer chose to report, but they all agree that these were the very first words out his mouth. And of course, some also emphasize the same "mild rebuke" that we see in Acts 1:7.
(Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
(Mark 13:32) 32 “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.
In fact, Luke includes some of Jesus' words from the Mount of Olives "Sermon" as words that Jesus had already told the Pharisees, when they also asked him "when the Kingdom of God was coming." (Luke 17:20). Jesus response was very clear, that it would not be by things they could observe, not by physical signs.
(Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. "
That's not only a perfectly good translation, it fits exactly what Jesus repeatedly said about persons looking for signs. 
(Matthew 12:39) . . .“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.
(Matthew 16:4) 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.”. . .
(Mark 8:12) . . .So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.”
This appears to be the same clear reason why Paul could say:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.
This wouldn't have meant that they couldn't tell that they were already living in revolutionary, troublesome times, hard to deal with, and this should have made it clear that they should be ready at any time for something to happen within their own lifetimes. The biggest evidence that the end of all things was upon them was that Jesus had now already been in their midst performing miracles. But thinking they needed another sign to know that they had to be always ready might just be an indication of a "wicked" inclination. Jesus' disciples wanted a sign to warn them in advance when the walls of the temple were going to fall. Was it going to be in their lifetime? Could they continue to use the temple today? tomorrow? next week? next year? Jesus said they didn't need to know the timing because the end would come as a surprise, when it would be too late to do anything about it. By the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies, it was time to flee. That probably didn't sound rational to them from a human standpoint, since you can't easily flee through an army that's surrounding you. 
I don't believe there is any way to tell whether there is supposed to be some exact parallel in a secondary application to these Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, or perhaps standing in the holy place itself.  Obviously the GB has long believed that there must be some direct parallel, based originally on some of the old type-antitype traditions, and they are predicting a future scenario that appears to match the first century by drawing on Matthew & Luke and bits of Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc.
A good question might be whether predicting a future scenario becomes more probable because it can incorporate bits and pieces from several different Bible books, or does it become less probable because it has been built upon bits and pieces of several different Bible books from different contexts. I think we are therefore back to a question of our own trust in those "bragging rights" that make us feel that a higher measure of Jehovah's spirit direction (or inspiration) has been evident among the leadership of this organization.

An example of an anti type, and we know what we think of anti types lately:
" Over the years, Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become more discreet, or cautious. In what way? Now the faithful slave is careful to say that a Bible account represents something greater only when there is a clear Scriptural reason to do so."  ws15 3/15 p. 6
Is there a good scriptural reason to use Nebuchadnezzar's  rulership as applying to Jesus?
I don't know, I haven't researched it enough. And this is the crux of the matter.  I am a perfect example of an average Witness, who really just takes this particular doctrine as matter of fact without thoroughly "making sure whether it is so". Why? Because it is darn time consuming and complicated. And I would say at least 95% of Witnesses feel the same way. Which means 95% of Witnesses believe this doctrine without having convinced themselves whether it is really true or not. Hmmmm.......

