ComfortMyPeople

Instead of being guided by an extensive manual of what to do and what not, I try to follow, in this order:
  (Romans 6:14). . You are not under the law [RULES] but under an undeserved kindness. . . [PRINCIPLES] Common sense is the least common of the senses. But, as @James Thomas Rook Jr. has said very well, many times I cannot behave openly because  (Romans 14:21)  "It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything over which your brother stumbles. . ."
 
What @Jack Ryan mentions I would summarize as follows:
The vast majority of JW's sincerely believe that we will be the only ones to be saved (those who were inside the ark lived, no one outside the ark survived). And stick to this and other similar models to believe that. Normally they are those who believe that we are better than others and, not infrequently, their way of being is in some measure pharisaic. Others, however, think that a God of love, that the Judge of the whole Earth, cannot be so strict. A little with the doubts that Abraham presented to the angel walking towards Sodom. I have to admit that I have belonged to the first group for a long time.
Of course, the statements in our publications are, almost exclusively, in support of the "hard" stance, the one quoted by Jack Ryan.
 

Instead of being guided by an extensive manual of what to do and what not, I try to follow, in this order:
  (Romans 6:14). . You are not under the law [RULES] but under an undeserved kindness. . . [PRINCIPLES] Common sense is the least common of the senses. But, as @James Thomas Rook Jr. has said very well, many times I cannot behave openly because  (Romans 14:21)  "It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything over which your brother stumbles. . ."
 
What @Jack Ryan mentions I would summarize as follows:
The vast majority of JW's sincerely believe that we will be the only ones to be saved (those who were inside the ark lived, no one outside the ark survived). And stick to this and other similar models to believe that. Normally they are those who believe that we are better than others and, not infrequently, their way of being is in some measure pharisaic. Others, however, think that a God of love, that the Judge of the whole Earth, cannot be so strict. A little with the doubts that Abraham presented to the angel walking towards Sodom. I have to admit that I have belonged to the first group for a long time.
Of course, the statements in our publications are, almost exclusively, in support of the "hard" stance, the one quoted by Jack Ryan.
 

So, if I am a HVAC contractor, and a church calls me up to fix their furnace or air conditioner, I can't do it?
That is insanity on parade, and total nonsense.
It is also DANGEROUS, because that perspective warps minds.
OURS!
WE BUY CHURCHES, chop off the steeple and cross, and rededicate it as a Kingdom Hall.
I went to an OBVIOUS converted church-to-Kingdom-Hall, when I was a young boy, dropped a bag of marbles at the back, and they rolled all the way to the front, on a tile floor, in South Richmond, Virginia.
False religion got "our" money, for the sale.
We got the building.
 
 
 

I included a large portion of the page where the paragraph in question ends. This is because there really is a bit of a change in the overall message here. The idea that a Witness MUST make sure that his or her secular employment has NOTHING to do with Babylon the Great had been a very strictly enforced rule in the past, and it has been relaxed somewhat in the last 20 years.
I have no idea what's right or wrong in this regard, because there are some statements that still allow for this to be a matter of conscience, to some extent. Even the paragraph above uses the words "a Christian who is employed by some other business would not want to do extensive work at a facility that promotes false worship."
This starts to bring up quite literally THOUSANDS of examples of work that will become questionable again. How much work is extensive work. My son graduated high school in 2011 with a person who went to Italy to learn how to restore artwork for museums. If she's working on 10 projects and has just been given a statue to restore that was partially burned at Notre Dame, would she refuse, or consider it only one of 10 projects and therefore "not extensive"? If she can finish the piece in only two weeks and not have to step foot herself in the church, then is it "extensive?" (This young woman is not a JW, by the way, so she's happy for the work.)
We went through so many of these legalistic ideas in the 1970's, where brothers lost their privileges and were put on "probation" or "public reproof" for taking on certain kinds of work, that I just hate to see it become Pharasaical again.
 
