ComfortMyPeople

Your definition provides a clue as to why the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." This does not mean that they are not well-meaning in their goal to participate as a class of faithful and discreet slaves. And this does not mean that they will ultimately fail to live up to their goal.
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5 (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?) 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
I suppose that Rutherford might not have qualified, based on some of these criteria, and I think most of us would agree that Hayden Covington was a "newly converted" man, relatively speaking. But I think we have excellent reasons to accept the current Governing Body members as qualified overseers, and they therefore deserve respect, double honor, deference, benefit of the doubt, and our willingness to follow their leading example, and, as we see how their conduct works out, to imitate their faith.

Yes, the regular JW believes in a rapture (although some still do not yet know that this is what they believe, because the teaching is rarely repeated). The primary scriptures that indicates the "rapture" have now been explained to be a sudden (instantaneous) taking of that person, while still alive, from earth to heaven. The reason we avoid the term "rapture" is because most of Christendom believes that the person keeps their physical body, and we believe that the physical body is instantly turned into a spiritual body at the time of the "rapture."
Other scriptures that seem to refer to a rapture have not been interpreted to refer to this same "rapture" event:
(Matthew 24:39-41) . . .and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.
Those verses (and equivalents in Luke) might be another reason that some JWs are not yet aware that they believe in a "rapture." But the recently clarified explanation for the verses below has changed the way we speak about the rapture.
(1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) . . .because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air. . .
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Note the 2015 Watchtower:
*** w15 7/15 p. 18 par. 14 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43.
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. However, the Bible clearly shows that “the sign of the Son of man” will appear in heaven and that Jesus will come “on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 24:30) Both of these expressions imply invisibility. Additionally, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

There is something else I wanted to add to this. It's not that JW's personal views are valueless, but if you look up the definition of "to harbor" you will see that it means something like "keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly....with the synonyms  "nurturing" "nursing" "cherishing". It's all about attitude. There may be something that a JW understands differently to the GB/FDS, they just don't see it the same way. If someone understands something differently to the GB/FDS, do you think it would be reasonable to expect that someone to stop seeing it that way just for the sake of it? Or has it more to do with the attitude of that person? For example, someone may not really accept the explanation of the "Generation" although they tried, but just can't. The immature person might want to make a big deal out of it. They may "nurse" their idea until it becomes unbearable and consumes everything else, including all the "truths" they previously cherished. Now the only idea they "cherish" is their own opinion. The mature Christian accepts they may understand things differently and moves on, and waits till things become clearer one way or another. Let's say at some point in the past someone had a personal opinion on a subject which was not the official understanding at the time. Some years later though, the very opinion they had, now becomes the official teaching. Does that mean they were guilty of having the trait of an immature Christian just for having that different opinion? Obviously not. But they would have been an immature Christian had they "harbored" those thoughts to the point of advocating their opinion and becoming consumed by it.
When it's not merely a personal opinion or idea but a clear unambiguous Bible teaching. This is why it's important to know your Bible well. Those who didn't get carried away with 1975 were cognizant of the scripture which clearly says "no one knows the day or hour" no matter what anyone else was saying. Some who did get carried away blamed the org. for their losses. It's up to each person how they react, in the end we stand alone in front of the judgement seat of God and render an account for ourselves, not for anyone else.

If the head of your firm sent you to head up a project in an out-of-city office and you did such a good job that on finishing your assignment your manager thought you should be promoted and not merely returned to your former office, this is something that happens regularly.  It is not strange that Jehovah God would wish to do the same for Jesus when he returned to heaven.  Just an understandable situation - nothing farfetched about it.
(Acts 2:32-36) 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”
(Philippians 2:9-11) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
When an employee does a good job it is to the credit or glory of the company that employs him. Jesus was a good representative and ambassador for Jehovah while on earth, that is why he said:
(John 5:19-24) 19 Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, so that you may marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes alive whomever he wants to. 22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
(John 14:9-11) .9 Jesus said to him: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works. 11 Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe because of the works themselves. 

(1 Corinthians 15:25-28) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
Jehovah the King of the Universe is not subject to anyone.   
 

Just look at the human family.
 