I think that one is excellent too. It follows the same general format of showing how the Bible answers the Big Question of how problems on earth will be solved through God's Kingdom. The angle of Truth and Trust in the Bible is the theme. Again, there is nothing stated in this magazine that should produce any unresolved questions. I believe even JTR would have to rate it somewhere near 100 percent useful, rather than his oft-repeated 15/85 rating.
I'm going to try not to get drawn into a 1914 discussion, at least not on this particular thread/topic. But I do understand what you are saying. I'm not sure how far back you are going, because even up to as recently as 2014, there were plenty of references that could have meant what you refer to.
The Isaiah 44/45 (Babylon-Cyrus) prophecy comes across as the most amazing prophecy to outsiders. It's simple, and it's used, of course, in the self-run free study on the JW.ORG website. The only persons for whom it would not work so well are those who believe that "Isaiah II" were chapters tacked onto the original book of Isaiah after the Babylonian exile.
If you listen closely to the Faith In Action -"Out of Darkness" Part 1 video, I think it's clear that Daniel's "prediction" of 1914 is a better example for "insiders." An outsider would have too many unresolved questions:
Most outsiders aren't into this idea that the Bible pinpoints dates for end-times prophecies. They would wonder why wicked Nebuchadnezzar's rulership pictures Jesus' Messianic rulership. They would wonder why we give it an additional application when the scripture itself explicitly says the application is to Nebuchadnezzar, and says nothing about an assumed second application. And they would wonder how we got 1914 from 7 times anyway. It doesn't even say 7 times are 7 years (that takes another scripture from a completely different context). And if it did mean 7 times were 7 years here, it doesn't say that those years were actually 360-day years, which also comes from its use in a different context. And if it did mean that 7 times were 360-day years, it doesn't say that those 7 times 360 have to each be multiplied again by 365.25. That's because the day-for-a-year idea also comes from a different context. And if they looked into it more deeply, they might wonder why we were forced to use a mix of secular dates for some events and pseudo-secular dates for some other events. Some of the dates we accept are the same as the secular dates, and some are 20 years different from the secular dates, but this time in the same context. They might wonder why a Bible prophecy would even rely on secular dates in the first place since the Bible itself never uses a secular date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 587 BCE, 33 CE, etc. They might wonder why we inconsistently claim that these "seven times" must be multiplied by 360, then multiplied again by 365.25 days each, when we claim that all uses of the term "three and a half times" in the Bible (Daniel & Revelation) should NEVER be multiplied again by 365.25, but only multiplied by 360. And even then, we allow for round-off in the use of "three and a half times." And if they looked into Babylonian and Jewish calendar systems a bit closer, they might notice that there was no such thing as a period of 7 years that did not contain at least two (sometimes three) intercalary months so that the number of days in ALL 7 year periods would always be closer to 2,568 days, not 2,520. Some of these questions would likely remain unresolved to an outsider, no matter how well we tried to explain them. They work for most those of us on the inside, because we generally trust that all those questions were probably resolved by persons who have a lot more holy spirit available to them than we do. So we just accept that we don't have to ask such questions.
Besides, when I mentioned the "Out of Darkness" video, I am primarily referring to the very fact that this prophecy is used as one that is supposed to prove that Jehovah was using Russell (not Daniel).
At the 44:20 mark in that video, we hear Brother Gerrit Lösch say:
". . . it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others."
At the 44:30 mark in the video, we hear Brother Anthony Morris say:
". . . it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!"
This is hardly about the original prophecy anymore. In effect, this 1914 prophecy is therefore our own "internal" evidence (bragging rights) that there was an element of true inspiration from Jehovah to those who were supposedly "wise" enough to pinpoint that year by jumping through mental hoops that Daniel would have never dreamed of.

Moooo!
CHICKENS IN CHOPPERS .mp4

@James Thomas Rook Jr. 
You are so raw, stark, sincere ... my hand shakes when I'm going to give you a positive point. I think you're right in what you say, but the way you say it cows me.

I have never heard any JW explain that.
It needs no explanation.
It's like when an Eagle swoops down on a lake, and snatches a large fish out of the water, it's talons deeply embedded in the fish's body, that this is that natural order of things, and is entirely natural, appropriate, and the way the REAL WORLD works, and is supposed to work.
The fish, and many JWs of course, may have a different opinion.
Perhaps in the New System, from a boat they can toss straw up in the air for Eagles, and what falls in the water the fish will eat, and insects and rodents will rule the Earth.
 