 

A year or two after I was baptized, about 1968, our Circuit Overseer (called the "Circuit Servant" back then) gave a talk on a Tuesday that railed against giving our old junk to the Salvation Army. (We used to give up the Book Study night for the first meeting with the Circuit Overseer.) This didn't bother anyone too much because we didn't have a Salvation Army around the city, and most of us only BOUGHT things at the local GOODWILL STORE which was huge in our city, and it was unlikely that any of us gave anything to any of these stores, anyway. But someone was bound to ask, not during that meeting, but sometime before the Thursday night meeting, so that the Circuit Overseer mentioned the question, and that he had left out the fact that even BUYING at these stores is supporting false religion, and he added that the GOODWILL STORE was founded by a Reverend So-and-So. 
I know that my mother was like . . . "Why did that person have to ask?" It was her favorite place to shop, spoiled by someone asking the wrong question. 
Fast forward 50 years, and I'm cleaning out junk for my parents at their house in California to move them into an apartment last year. We've got 3 Witness families happy to take quite a lot of the stuff, but there was still quite a bit that no one took. So I boxed it up and told them that I'd drop it off at the local GOODWILL STORE. My mother said, "Fine." And I reminded her of what Brother Kent Karras (the Circuit Overseer) had said. She remembered, and told me that his counsel "lasted all of about 2 weeks." I told her I didn't know she was such a rebel.

It's ALL about credibility.
It's a constant battle between WANTING to be obedient ... and not being an obvious moron.
Roughly the equivalent of not buying lunch at Churches Fried Chicken, for religious reasons.

Well you've got to be reasonable.  The question is; is our employment closely and consistently tied with false religion. One off things don't count I'm sure.  One thing is fixing a church HVAC, and another is specializing in polishing church steeples.

This is true. My uncle was retired from Circuit work due to his age. (And he just visited two weeks ago.) His reports for many years were only statistical, as he was expected to handle locally any "disciplinary/doctrinal/"political"/spiritual/judicial/appeal" matters, based on his training and good deal of trust. A big part of his week was organizing visits to the inactive list to get them reporting (and attending) again, and then dealing with issues among the elders themselves.  District overseers would ask them periodically what they had found most helpful in bringing up the numbers, and we can assume that many of those ideas were fed back to the Service Department. All assignments about what to talk about, and even many "local needs" still came from the top down. In the last few years before retiring, however, he said that there was much more communication about what he felt the congregations needed spiritually, for morale, for encouragement.
Also, they are encouraged to write into the Service Department for answers to difficult questions when in previous years they were expected to handle more issues on their own.
The article I quoted from above gives the impression that this is mostly a one-way, top down direction from the GB, but this doesn't tell the whole story:
*** ws17 February p. 26 par. 17 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
We can also remember the Governing Body by following its instructions and direction. The Governing Body gives us direction through our publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions. It also appoints circuit overseers, who then appoint elders. By carefully following the directions given to them, the circuit overseers and the elders show that they remember the Governing Body.
I expect that you were thinking of this same article, just quoted from:
*** ws17 February p. 25 par. 15 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Consider what happened in 1973. The June 1 issue of The Watchtower asked whether “persons who have not broken their addiction to tobacco qualify for baptism.” The answer it gave to that question was based on Bible principles, and it was no! The Watchtower cited several scriptures and explained why a person who will not stop smoking should be disfellowshipped. (1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 7:1) It said that this strict standard does not come from humans but comes “from God, who expresses himself through his written Word.” No other religious organization has been willing to rely so completely on God’s Word even when doing so may be very difficult for some of its members. A recent book on religion in the United States says: “Christian leaders have regularly revised their teachings to match the beliefs and opinions gaining support among their members and in the larger society.” The Governing Body, however, is not guided by what most people like.

So it's pretty easy to separate truth from fiction just by accepting what the Governing Body has claimed about themselves in print. We don't have to make anything up. If they claim a certain thing about themselves, they put it in print, and there is no problem separating truth from fiction, here.
But this does not mean that we shouldn't "obey" them. They are elders, they are desirous of a fine work. We don't obey them because they have claimed to be prophesied about in a parable that Jesus made, however. We "obey" their faithful lead, as we contemplate how their conduct turns out. We obey by imitating their faithful conduct.
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
If we are humble, we will submit to the instruction given by those who are faithful and discreet. This should be true of all elders, who are all faithful stewards.
(2 Thessalonians 3:9) . . .Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate.
1 Peter makes it clear, that to a certain extent being a faithful steward applies not just the elders, but also to every one of us:
(1 Peter 4:10, 11) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God; if anyone ministers, let him do so as depending on the strength that God supplies;. . .
But, none of us, who is really a faithful and discreet steward, will ever recommend ourselves as someone who is approved, and who must therefore be obeyed. We obey in the sense of following faithful examples and Christian instruction.
(2 Corinthians 10:18) 18 For it is not the one who recommends himself who is approved, but the one whom Jehovah recommends.
 