The father is older, greater in knowledge, insight and all other qualities, than the son, who is junior, now learning. The son admires the father and hopes to be like him when he is grown up.  The son  is usually obedient to the father.  Nothing far fetched about that.  Any one with half a brain can understand that. I could go on and on.

Men and women are equal before God and intellectually equal, but  he made the man to preside over the family to keep order. Hence,  God put a strong craving in woman so she would desire the man to such an extent that she would be submissive to him. (Genesis 3:16)16 To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, and your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you."
 There is also a physical limitation - the reason men and women don't compete in sports. Women have to be more gentle so they can carry a pregnancy to term and then deal gently with the children. Women who do strenuous sports usually tend to look less feminine after a time.

Jacob got rights of first born but he was not first born; same with David, Jehovah gave him right of first born in relation to kingship. Jesus is therefore the greater David. Jehovah is developing his purpose since the time of the first rebellion in the Garden of Eden, so all his sayings reflected that he was developing for the future saving of the human race.

(Psalm 89:27) And I will place him as firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.
 

(Matthew 24:36) “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
(Acts 3:22) 22 In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. 
(Mark 9:7) 7 And a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my Son, the beloved. Listen to him.” 

Anyone who says anything that is not in the Bible will have to eat his words, sooner or later. God said to listen to Jesus, who said that even He did not know the timing of the end, only the Father.  (There also goes your Trinity.  The pot cannot call the kettle black.) All men are fallible.  The disciples thought that Jesus was restoring the heavenly kingdom at that time in the first century. They thought he would deliver them right away from Roman rule - a fallacy.  Jesus forgave them and taught them many other things.  After he went back to heaven the gospels were written to enlighten Christians who were not on earth at the time, and later he gave John the Revelation about the end times and a thousand years into the future. Christians are imperfect and sometimes over-zealous.  They can also be presumptuous. The only thing they will not be forgiven for is sin against the holy spirit.  So cool it.
 
 
 
 

No. Not necessary. But exactly in the same way that works are not necessary for salvation. I believe that a lot of us still think that when Paul says that only faith, not works, are not necessary for salvation, he was referring to "works of Law" meaning the keeping of the Jewish Law.  But a close reading of Romans and Ephesians especially shows that Jewish Law became (for Paul) a representation of all law. And therefore Works (of Law) became a representation of all works, even good works.
(Ephesians 2:8-10) . . .By this undeserved kindness you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; rather, it is God’s gift. 9 No, it is not a result of works, so that no one should have grounds for boasting. 10 We are God’s handiwork and were created in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which God determined in advance for us to walk in them. But notice that God still determined for us to "walk in" good works. This is because, if we have faith to truly love God, we will also love his creation, and love our neighbor. Faith and love provide the proper motivation. (Out of the heart the mouth speaks.) With this motivation, works will follow. The danger of an organization is that the organization starts believing that IT/THEY should provide the motivation, with the corollary idea that everyone can't be trusted, and people will just go "hog-wild" if they don't. This creates a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy so that, for example, in the United States there is a lot more unmarried, teenage pregnancy in the "Bible Belt."
But just like good works will automatically happen with faith and love as the motivation, we also should expect that order and "efficiency" will happen where Christians are properly motivated. Christians will desire to get together to find out how best to "distribute" good works (and for a teaching and evangelizing ministry, preaching is one of those good works). This will be the motivation to meet together: "to incite one another to love and good works." We won't want to waste our time, but will want to buy out the opportune time, and offer our good works where they are especially helpful. We will therefore be receptive to those who are good at the service of administration.
We will also be receptive to teachers who teach reasonable, orderly, "harmonious" doctrines.
(Ephesians 4:16) . . .From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.

There is a part of me that would like to see the end of counting time altogether. It leads to too many odd situations of doing or not doing something for the sake of accumulating hours or.keeping time going. 
At present, if I auxiliary pioneer, at the end of the month I write ‘50.’ (Or ‘30’ as the case may be) If I feel bad about it afterwards, I don’t do it again.
With a million people in the Branch, if you flat-out lied, it would make no statistical difference.
There is nothing sinister about counting time, and the people who carry on as though there is are just being childish, imo. Few bits of counsel are heard more frequently than the counsel not to boast over ‘accomplishments.’ But as a practical matter, even though it exists so as to get an overall picture of what is happening in the ministry, it has its drawbacks. 