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too?
This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent.
If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. 
But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019.
The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media.
So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. 
These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?"
Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake!
So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too.  After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways.
Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth.
And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression.
In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life.
I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas.
We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions.
When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time.
But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc.
So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

This is really nice. I'd like to see a time when those JW.ORG boats area as ubiquitous as Red Cross, etc. That would be a great witness, too. There are times when the logistics can go wrong, too. (I heard about the warehouse of supplies destined for P.R. last year.) As it is, still, I think we normally do a lot better in this regard than nay-sayers say. And there's a lot of willingness to help that can go untapped if we don't speak up and join in with others. This is where we can really "shine" as an organization.

Most Witnesses are quite satisfied with a midweek meeting, a weekend meeting, and meetings for service, a study night with the spouse or family, and some additional time for talk preparation, additional personal study, prayer, meditation and contemplation. For many, due to various circumstances, it's hard enough to keep up even a minimum in each area mentioned.
But for others, it's obvious that they (we) spend quite a bit of time on this forum, too. And for some, I'm guessing, they spend some time here, and even seek out other places, too, where Witnesses talk or are talked about. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to how we spend our free time, there are much more fruitful pursuits. We could be visiting sick or shut-in brothers and sisters, or just doing something loving for someone else, perhaps even taking on some additional employment to able to help out those who are having financial difficulties. And not to judge anyone of course, because it's likely that many of us already engage in such additional activities, and yet we still find ourselves coming to a forum such as this.
I don't think anyone of us would think we are "witnessing" here, at least not in the typical sense of how we define sacred service. I do think that some think they are "witnessing" when they defend the status quo against those who might raise questions. And some non-JWs and ex-JWs likely think they are "witnessing" by exposing the real truth about the truth, as some would call it. However, when JWs, defenders of JWs, or even non-JWs find they are not resolving questions in their defense of a certain position, there is often a lot of anger that gets shown, and the focus of anger gets all the attention instead of the unresolved question. (Of course, that's probably a tactic for some who would rather not admit that some questions are still unresolved.)
I won't try to address the reasons that other people might be here, but I can repeat my own reasons.
I have unresolved questions of the type that would not be addressed by others in the congregation, nor by the ones responsible for  "creating" those unresolved questions in the first place. JW.ORG is not going to include a "questions and comments" section any time soon, and if they did it would become a complete mess in a hurry. So I use this site as a kind of substitute for a JW.ORG questions and comments section.
Because of that kind of utilization of this forum, I don't include a lot of comments about the areas of agreement because I have no question about them, no issue, and these are the areas where we can comment and speak up freely at the Hall, or to anyone around us who's interested in talking about such things. If this is our situation, however, that kind of skews the impression we might give to others about the Witnesses, why we believe, why we share our beliefs, and how much we appreciate our association with a world-wide brotherhood of fellow believers.
Speaking for myself, I know we've done a bit of this on the JW Closed forum, but perhaps it's a good idea now and then to share our positive public views on this part of the forum, too. When I get a chance, I'll add something more specific to my next post.
 

It's really pretty easy to understand. If a person is considered a prophet, and he tells people that there is not just evidence, but incontrovertible proof that the resurrection of David and Abraham will begin in 1925, and it doesn't happen -- believe me -- a lot of people are going to turn their backs on him. Some might give him a year or two, just in case of a minor math error, but most people don't wait around after a prophet makes a fool of himself.
There was another prophet like this named Nelson Barbour who prophesied that Jesus would return physically in 1873. He pumped up the readership of his Tract Society, but 1873 came and went, and he readjusted to 1874. Then 1874 came and went and the great majority of those subscribing to his tracts turned their backs on him. Probably about the same proportion of those who turned their back on Rutherford in just a few short years starting in 1925.
Not so sure that's such a hard thing as you think. All you have to do is say that you believe something might happen a certain way, rather than making outlandish claims that you have incontrovertible proof, and that there is more evidence for 1925 than Noah had for believing what God told him about the upcoming Flood. Or that even though the chronology for 1914 was based on "God's dates" that couldn't be changed even by one year, that there was more evidence for 1925 then there was for 1914. If you don't print claims in the publications that you (and those who appear to agree with you) have the spirit of the Old Testament prophets you will find that very few people will come up with this idea on their own.