It's good to question. And it's a good question: Are they promoting themselves?
A small group of men, a committee of elders, claim themselves to be the very group of men that Jesus had in mind when he gave a parable about how a faithful slave would act, as opposed to how an unfaithful slave would act. 
Did that claim arise from outside this group of men, or did they promote it about themselves? I'm guessing that you already know the answer.
Do they personally claim to be the only currently living persons that Jesus was talking about when he spoke of the one who would prove himself to be "the faithful and discreet slave"? Is this not the same as saying "we are faithful" and "we are discreet/wise" and "we are that selected/appointed slave that Jesus was referring to?"
*** ws17 February p. 21,22 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
And how can we “remember those who are taking the lead” among us, especially “the faithful and discreet slave”?—Hebrews 13:7; Matthew 24:45.
JESUS LEADS THE GOVERNING BODY
...
In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” . . . Even during those early years, a small group of anointed brothers at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, provided spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. The expression “governing body” began appearing in our publications after 1940. At that time, the governing body was closely connected with directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. However, in 1971, it was made clear that the Governing Body was different from the Watch Tower Society, which was responsible for legal matters only. From then on, anointed brothers could become part of the Governing Body without being Society directors. . . .  The July 15, 2013, issue of The Watchtower explained that “the faithful and discreet slave” is a small group of anointed brothers who make up the Governing Body.
*** ws17 February pp. 24-26 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
“WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?”
12 The Governing Body is neither inspired nor perfect. It can make mistakes when explaining the Bible or directing the organization. . . .  What evidence is there that the Governing Body is the faithful slave? Let us consider the same three things that helped the governing body in the apostles’ time.
13 Holy spirit helps the Governing Body. . . .
14 Angels help the Governing Body. . . .
15 God’s Word guides the Governing Body. . . .
“REMEMBER THOSE WHO ARE TAKING THE LEAD”
16 Read Hebrews 13:7. The Bible says to “remember those who are taking the lead.” One way we can do this is by mentioning the Governing Body in our prayers. . . .17 We can also remember the Governing Body by following its instructions and direction.
This is quite different from saying that the Governing Body strives to be faithful and discreet. That is proper.
*** w18 January p. 19 par. 12 Why Give to the One Who Has Everything? ***
With prayerful consideration, the Governing Body strives to be faithful and discreet with regard to how the organization’s funds are used.
It's slightly different when the same claim is reworded to directly claim that the Governing Body IS faithful and discreet.
*** ws18 January p. 18 par. 12 Why Give to the One Who Has Everything? ***
The Governing Body is faithful and discreet in the way the contributions are used.
But at least that is an understandable statement in the context of an article requesting that we give money and resources for various uses to further the preaching work worldwide, etc.
But it is another thing altogether to claim that they (a handful of men) are the only "faithful and discreet slave" on earth today, that Jesus appointed as a small class in 1919, and that they must be obeyed, and that they are the only source of true spiritual food.
*** w18 April p. 31 par. 1 Questions From Readers ***
Jehovah has entrusted the responsibility of providing spiritual food to “the faithful and discreet slave” alone.
*** ws11 7/15 p. 25 par. 11 Have You Entered Into God’s Rest? ***
What do you do when the faithful and discreet slave tells you to try a way of preaching that you never tried before? Do you obey . . . ?
*** ws11 7/15 p. 24 Have You Entered Into God’s Rest? ***
We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval 