Oh they do you know. You did!

(Matthew 13:8, 9) 8 Still others fell on the fine soil, and they began to yield fruit, (Matthew 13:8, 9) 8 Still others fell on the fine soil, and they began to yield fruit, this one 100 times more, that one 60, the other 30. 9 Let the one who has ears listen.”
9 Let the one who has ears listen.”

(Galatians 6:4) 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.
(2 Corinthians 9:6, 7) 6 But as to this, whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
 
My take:  All Christians should be productive, bearing kingdom fruit.  Jesus already stated that he knew some would give different amounts, but still their personal 100 percent, if they are doing their best.
A Christian's activity should not be held up for comparison with another's.  Nothing is wrong with encouragement, though.
A goal should be set by the person himself,  instead of being prescribed for him. Whatever is done should be between him and God  and Jesus who are the Vineyard Owners.   Jehovah and Jesus saw the widow's contribution to the temple and were pleased.  Ordinarily no one would have noticed.
However, we should be obedient to those taking the lead, if they ask one to report time  one should report time.  Lots of things will be clarified/shown up in the future.

Not lying. Mistaken. Mistaken for almost the same reason that any of us --either currently, or in the past-- have believed the GB are a small group of men. When I believed it, I was not lying. It was just a mistake I was making at the time. I would guess that there are easily hundreds or thousands of Witnesses who notice the same thing in their Bible reading as they went through the illustrations of Jesus in context, and have reached through many of Paul's letters. Perhaps others will have already noticed that a leading member of this same Governing Body, F.W.Franz, once argued very coherently and scripturally that we should NOT see the Governing Body as a small council or committee like those apostles and older men in Jerusalem.
I don't think I have more insight than the GB, I was convinced by the Scriptural argument of F.W.Franz. But there's a good reason why it would not be plain to them. Long before the Governing Body was defined in 1971, the 7 officers of the Watch Tower Society already realized that they were responsible to represent the entire remnant of the anointed on earth, and found themselves soon leading hundreds of thousands of Witnesses and interested persons. No matter what you think, there IS something special about this particular religion. It is unique as a teaching organization in many ways. I've gone into the specifics in the past, but for now, I'm just making a statement of opinion shared by millions of other JWs too.
The GB who find themselves in positions of great responsibility for an organization that is believed to be specifically prophesied about in the Bible, would surely expect that their own position of responsibility must therefore also be prophesied in some way. This doesn't mean that they think they are inspired, only that God's inspiration must have foreseen, not only the fact of this organization, but also some special guidance for its leadership, too. They could have found this in "apostolic succession" as some other religions do. They could have found it in some special new "inspired" prophet as some religions have. They could have decided that a leader was the "angel to the church in Laodicea." They could have seen it in the "the Jew" with 10 men grasping their hem. But they see it in an illustration about servants feeding other servants. Compared to the ways many religions look to give "authority" to a select few, this is actually commendably low-key. But it's still a misuse of the verse. It's an inconsistency based on the March 15, 2015 Watchtower that shows why it is wrong to turn a parable into a prophecy.

Encourage is intended to be a broad term. But it is not separate from "Religious Matters." We humans often tend to be foolish and think that turning doctrines into some philosophical/exegetical  exercise is somehow more important to Jehovah than justice, mercy, love, humility, etc. The specifics of certain complex teachings or prophetic interpretations are far down on the list of what is important. For the most part those things are not even "religious."
As James said: "True religion means looking after orphans and widows in their troubles, and not being like the rest of the world." (James 1:27 - paraphrase)
(1 Corinthians 12:29-13:9) . . .Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. 4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 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.