I suppose I could tie it back to the original post about a French-speaking Baptist Church. Most of these are about the wording used when we try to imply that: for decades in advance the Bible Students predicted that 1914 would see a time of trouble associated with the end of the Gentile Times, Christ's presence, Christ's enthronement, and the casting of Satan out of heaven. The problem is that the English wording has (usually) become very careful to only IMPLY that the Watch Tower publications and Bible Students had, for decades, predicted Christ's presence, a time of great trouble, Satan's ousting, and Christ's enthronement. In reality, all that was predicted decades in advance for 1914, was "the end of the Gentile Times" which, of course, meant some things that are completely different from what we now apply it to.
It's easy for someone who knows English well, to create an implication of the above (to mislead) without actually stating something that's untrue. I have found some translations where the translator didn't catch the subtlety, and just assumed that the Watchtower really did predict these things. I guess it would be very difficult for Brother Jackson (Translation Dept) to call up these other translators and have to admit that they need to create a subtly misleading wording that does the same thing in Greek, for example, that it does in English. I'm sure it happens in many other languages where the translator isn't in on the "game."
But I am hesitant to start a repeat on a 1914 / Gentile Times topic.

Yes please, do post some examples. Although all this is hugely off topic, who cares.

Reminds me a bit of when the Watch Tower publications declared Rutherford to be permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, while proposing that a British politician of the time was also like a prophet because he was declaring some of the same rhetoric that Rutherford was declaring. At the time, Rutherford was still trying to overcome the problem that 1914 had failed to be the fulfillment of that time of trouble, and he was pushing for the new idea that 1925 would resolve that problem by being a new time of trouble, and even the time for the physical resurrection of Old Testament faithful men of old to the Millennial age on earth.
The Watchtower liked this "prophet" because he said that 1924 was to become even worse than 1914. By 1939 to 1944 it could be said that the true climax of these prophecies about 1924 had come true. Prophet Ramsay MacDonald and Prophet David Lloyd George hadn't predicted a resurrection, though.

I'll be happy to discuss it. The first thing I find about a 1946 prediction is on this site: https://www.shortlist.com/news/george-orwell-made-this-incredible-political-prediction-in-1946
George Orwell made this incredible political prediction in 1946
"The man was an actual prophet"
. . . Deacon unearthed this passage, written back in 1946 by George Orwell, taken from one of his columns in Tribune magazine (which were collected in Seeing Things As They Are earlier this year) which eerily seems to describe exactly what is currently happening.
Then I found the actual thing Deacon said, here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/10/08/how-george-orwell-predicted-brexit/ where he quotes from another book he (Deacon) had been reading, and it was noteworthy for how well it matched all the arguments of the EU referendum campaign for "Brexit":
“The fact is that there is strong popular feeling in this country against foreign immigration,” wrote Orwell. “It arises partly from simple xenophobia, partly from fear of undercutting in wages, but above all from the out-of-date notion that Britain is overpopulated and that more population means more unemployment.”
The most necessary step is... to raise the general level of public understanding: above all, to drive home the fact, which has never been properly grasped, that British prosperity depends largely on factors outside BritainGeorge Orwell, November 1946 On the contrary, argued Orwell, more immigration was needed, to compensate for “the ageing of the population” and Britain’s “frighteningly low” birth-rate. Unfortunately, he said, efforts to encourage European immigration had been “met by ignorant hostility, because the public has not been told the relevant facts”.
Above all, he concluded, the government must “drive home the fact, which has never been properly grasped, that British prosperity depends largely on factors outside Britain”.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Of course, Orwell was not actually a prophet, otherwise he would have foreseen that attempts to “drive home this fact” would be successfully dismissed as “talking Britain down”. Were he here today, Orwell himself would be cast as a sneering metropolitan liberal elitist, out of touch with the legitimate concerns of ordinary hard-working families.
Still: pretty remarkable. That article was written 70 years ago, and yet – excluding its references to the Second World War – it could easily have been written in 2016. Orwell effectively foresaw the arguments of the EU referendum campaign, decades before the EU even existed.
Oh – and he also noted that there was no popular support in Britain for admitting refugees, because the public believed they were only economic migrants.
Curiously, even the part where Deacon dismisses Orwell as "not a prophet" because he didn't correctly foresee the "driving home" of counterarguments, well, this could be dismissed now that this "drive" has also become a public part of the Brexit debate. After all, the article above was written in 2016, and here we are 3 years later when the debate has gotten even stickier.
@divergenceKO, Was that the topic you were referring to? If so, I think it makes Orwell very observant, but not really a prophet.
Reminds me a bit of when the Watch Tower publications declared Rutherford to be prophet in 1924, while proposing that a British politician of the time was also a prophet because he was declaring some of the same rhetoric that Rutherford was declaring.
 