I believe that the illustration of the Faithful and Discreet Slave applies to the Governing Body. But I also believe that it is presumptuous for anyone to limit the meaning of the Faithful and Discreet Slave to the Governing Body. In fact, making such a claim of BEING the Faithful Slave before Jesus returns to confirm who has actually been "the faithful slave" is presumptuous, and is therefore a sign of being indiscreet. It is the very definition of being "discreet in one's own eyes."
(Isaiah 5:21) . . .Woe to those wise in their own eyes And discreet in their own sight!
1 Peter 5:3 was referenced by you and it says:
(1 Peter 5:3) 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, . . .
Referring to oneself as "governors" (i.e. a "Governing Body") is exactly what "lording it over" would be expected to look like. So it's not being faithful to this Bible verse, nor to the original illustration of the "faithful and unfaithful steward/slave" in Luke and Matthew. That same point is made in the NWT cross-referenced verse:
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters [lords/governors] over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.
When you mention not wanting to be seen like the Gentiles in Jesus time, you probably recall that this included the titles we might use to identify ourselves as the Gentiles and Jews of Jesus day liked to do:
(Matthew 20:25-27) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.
(Luke 22:27) 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? . . .
(Matthew 23:7-10) . . .. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
The Governing Body members, through the publications and public conventions, continually point out that they are the ones taking the lead over the congregations, and that correct teaching only comes through the hands of a few, rather than just pointing to how well these teaching match the teachings of Jesus himself. We should consider whether this might actually be the very kind of "overreach" that Jesus warned about. 
I see nothing at all wrong with the idea of the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters for the collective congregations, just as there is nothing wrong with the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters that come up for local congregations. But it is our Christian duty to question the food served, especially to comment on any concerns with respect to how well it matches the teachings of Jesus, the congregations' true Leader and Teacher.
As servants (slaves) the ones preparing such meals should expect and desire to be questioned about the ingredients of the meals they distribute, they should humbly seek out the input of others with respect to the content and quality of the meals prepared and distributed by such stewards.
In reality, there is no parable of the "faithful and discreet slave." It's really a parable of the "faithful slave/steward vs. the unfaithful slave/steward," and it everyone's responsibility to act like the faithful one, and not the unfaithful one.  All of us need to be faithful rather than unfaithful stewards. In fact the parables are MORE about what it means to be the UNFAITHFUL steward. In the parable of "Who really is the [true] neighbor?" this is only a little bit about the untrue neighbor, and MORE about who really is the "TRUE neighbor," using the example of the good Samaritan. But in this parable about "who really is the true steward?" it's about faithfulness, but it's even MORE about examples of UNFAITHFUL stewards, and various levels of unfaithfulness.
That said, it's still true that overseers, including the Governing Body, take on a greater responsibility as stewards. And this also increases the responsibility to act even more faithfully, humbly and discreetly. A slave would never ask for obedience to themselves, only that we obey Christ's leadership. Therefore, as we see how the example of any overseer's faith works out, we obey the lead of those elders. (Hebrews 13:7)
While it's true that we are all stewards, every overseer, especially, is God's steward.
(Titus 1:7) . . .For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, . . .
There should be no stewards who set themselves up as a kind of human tribunal:
(1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) . . .In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
Paul wrote to congregations in Corinth where certain persons were trying to be too influential in "governing" the faith of those in the congregation, going right back to 2 Cor 1:24 already quoted above.

Russell did see a difference between "consecration" and "dedication." But it did not become a big deal. In fact, the song "Consecration" as it was sung from 1928 under Rutherford's leadership, was not changed to "Dedication" until almost a decade into the leadership period of Knorr/Franz, in the 1950 to 1966 songbook (with hardly any other words changed in the song). After dropping that song for a while, most of the words were brought back into the latest song "My Prayer of Dedication" (now #50).
I should clarify that I see nothing wrong with buying a church/synagogue/mosque, or reusing or repurposing it for our own meetings. (With appropriate modifications.) And I see nothing wrong with selling a property to someone who wishes to use it however they want. The "dedication" was for a temporary purpose because it was a material object.
I also do not object to dedicating material objects for spiritual purposes. There is nothing wrong with dedicating Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, or even houses, cars and fields for such purposes.
I did want to make the point that because there will be more and more of this "turnover" and material transience in the times we live in, that we should be careful not to think of such material things as permanent. We are but alien residents passing through the world, and this world is passing away, not just in the future, but parts of it keep passing away before our eyes. (From human, economic, and even natural causes.)
To quote another of our songs: (#92) we do NOT attach any special significance to the material in the building or its location:
May we present this place to you,
And here may your name be known.
We dedicate this place to you;
Please accept it as your own.
2. And now may we honor you, Father,
By filling this place with your praise.
May glory ascend with the increase
Of those who are learning your ways.
Committing this place to your worship,
We give it our generous care.
And long may it stand as a witness,
Supporting the message we bear.
When I worked in the Art Dept at Bethel around 1980, a brother had drawn an Armageddon-like scene from the viewpoint of everyone attending a meeting and the typical destructive view as seen through the window of Kingdom Hall. This view was rejected by the Writing committee in favor of the more typical image of a stream of Witnesses walking away from a city being destroyed and up into the peaceful hills nearby with all eyes forward to a goal and no one looking back. More recently we have seen images of the Great Tribulation from the viewpoint of groups of Witnesses gathering wherever possible, but there is no special emphasis on Kingdom Hall buildings. 
I think that choice of imagery helps to avoid thinking of the buildings themselves as the "ark of salvation." It's much better to think of pure worship, including association with others, as that "ark of salvation."