Just because they are not THE faithful and discreet slave of Matthew 24:45, it doesn't mean that they aren't part of A class of faithful and discreet slaves, just as all of us should be. It has nothing to do with whether one is anointed or not. It's just a matter of whether we are being discreet and faithful as required when waiting for judgment at the parousia. In fact, as Jesus said, no one knows the day and hour of the parousia, because it would come as a surprise, similar to how the judgment quickly swept people away in Noah's day where people took no note of a warning. And similar to how the judgment on Sodom quickly swept people away with no particular warning at all.
So if they feel the responsibility of a faithful and discreet slave, then great! These are elders who should then take on the responsibility to feed Jesus' little sheep. And they are definitely working on that very effort. What they tell us to do is rarely anything different from read the Bible, accept an obvious understanding and explanation -- which is probably correct 98 times out of 100. I'd guess that, in spite of difficulties in Bible translation, the number of verses that ended up perfectly well translated was an even better ratio than that.
Also it's not correct to say that they claim only THEY can give instruction to God's people. Every publisher is allowed to present the good news of the Kingdom to those who may become God's people. Every speaker from a platform can be giving instruction to God's people. Every older sister who encourages a younger sister, every younger brother who encourages an older brother, etc. All the congregation feeds one another by building one another up and encouraging one another.
I bring up the point about the parousia, even though you didn't, because it is that specific teaching that makes the GB believe it is absolutely necessary for the GB to take on the responsibility of a specific faithful and discreet slave for the purposes of feeding the entire worldwide congregation of God (since about 1919). It still doesn't mean that the rest of us should shirk our own responsibility to also be faithful and discreet slaves helping to build up the congregation of God. So it doesn't need to interfere with our Christianity. As Paul said, there will be sects among you. For most Witnesses, who prefer not to question, and not to make sure of all things,  it probably makes them more comfortable this way.

These can all be separate topics. The WT's NWT Committee is a lot like all committees put together for the purpose of translating the Bible. They never claimed to be inspired, but they had certain criteria in mind for the NWT. One was to be accurate and consistent and also allow a high degree of literalness in the original. Sometimes this literalness even preserves Hebrew idiom. And yes, they had certain ideas about accuracy in mind when choosing words like "torture stake" instead of the Greek "stauros."
Translating the Greek word stauros as "torture stake" is not any worse, and might even be better, than translating it as "cross." It depends on the accuracy of the research that went into knowing what a "stauros" really was at the time the Bible was written. The Romans never consistently used two pieces of timber in the shape of the small letter t or T as is often depicted. They definitely did use that form around the time of Jesus, and probably used it a lot, but not consistently. It still might not have been the most commonly used shape of a stauros in Jesus' time. But there is no sure way to know exactly what the shape was for Jesus' execution, because a stauros could take on many shapes. The main thing we know about it is that it was wooden, fashioned from a tree, stake, board, timber, etc., and that no matter what the shape it was used to bring about a torturous (and shameful) death. Even if we knew for sure that the particular stauros in Jesus case was "cross-shaped" it still would not necessarily mean "cross" is the best translation, as it might not get across the full range of meaning implied in the original word "stauros."
Same for the word "brazen." The complaint, as I've heard it, is that it hasn't been specifically (and consistently) defined as to how it will be applied in judicial cases that come before a judicial committee (of elders). Unfortunately, this is the same problem with the original word in Greek, so maybe the translation is just fine. It's not much different than the word "immoral" which will have a range of meaning depending on who's doing the judging.
And yes, bias is going to happen with all translators. If you have decided that the parousia is a 105-year-long event you will look for rules in Greek that would allow you to say something happens "during" the parousia instead of "at" the parousia. If you are trying to be consistent you should follow through and see if "during" works in all those other cases where you might have more naturally translated the Greek to the English word "at." If the range of meaning supports your own view of a doctrine, you will naturally drift toward those definitions that allow for your doctrine, even if they are not as common. If you had to do this in 10 different places, as our NWT translators did, then it should have given them pause to wonder if they were handling the rules of Greek correctly. But if you are a true believer in the doctrine you will more likely just be comfortably satisfied that the Greek actually "supports" your unique teaching.
That's interpretation that can go wrong even when the translation is just fine.
Really? You must think the Bible is full of all sorts of esoteric ideas that are required for some rituals that must be performed according to a specific type of knowledge. That's a gnostic way of looking at Scripture. The Bible is actually full of simple ideas that make us happy and unburdened and free. It was easy to understand the Law in Israel that had hundreds of individual rules. Then Jesus taught us how to transition from that old view to a view based on undeserved kindness and love of God and neighbor. This is not something only the anointed can understand. It's not so far up there that it's hard to reach. It actually brings a true conception of God down to us. 
(Romans 10:5-10) . . .For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the Law: “The man who does these things will live by means of them.” 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching. 9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.