Sounds like Allen Smith is in a tizzy for having to create multiple new accounts........AGAIN!
Allen, you can come out now, we know it's you!

For anyone who didn't understand the joke, the excerpt I put in the original post was actually taken from a 1987 Watchtower. It's from an article written by Brother Fred Franz, giving a part of his own life experience:
*** w87 5/1 p. 24 Looking Back Over 93 Years of Living ***
One Saturday night in the spring of 1913, Albert had gone to bed early in the dormitory of the YMCA, where he was living while working in Chicago. Later, his roommate burst into the room to explain a difficulty. He was invited that night to the home of a Mr. and Mrs. Hindman, and their daughter Nora was to have a girlfriend there at the house. Two girls would be too much for Albert’s roommate to handle by himself. With alacrity, Albert rose to the occasion. During the course of the evening, Albert’s roommate was getting along quite famously with the two young ladies. But Mr. and Mrs. Hindman concentrated on Albert . . .
I often heard Brother Franz speak to the Bethel family for up to half-an-hour at a time, over a period of several years in the late 1970's and early 1980's. He often seemed pleased with himself that he could get away with sometimes coarse talk and even "suggestive" language, that no one else would ever even attempt in front of an audience.

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.
For example, there was a change that happened in 1943 that changed the time for Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914. In the long run that is just a minor adjustment of 40 years. But it doesn't mean that 1874 is still a true doctrine. 536 BCE for the destruction of Babylon was changed to 539 BCE, even a smaller change, but this doesn't mean that 536 BCE is still a true teaching. Yes it's a type of "refinement," but a "refinement" that must still admit that the previous teaching is false. 
For example, the Watch Tower publications once taught, under Russell, that the "superior authorities" were not the secular authorities, but were God and Christ. Then, in Rutherford's time, the WT changed the view to just the opposite. Then, in Knorr's/Franz' time, the WT changed the view to the opposite again, so that it was right back to what Russell had taught. The Watchtower treated this as an adjustment, a refinement, and even claimed that there were advantages to having been wrong (without using the word "wrong" of course). This is clearly a matter of just not wanting to admit that a false doctrine was ever "false." Haughty people don't like admitting they are wrong, so this gives the impression of haughtiness.
So was Naboth a prophetic type of Jesus or the anointed? Is it the case that this is true, and that the only reason we don't teach it that way is because it's too complicated to tell the whole truth? If it's still true, then someone should say that it's still true and we won't hold back from telling you "all the truth"? Of course, if it's actually a change in "understanding" then we are admitting that the former understanding is wrong, therefore it is no longer true. As you tacitly admitted, as Witnesses, we can never admit to having had a false doctrine. So we use different words. False doctrines must be re-worded as "refinements" "improvements" "clarifications" etc.
We see this type of explanation in the very articles that explained the changes to "types" and "antitypes" which had no Biblical basis to be treated as prophecies. The article appeared not to admit that these had ever been wrong. Only that the:
"faithful and discreet slave" was becoming steadily more discreet. discretion was leading to "greater caution" these older explanation were unduly difficult to grasp the details can be hard to remember and apply the former explanation tended to obscure more important moral lessons None of those points actually admits that the former explanations were wrong, only that we were now being more careful, more cautious, more discreet, more simple and clear. Watch very carefully how this was done:
*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 pars. 10-11 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper.
Notice how even the idea that we no longer understand it the same way is worded in such a way as to be very ambiguous about whether the previous understanding was actually wrong. This is one of dozens of such ambiguous wordings, and I can show you cases where this exact kind of wording apparently "fooled" the translator into creating inconsistent (less ambiguous) results in Simplified English, French, German and Greek. And I'm sure there are several other examples I don't even know about.