(Luke 12:41, 42) . . .Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time?
Interesting. So when Peter asked Jesus, "Are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?" Jesus should have answered, "NEITHER!" It's not to any of you apostles or disciples, because you'll be long dead by the time I return, and it's not to "everyone" either, because it's only going to apply to about two or three dozen people who are around between 1919 and, let's say, 100-and-some-odd years after that date.

Hmmm. I never noticed the Simplified Version here. This used to be a fairly common mistake. It's found in several old Watchtower publications and the old talk outline on the Gentile Times (a talk I used to give). But the Watchtower has usually been very careful to word this idea so that it only seems like 1914 was predicted as the date when Jesus would begin ruling and/or that his presence would begin in that year. But most of the time the WT was very careful to not quite say it. (Since there was no such prediction.)
You are right that the WT taught that Jesus began ruling in 1878. This wasn't changed to 1914 until 1925 although the WTS continued promoting books that that taught 1878 up until about 1932 or 1933. Jesus' presence (parousia) was still being taught as 1874 until this was cleared up in 1943/1944.
My guess is that the person who was supposed to rewrite that article for the Simplified Version probably didn't even know the truth about this, and the person who wrote the main Watchtower article did know. I think the more careful wording that has been intended to only IMPLY that this prediction was made,  has even fooled other writers in the department who actually believe that this prediction was made.

Buying and selling real estate for purposes of having buildings to meet in is just a common function of getting along in the world we live in. "Otherwise we would have to get out of the world," as Paul said.
But there have been some rather ironic "Dedication" talks by WT presidents, vice-presidents, and Governing Body members through the years. Some of these buildings were "dedicated" for one purpose, and one purpose only: to be used from that point until the Great Tribulation, and hopefully even through Armageddon as places where only true worship of Jehovah would always shine. I have a copy of a dedication talk for the old Assembly Hall in Queens NY from the 1970's, which had several of these types of references as I recall.
Some of this was 1970's "hyperbole" just like the way Rutherford dedicated Beth Sarim in San Diego for the continued use of Abraham and David after 1925, but ultimately sold it off to "worldly" persons.

I was truly embarrassed to have to give this post an upvote.
I wish with all my heart that it was not true.
But, like Charles Taze Russell said in the first issue of the Watchtower ... If Satan tells you the truth .. it's STILL the truth.

The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2013
 
CONCUBINE A concubine is a woman whose status in relation to her sole legitimate sexual partner is less than primary wife. The Hebrew loan word pilegesh(“concubine”) is notably non-Semitic (not linguistically related to Hebrew). Its cognates appear in Latin ( paelex) and Greek (pallakis). One view is that pilegeshreferred to non-Hebrew women, while another view sees it as describing a female partner in a matrilocal marriage (contra patriarchal). Although some see the treatment of concubines addressed in the slave rules of Exod. 21:7–11, pilegeshis not used there. It is better to understand the function of concubines more broadly within marriage terminology. Following Gideon’s death, both concubines and wives laid claim to his authority (Judg. 8:30–9:2). Reference to concubines is largely found in the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen. 22:24; 36:12) and monarchial texts (e.g., 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3). The genealogies show that succession could move through concubines (Gen. 22:24; 1 Chron. 3:9). It is the kings who had concubines (1 Chron. 11:21), often guarded by eunuchs (2 Sam. 20:3; Esther 2:14). Therefore, access to the royal concubines functioned as a daring claim to the throne, exploited by interlopers (2 Sam. 12:11–12; 1 Kings 2:22–25). It took Nathan’s allegorical story to show David his own greed of stealing another’s “lamb” even though he already had many wives and concubines (2 Sam. 12:8; 16:21). While concubines did care for the household (2 Sam. 20:2), their lower status is observed when David flees into exile, leaving the concubines “to take care of the palace” (2 Sam. 15:16), a role too dangerous for the royal wives.