Technically, you are correct. The Watch Tower Society publications come very close to saying the same thing in the NWT Study Bible when discussing Romans 1:2:
*** nwtsty Romans Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
1:2
the holy Scriptures: Here referring to the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. In harmony with this verse, the New World Translation contains in its title the expression “the Holy Scriptures.” Other terms used in the Christian Greek Scriptures for this collection of inspired writings are “the Scriptures” and “the holy writings.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) At times, the terms “Law” (Joh 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1Co 14:21) and “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12; Lu 16:16) are also used in a general sense to refer to the entire Hebrew Scriptures.—Mt 22:40; see study notes on Mt 5:17; Joh 10:34.
There were no collected Christian Greek Scriptures at the time. Except in the sense that the Greek LXX was the Christian Bible as well as the Jewish Bible in that time period. The LXX was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (into Greek). Paul and all the Gospel writers quoted from the LXX. It is rare for any "NT" writer to ever quote from the "OT" in a way that shows preference for the Hebrew (as we know it today) over the LXX Greek.
Of course, the letters of Peter also treat Paul's letters as inspired, and of "life and death" importance. If we accept that the Christian "church" is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, then we will, by extension, include the "NT" as inspired along with the "OT." Of course, it's not merely an internal claim that they are inspired, otherwise any text could have made the claim. It's the acceptance that inspired scripture can only be included if it is accepted as the words of apostles and those who had the approval of apostles during their lifetime. It also must harmonize with the rest of scripture. Where there is or was a question as to the harmony or authorship, we have a useful directive from 1 John 4:1. What we have really done of course, is accept the earliest collected manuscripts that were already accepted by consensus by the earliest known "Christian fathers" in the 2nd and 3rd century.  Their criteria matched their beliefs about apostolic authorship and supportive contemporaries of apostolic authorship.
By accepting the choices of the early "church fathers" we are actually putting faith in the fact that Jehovah made sure that sufficient manuscripts meeting the necessary criteria were saved and sufficiently "revered" to remain true to the purpose of scripture, uncorrupted. The scriptures were copied so often that we can now trace back (sometimes) to within a hundred years of the death of the last apostle (usually a bit over 200 years) and find that there was a high consistency to the copies of manuscripts, and enough manuscripts to remove any corruptions that did find their way in.
 

Wow! Is there something holding you back from saying what's really on your mind?
My father and grandfather attended KM school in Pittsburgh back in the early 70's about a year apart from each other. So I would often hear them compare notes as to what Bro. Schroeder had said on a topic. Schroeder was still of the "Rutherford" school when it came to how the entire world was "inspired" of Satan, which influenced his speech about who would die at Armageddon and why we don't celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc.
As part of their training, Brother Schroeder would give them questions that the "Press" might ask them, so elders could practice answers that were "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves" so to speak. For example:
Question: Do you think the Pope will be destroyed at Armageddon?
This gets lots of snickers, and a few brothers willing to say, 'Of course he will be destroyed!.' So Brother Schroeder says that, well, we all know the answer, but what do we tell the Press? He recommended saying:
Answer: "He'll get what he deserves!"
This gets uproarious laughter, and must have been treated as if Jesus had just said "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar." It becomes kind of a joke between my father and grandfather, so that they only needed to say: "He'll get what he deserves!" when hearing about other infamous happenings in the world (e.g., Watergate, Nixon Impeachment, US Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade, Spiro Agnew).
I don't know whether Schroeder himself mentioned people with Christmas trees, but I remember being a bit taken aback that my father and grandfather even applied it for a while to people with Christmas trees, people singing Christmas carols on TV, etc., even though they started to say it in a kind of joking way, knowing that the phrase was getting old.
When you mentioned that the Society knew that Christmas was wrong before 1900 but kept celebrating until the late 1920's it reminded me of this. Imagine if Armageddon had actually come in 1915, or 1918, or 1925, as they sometimes expected. In effect, my father and grandfather were saying that Rutherford and all the people in the entire Watch Tower Society would have been destroyed. I can imagine how we, as an organization, would have felt if we knew that certain people or groups who had already stopped celebrating Christmas were looking at the Watch Tower Society at the time and saying "They'll get what they deserve at Armageddon."
When it comes to all this judgmental speech, here in this forum, I try to remember to test it by thinking what we would say if we were guests in a Mormon forum, or a Catholic forum. Would you, for example, go into a Mormon-centric forum right now and say that 15 million Mormons (LDS) are all inspired by Satan. (And yes they have had trouble with child sexual abuse and cover-ups.) And because a high percentage of Catholics support the Pope, would you go into a Catholic-centric forum and say that 1 billion Catholics are inspired by Satan.
To me, it seems a bit over the top, even though you could probably find a near equivalent problem in the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church for every problem you see among Jehovah's Witnesses.
I'm not one to tell you to stop saying whatever you want to say, as you probably feel like a good part of your life was wasted among Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm sure this drives a lot of the "tone." I am reminded of the "tone" that Rutherford took against the clergy, especially the Catholic hierarchy, and he could rationalize that he was protecting the world from Catholicism -- just as you probably think you are trying to protect the world from Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least to protect a few other Jehovah's Witnesses from themselves.