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.
This actually turned out to refer to literally over ONE HUNDRED teachings that we were now admitting had no scriptural basis. All at once, we were DROPPING at least ONE HUNDRED TWENTY teachings.

Then there were 80 more of these types of teachings, which were reviewed in a 1981 Watchtower
*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.
I knew that we had spent hundreds of hours studying these in Congregation Book Studies from the time I can remember my very first Tuesday night meetings. Then, at Bethel, in 1980, I became a study partner with a Gilead student who lived next door to me on the third floor of the 107 building. My own set of Gilead Notes (I have 2 full sets) contained MONTHS worth of study of these specific kinds of teachings, and some students fretted that they could not keep track of them all.
But what caught my attention in Brother Splane's talk is that they were being compared to the Pyramid doctrines under Russell and Rutherford. Brother Splane admitted that Brother Bert Schroeder (died 2006) had already come up with this change and had provided the current definition now being published in the 2015 Watchtower.
*** w15 3/15 p. 9 par. 7 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype.
*** w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
The questionableness of such doctrines had already been discussed in a Watchtower from back in 1972, where even though it came very close to admitting just how questionable such teachings were, the decision was made to keep teaching them.
*** w72 8/15 pp. 502-503 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. For example,. . . .[long example skipped]
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No.
The real answer was obvious, but before that article was complete, the writers had found some twisted reasoning to be able to keep these dozens and dozens of false teachings that we had come to accept from old traditions. Brother Splane gave the example of the brother(s) who really loved the Pyramid doctrines and how they had to have the humility to suddenly change their viewpoint when Rutherford dropped it. (Rutherford said these teachings were ultimately from Satan.) It almost sounded as if Brother Splane was saying that these "antitype" doctrines could not be changed until certain people who still loved them had dropped off the scene. When he mentioned that this "new" way of looking at it had already been stated so well many years earlier by Brother Schroeder, this was another hint that this change had been in the works for quite a while.