To the extent that brothers try to model their ministry or enhance it with sales techniques, they usually make for poor teachers. I think it is because they are primarily concerned about making the sale, and they are unable to step out of that mindset.
Yes, I know that the sales department will try to manipulate consciousness so that the salesperson really, truly, believes that the customer cannot live without what he has to offer. 
It is nothing that I have ever been able to buy into. A few times in my life I toyed with sales, but always what sunk me was that in the back of my mind I was always thinking: “Why would anyone waste their money on this?”

The word resolution is being used in a more general sense these days. We can always talk about our resolve to resolutely watch our conduct, ministry, etc. At the end of an assembly we can still "resolve" to send a certain amount of contributions to the overall www (word-wide work), or even resolve to use funds for another specified purpose.
But the old use of "resolution" was highlighted because there was a time when Rutherford (especially) fought very hard to keep us from being a "religion." (Religion is a snare and a racket!) His terminology called the congregation a "company," and the ministers were "publishers" and Jesus Christ was even referred to as the Chief Executive Officer (really!!). This is why the old Kingdom Ministry/Kingdom Service was called Bulletin and Informant. When I was baptized we still spoke openly about placement quotas, and shortly before that it was about "selling" the publications, and "sales quotas." A pioneer, opened new "territory" just as door-to-salesmen were offered "territory" in "circuits" and "districts" and "zones" for things like encyclopedia sales, insurance sales, vitamins, Avon, Tupperware, Fuller Brushes, vacuum cleaners, and Carter's Little Liver Pills. Even the old term "colporteur" had no religious connotation, but was the term used by people who sold lots of different things.
The book "Tupperware: The Promise of Plastic in 1950s America" by Alison J. Clarke says this:
Fuller Brush salesmen were encouraged to view themselves as idealistic pioneers . . . 
The book SELL previously sold under the title Professional Selling: A Trust-Based Approach by Thomas N. Ingram and others, says this (p.27):
They sometimes follow a pioneer salesperson and take over the account after the pioneer has made the initial sale. ... We use the case of the territory manager's position with GlaxoSmith Kline Consumer Healthcare
We have Halls instead of Churches. We give door to door presentations, and practice them with demonstrations, and there are dozens of small examples that add up to show how we have historically tried to remove vocabulary that sounded too religious. But there are still examples documented in older WT publications that directly copy ideas about sales techniques and approaches that can be found in parallel literature about selling all types of products. I remember a Bible Study that said our Service Meeting reminded him exactly of Amway meetings with all the sample presentations, offer of the month, how to get the householders attention, when to be brief, when to answer questions, how to overcome objections, etc.
So the point was that resolutions were always an imitation of secular conventions of corporations which asked convention "delegates" to "vote" on resolutions. Secular conventions always had those propositions built on a long list of legalistic "whereas" clauses. Our resolutions always did the same but were usually the envelope for a more religious statement or agreement to stay clear of religion, steer clear of false doctrines of the clergy, uphold Jehovah's standards, declare neutrality with respect to some political idea, declare a condemnation of some religious or political idea, etc.

It is not about winning and neither is it to try to block you.  (Jesus said we must not resist the wicked).  However, It looks like a JW logo..... period.  I worked in public relations throughout my life and I would not like anyone using my color, shape and script  in a logo (perfect imitation) to divert my customers to a different site. That is the simple reality of it.
 

Islam is more than one billion and growing but have they spiritually grown in the sense that they understand more truths and become more mature?  