Of course, just to get back to the topic, I should add that, in that last entry, Paul goes on to use this unreasonableness to defend himself against "the most esteemed apostles" (2 Cor 11:5). Again, I don't think these apostles are meant to directly equate to the "highly regarded" apostles in Jerusalem. But we do know that they included more than just the "false" apostles because Paul admits that they were "ministers of Christ" something he would not say about those who were continuing as false apostles.
(2 Corinthians 11:21-12:12) . . .But if others act boldly—I am talking unreasonably—I too act boldly. 22 Are they Hebrews? I am one also. Are they Israelites? I am one also. Are they Abraham’s offspring? I am also. 23 Are they ministers of Christ? I reply like a madman, I am more outstandingly one: I have done more work, been imprisoned more often, suffered countless beatings, and experienced many near-deaths. . . .  31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the One who is to be praised forever, knows I am not lying. . . .1 I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. . . .  But I refrain from doing so, in order that no one should give me more credit than what he sees in me or hears from me, 7 just because of receiving such extraordinary revelations. . . .  11 I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you. For I did not prove to be inferior to your superfine [the most esteemed?] apostles in a single thing, even if I am nothing. 12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were produced among you with great endurance, and by signs and wonders and powerful works. Note, too, that Paul has referred in context also to false apostles, not the Twelve apostles, as those presenting another sort of good news. But if the Corinthians are accepting such men as true apostles, then surely they should also accept Paul as an apostle. Paul feels that only his humility and unassuming demeanor has contributed to others seeing him as weak, and being able to subvert the good news, and for others to consider him as less than these other esteemed apostles. But Paul's response identifies them as those who are using both their Jewish background and the fact that they are also ministers of Christ, and apparently those who were also associated with signs and wonders and powerful works.
Again, I don't want to imply that Paul thought of any of the Twelve as "false" apostles, but that Paul was against the supposed authority that false apostles were claiming in the name of Peter or James for example. James and Peter should have known better than to have ever sided with the "false brothers" from Judea. It was evidently due to the fact that these reputable men in Jerusalem had made mistakes that Paul pointed out that Peter stood CONDEMNED for going along with this kind of HYPOCRISY. We also know that Paul and Barnabas broke up after the Acts 15 meeting, and it, of course, was primarily over taking John Mark with them. But remember too that this was just after Barnabas himself had joined Peter in the hypocrisy. (Might also be of interest that John Mark is traditionally defined as the person associated with Peter as his writer and thus produced the gospel of Mark.)
Edited to add: But more to the point in Corinthians, Paul appears to admit that those who are tearing them down (from the upbuilding gospel Paul gave) are doing so out of their apparent "authority" and prominence in terms of being well-known. And having known Jesus in the flesh. 
(2 Corinthians 10:8) 8 For even if I should boast a bit too much about the authority that the Lord gave us to build you up and not to tear you down,. . . (2 Corinthians 5) 11 Therefore, since we know the fear of the Lord, we keep persuading men, but we are well-known to God. However, I hope that we are well-known also to your consciences. . . .
16 So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.
(2 Corinthians 10:12) . . .For we do not dare to class ourselves or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. . . .
(2 Corinthians 10:14, 15) . . .for we were the first to reach as far as you with the good news about the Christ. 15 No, we are not boasting outside our assigned boundaries about the labors of someone else, but we hope that as your faith continues to increase, what we have done may be made to increase, within our territory.. . .
Could these latter verses mean that Paul understood Jewish territory (Peter's territory, Galatians 2:8) to be the circumcised in Corinth? Could Paul (who called them ministers of Christ) be recognizing the success of turning so many Jews to Christianity in that area? If so, Paul is not going to take credit for those increases (which could be from which those persons come, who say they belong to Peter, or perhaps even Apollos. 1 Cor. 1:12) Paul got there first, before men from Peter (or perhaps Peter himself) got there, but he doesn't encroach on their boundary.
Another point is that Paul might, in places, compare his own apostleship to others as superior because he was not chosen by Jesus in the flesh, as some other apostles were, but by the glorious, risen, Lord Jesus through a revelation. (Gal 1:1,12) There seem to be similar points made about Paul's revelations and visions in 1 and 2 Corinthians, too.