I never said they received the same, less, or more. Jesus said, about Jehovah:
(John 3:34) . . .He does not give the spirit [by measure].
Also, I think we cal all learn a lot about the spirit from these words:
(Romans 8:26, 27) 26 In like manner, the spirit also joins in with help for our weakness; for the problem is that we do not know what we should pray for as we need to, but the spirit itself pleads for us with unuttered groanings. 27 But the one who searches the hearts knows what the meaning of the spirit is, because it is pleading in harmony with God for the holy ones.
(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God except the spirit of God. 12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.
I wouldn't suggest that.
*** w11 12/15 p. 25 par. 12 Guided by God’s Spirit in the First Century and Today ***
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons.” (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11) Yes, holy spirit can operate in different ways on different servants of God for a purpose. Indeed, the holy spirit is available both to Christ’s “little flock” and to his “other sheep.”
*** w09 6/15 pp. 23-24 par. 15 The Faithful Steward and Its Governing Body ***
However, Christians who have truly received this anointing do not demand special attention. They do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special insights beyond what even some experienced members of the “great crowd” may have. (Rev. 7:9) They do not believe that they necessarily have more holy spirit than their companions of the “other sheep” have. (John 10:16) They do not expect special treatment; nor do they claim that their partaking of the emblems places them above the appointed elders in the congregation.
Of course, that last Watchtower article was written just a year or so before the Governing Body did begin to ask for special attention, but the points made are still true.
It would be difficult to be a woman and also be a man, and the husband of one wife. (And, of course, those with two wives could not be elders!)
(1 Timothy 3:1, 2) . . .This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife . . .
As pointed out in a previous post, this "obedience" is really about imitating those who take the initiative as examples to follow. Translating it as leaders appears to be improper, and in conflict with Jesus and Paul's other words about Leaders. In fact the NWT shows how this phrase can actually be translated as "those taking the initiative"
(Romans 12:10) . . . In showing honor to one another, take the lead* [*take the initiative].
*** nwt Romans 12:10 ***
Or “initiative.”
In other words, one of the ways we can recognize the true types of persons (especially elders/shepherds) whom we should be following (imitating) would be if those persons are taking the lead in showing honor to persons like Sean Migos. As individuals, members of the Governing Body should not have any trouble showing honor to persons like you.
Yes.
No. As I said, it's a very good thing to have a committee of elders who are capable of handling issues for the congregations on a world-wide basis, whom we can respect. We live at a time when communications are such that this can work better than ever in the past.  I believe that various issues that come up with respect to unity and disunity in the congregations SHOULD be addressed by such a committee.
I think you know that the only time for concern is when this group of persons might take upon themselves the authority to create new doctrines/practices based on supposition and conjecture. There is nothing wrong with supposition and conjecture, and we should expect some of this, but it should never be accepted as anything more than supposition and conjecture. (And the Governing Body has admitted that much of what we have been taught has been conjecture.)
There is a loving way to present different conjectural ideas, and there is a way that "beats their fellow slaves." One could say, that this certain verse might mean this, and it might mean that so that they explain why they prefer (for certain explained reasons) to believe that it means this. That's fine because it doesn't get in the way of the leadership of Christ Jesus. But if that slave should say, we believe it means this, and if you believe it means something else then you should be kicked out of the congregation, then I think we know when a line has been crossed. It does not have to be the duty of a "Governing Body" to create conjectural teachings. In fact, per Galatians, if conjectural teachings exert an influence that is different from the good news taught in the Scriptures, then we should treat those particular conjectural teachings as "accursed." 
So if we have the idea that any man or group of men (elders, committees of elders, or "governors") are to be so respected and honored that we could never imagine treating their conjectural doctrines as "accursed" then we have too high an opinion of those we are following.
They might even be correct about everything at the moment. (And as you know, I don't think they are correct on at least two teachings, but that's my own opinion and conscience.) But all of us can at least check if our view about them is proper and scriptural, if we can at least imagine a scenario where we would not only question every doctrine, but even potentially realize that a directly or indirectly promoted teaching could be "accursed." 
Exactly!