@James Thomas Rook Jr.
Perhaps we would discuss the percentage:

Accuracy regarding the prophecies of our day: zero. But hey, I believe that Jesus did not appoint any steward to interpret prophecies,
rather, as stewards, everyone, and especially those who have more authority (the governing body) should feed and care for others. Although I prefer that there is a central doctrinal authority, better than each congregation to believe its own.
But, as others and I have commented previously, I feel very grateful for:
Dismantle the demonic teaching in hell of fire (official doctrine even today of orthodox Judaism, nominal Christianity and Islam, another thing is that ordinary believers do not believe it). Having learned the biblical truth about death, the hereafter, the soul and related subjects. Instead of thinking that God will destroy the Earth, believe rather that Jehovah will create a wonderful paradise, and see how that fits in with the original Purpose. VERY especially, not only knowing the divine name, but having learned the importance of using it, as well as the characteristics of the person and personality of God (as it is not a Trinity, for example) Something that has helped us all, I am sure, is to understand the question of Universal Sovereignty (I have read works of scholars on Job who do not at all convey such precious teaching) This core of teachings, among others, I would say are 90 percent wonderful. Maybe we have 10 percent of "nonsense" in between.
And then there is everything related to the "organization": Bethel houses, branches, the way of dressing of "mature" men and women, the way of exercising authority in the congregation and many similar things ... instead of putting a Percentage (because I am somewhat ashamed to write it) I will only say that I think it happens to us like the apostles when they were impressed by the temple stones. Jesus corrects them by explaining their relative value, in fact, predicting their early destruction.
(let the reader use discernment) Mt 24:15
 

@James Thomas Rook Jr.
Perhaps we would discuss the percentage:

Accuracy regarding the prophecies of our day: zero. But hey, I believe that Jesus did not appoint any steward to interpret prophecies,
rather, as stewards, everyone, and especially those who have more authority (the governing body) should feed and care for others. Although I prefer that there is a central doctrinal authority, better than each congregation to believe its own.
But, as others and I have commented previously, I feel very grateful for:
Dismantle the demonic teaching in hell of fire (official doctrine even today of orthodox Judaism, nominal Christianity and Islam, another thing is that ordinary believers do not believe it). Having learned the biblical truth about death, the hereafter, the soul and related subjects. Instead of thinking that God will destroy the Earth, believe rather that Jehovah will create a wonderful paradise, and see how that fits in with the original Purpose. VERY especially, not only knowing the divine name, but having learned the importance of using it, as well as the characteristics of the person and personality of God (as it is not a Trinity, for example) Something that has helped us all, I am sure, is to understand the question of Universal Sovereignty (I have read works of scholars on Job who do not at all convey such precious teaching) This core of teachings, among others, I would say are 90 percent wonderful. Maybe we have 10 percent of "nonsense" in between.
And then there is everything related to the "organization": Bethel houses, branches, the way of dressing of "mature" men and women, the way of exercising authority in the congregation and many similar things ... instead of putting a Percentage (because I am somewhat ashamed to write it) I will only say that I think it happens to us like the apostles when they were impressed by the temple stones. Jesus corrects them by explaining their relative value, in fact, predicting their early destruction.
(let the reader use discernment) Mt 24:15
 

Billy downvoted about a hundred or so of my posts in the last day or so, that I posted over the past year or so.   I got copies of each post downvoted in my email, yesterday.
I enjoyed reviewing what I had said.
When he does that, does EVERYBODY get a copy of what he down votes, or just the person being down voted.?
After about 70, I got bored, and realized how Adolph Hitler got people to agree with him, no matter what he said or did..
Billy appears to think EVERYTHING the Watchtower has ever said, or written, is the Word of God.
This collective body of thought is only best guesses ... assuming the very best of motives, and no interest in keeping money and power, and building an Earthly empire of rank and privilege. beautiful buildings, and the adoration of many millions of Jehovah's Witnesses, and an unlimited expense account.
My rough guess is that 85% of everything that they have ever said is self aggrandizing drivel, and flat wrong .... but then again, what I did learn from "The Truth" over the past 60 years ... that precious 15% ... has made my life better, and kept me from getting killed or incarcerated, and given me three magnificent children, so there is that!
...and of course, there is a great joy and satisfaction of actually know the REAL truth about who the Creator of the Universe is !
Holding to THAT Truth has allowed me to swim with sharks without being eaten alive.
I think it was American Patriot Nathan Hale who said "My Country, right or wrong ... but my Country".
I am inclined to share those sentiments about the truth, in "The Truth".
What should I do  ? ... wait until it's perfect?
That does NOT include supporting or agreeing with the 85%, as BillytheKid46 does.
... and defending the indefensible.