It might be useful to note that, from a more practical perspective, Paul is warning the Galatians about listening to anyone who is telling them something different from the good news that Paul preached to them. In effect, don't listen to anyone but the apostle Paul. His reasoning is that he, Paul, is the one who got this "good news from Christ, and not from any humans. So indirectly, yes, Paul is warning them about listening to anyone but Jesus and Jehovah, but he sets himself up as a more reliable source of what Jesus and Jehovah are telling them. And he clearly implies that he is a more reliable source than some of what's been coming out of Jerusalem.
Using Peter as an example, only drove home the point about why Paul was the person they should listen to -- and not Jerusalem.
Galatians 1:9 KJV As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. That's rarely the use of "seemed" (Gk, dokeo).
δοκέω , -ῶ; imperfect ἐδόκουν; 1 aorist ἔδοξα; (akin to δέχομαι or δέκομαι, whence δόκος an assumption, opinion [cf. Latin decus, decet, dignus; Curtius § 15; cf. his Das Verbum, i., pp. 376, 382]); [from Homer down];
1. to be of opinion, think, suppose: . . . 2. intransitive, to seem, be accounted, reputed: . . .
Not to belabor too much but the subject of Galatians 2:6 includes James and Peter, as we already know. Even without the context, this word means "apparently but not necessarily" or phrases to that effect. But just to be doubly clear, Paul includes the context to show why it was not necessarily true that they were in fact pillars.
(Galatians 2:1-9) . . .. 2 I went [to Jerusalem] 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, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 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.
The easiest reading of the above treats the gray portion (verse 4 and 5) as a parenthetical about those who were false brothers, who slipped in to spy, and to whom Paul and his companions did not yield. Paul makes it clear he has gone back to speaking about Peter, James, John (and company) in verse 6. And just in case we didn't see that, he specifically names them in verse 9.
Paul also used the word "seemed" up in verse 2 (Gal 2:2) where it says "the men who were highly regarded." They were definitely highly regarded, but why use the word for "seemed" (dokeo)? It means that the verse could also be properly translated:
(NLT) While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church . . . (NIV) meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, (ESV) though privately before those who seemed influential It's actually very easy to say (in Greek) that someone is a pillar, or is influential, or is highly regarded. One doesn't have use dokeo, which more often than not, has a negative connotation. This doesn't mean that dokeo ALWAYS implies a negative connotation. But to avoid ambiguity,  a Greek writer could simply add the "contrary" phrase, like Paul did when he added: "but these men imparted nothing new" or "whatever they were makes no difference to me" or "God does not go by a man's outward appearance."
In fact here are other ways that Paul used the term, including the ONLY other time he used it in Galatians:
(Galatians 6:2, 3) . . .. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. (NWT) And here are the majority of Paul's uses in letters to the Corinthians, which I believe give a similar form: 
(1 Corinthians 3:18) . . .Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, . . . (1 Corinthians 8:2) 2 If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it. (1 Corinthians 10:12) 12 So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall. (1 Corinthians 12:22) . . .On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, (1 Corinthians 14:37) 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment. (2 Corinthians 10:9) . . .For I do not want to seem as though I were trying to terrify you by my letters. (2 Corinthians 11:16) . . .I say again: Let no one think I am unreasonable. But even if you do, then accept me as an unreasonable person, so that I too may boast a little.