I think you are exactly right. This is why I said the following:
That was based on Hebrews 13, of course, and also:
(1 Tim. 5:17) Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.
As Christians, we should question every one of our teachings, to make sure it is brought into obedience with Christ's teachings. We should never shirk our responsibility to "make sure of all things," "prove to yourselves," "test the inspired utterances," "pay close attention to your teaching," "see whether these things were so," etc., etc.
And since the Governing Body have become the most public of our elder committees, and have taken on a greater responsibility, it is vital that we question them just as we should question a local body of elders. More will be asked of those to whom more has been given. Teachers will receive heavier judgment. We don't just want to have our ears tickled.
In the NWT, the paragraph that starts out with 1 Tim  5:17, quoted above, ends with this phrase, after a discussion about reproving elders before all onlookers:
(1 Timothy 5:21) 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.
Remember that there was a group of men in the first century that, due to a set of circumstances, were being seen as a kind of "governing body" that was at least indirectly exerting an strong influence on the doctrines of distant congregations. Galatia was very far from Jerusalem; it was about as far from Antioch, as Antioch was from Jerusalem. So Paul wrote to Galatia about those men who were at least indirectly creating such an influence on them, and he said:
(Galatians 1:7-3:1) 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. . . . Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . . . 15 But when God, who separated me . . .  so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. . . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . .9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. . . .  11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, . . . 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, . . . . 3 O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence. . . ?
So when Paul told Timothy not to show any partiality when it came to reproving elders before all onlookers, we see that Paul had already "walked the walk." If we are to be imitators of Paul's example, then we should be willing to look closely at all the doctrines and influences that we are taught, no matter who they come from. Even if from those who seem to be important, even if from the very pillars of the congregation, even if from James, Peter or John, or men sent from them. Would we be willing to resist such ones face to face? Or would we yield in submission because they were highly regarded?
Fortunately, of course, that matter in Jerusalem was cleared up with the help of the holy spirit. Fortunately for us, most matters of this magnitude have already been cleared up, too, and we have no problem always giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want us to submit to their lead. This probably causes no problems at all for 99 percent of us.
But we should still learn from the apostle Paul's words, that our teachings should not come from men, and that we should always be ready to resist any teachings that still need to be brought into harmony with the good news, no matter from whom or where we learned them.
We should be happy to have a committee of elders who are willing to take on the necessary responsibilities for the world-wide congregations. We should respect them, honor them, and follow their lead. However, the teaching that claims that the Governing Body is equal to the Faithful and Discreet Slave of Mt 24 is one of those teachings that we should question, specifically for the Biblical reasons that Jesus and Paul gave us. Also because it directly contradicts other Watchtower teachings from the March 15 2015 Watchtower. Also, it gives the impression that there are specific humans that we should always identify as Leaders, (even "Governors") instead of looking IMPARTIALLY to each particular example of conduct and faith, to contemplate how it turns out. It gives us the impression that, for doctrinal matters, a certain group of men should always have the FINAL say, and can therefore override the Christian-trained conscience of individuals, who will stand or fall before the judgment seat as individuals. 
As true and discreet slaves, we will each take the initiative (take the lead, see footnote on) in carrying each other's burdens. None of us, no matter how much we think of ourselves, will believe that more honor goes to us than we should give to others. This is what true obedience means:
(Galatians 6:2-5) . . .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
(Romans 12:9-16) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked; cling to what is good. 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead.[fn, initiative] 11 Be industrious, not lazy. Be aglow with the spirit. Slave for Jehovah. 12 Rejoice in the hope. Endure under tribulation. Persevere in prayer. 13 Share with the holy ones according to their needs. Follow the course of hospitality. 14 Keep on blessing those who persecute; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. 16 Have the same attitude toward others as toward yourselves; do not set your mind on lofty things, but be led along with the lowly things. Do not become wise in your own eyes.

Little is known about Bro. "Judge" Rutherford's small screen TV fetish, circa 1939, because back then there was only one channel, and you had to know Morse Code.
 

Yes, common sense is great!
A few weeks ago, we had the video about the brother getting a bit materialistic and buying a big TV, a fancy coffee maker and fancy car. After study and meditating he realised it was not a good idea so he went and took these things back and he replaced the TV with a really small one. On the way home, the COBE and his wife joked about it in the car (I was getting a ride with them). She said; "did he really have to replace it with the size of a computer monitor"? (lols from all of us) "I mean come on, you'd need a pair of glasses to see that!" (more lols). Me: "so on Sunday when you are at our house for FS you know what you're going to see on our wall" (now really cracking up...tears rolling down face). This back and forth and laughter lasted till we almost got to my house. Of course the conclusion was that this extremism was for illustrative purposes only, and not to be taken literally. However, we all agreed that in the past, and even now, some friends might take it literally...
Later on my husband made a point that on a very small TV, one could still watch the bad programs, if you sat really close that is (lol).