An example is this Satan's statement recorded here:
"So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time.  Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."
Luke 4:4-6
 

I don't really know any of them. I know how the position got there, and I know what doctrines and practices they promote. It's because I accept most of those doctrines. 100 percent of the important ones, in my opinion. I don't think of them as a "governing body" except in a functional sense as decision makers who try to keep the teachings as consistent as possible for the sake of unity around the world. This is a positive thing about Jehovah's Witnesses that a consistent set of teachings can be accepted by millions of persons without disorder or contentiousness. The method used produces a danger of making it too easy to accept (and "enforce") false doctrines in the same way, but there are very few "false doctrines" in my opinion. If, in your opinion, there are many false doctrines, or if the specific ones you believe are false are that important to you, then I understand why your judgment of them would be different than mine.
Yes. I think they are making a mistake in this regard too. But, in general, only a very small minority of those claiming to be anointed seem to think things should be different. I'd wager that the vast majority of them believe they are being well represented by them. Also the GB do not necessarily think of this position as "over" the rest of the anointed. Remember that the service they provide is a ministry of a "slave." One of the ministries that Paul spoke of was the ability to "administer." A portion of the idea that this puts them "above" the rest may spring from the mind of fleshly persons who cannot distinguish a specialized service from being special. However, the idea that they form some kind of tribunal that should judge other anointed, or that others should be obedient to is probably wrong, imo. It might, in fact, spring from the fleshly, unspiritual understanding from their own minds. This doesn't reduce the value of the kind of work they can accomplish in such a unique circumstance, but it is one of the dangers that could befall any of us imperfect humans.
(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
You may have pointed out a danger, or it could be that less educated are more humble and more receptive to spiritual truth. Therefore a decision has been made to focus the efforts on an audience that should have been focused on even more in the past. A simplified Bible, with simplified publications to go with it, and a simpler study method might all be good things, even from the perspective of Luke 14:11.
Personally, however, I agree that it has been like a pendulum swing to a slightly "simpler" audience after saturating a more sophisticated audience until further efforts on that latter audience appeared wasted.
Many current Witnesses have the idea that this is a kind of "dumbing down" of the audience resulting in a dumbing down of the new ones coming in. If persons are overly concerned about that, perhaps it is based on their own prejudices or an unrequited desire to show off just how sophisticated their own knowledge might be. In our congregational setting, the goal is love for one another. This should be even easier if all of us show more childlike love for one another, and can stop taking ourselves so seriously.
I think deliberate is a strong word to use with "err." For the most part, I think all the mistakes have been well-meaning. There are some mistakes that reveal a different kind of mental conflict, in my opinion. These can be looked at as deliberate mistakes. Sometimes it can include a deliberate choice to avoid a change when it seems a change is necessary both Biblically and practically. Sometimes it can be from a lack of courage or self-confidence. Similar to Peter and the "James gang" the organization has had a historical problem with cultishness. This is admitted in our own publications that there was a Russell cult. Fred Franz was steeped in that exact kind of cult thinking (parallel dispensations, numerology, date predictions, etc.) so that this mentality remained strong and respected until Fred Franz died. He had so much respect as an "oracle" that all these "class" definitions and prophetic explanations were never challenged much until a few years after he died. So some mistakes are more about deliberate hanging on to tradition, which blinds people to the validity of God's word. This kind of blindness is wrong, but not necessarily "deliberate."
Why would 12 be too many? 8 is about the same. 20 is about the same. Considering the new abilities of technology and the much greater size of the current congregations of JWs compared to the first century congregations, perhaps 1,000 would not be too many, or perhaps there is a way to allow millions to have input, and merely allow a secretary or a technology application "bot" to filter out the noise and produce a consensus. I don't think we'd be quite as comfortable with that. Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors.
Some do. I'm sure of it. But my point was that a hierarchy of people are in place to filter out and merge communications so that the GB aren't bothered by any and every little thing that comes up. Notice that in a response to something Outta Here said I quoted:
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you.
Paul had no problem "snitching" about where the information came from, and noted they had been able to get their issue to Paul directly, and Paul addressed the issue in his letter. There is a lot of secrecy in these communications today that I think is unnecessary. And there are stories of repercussions by those who used their own name.
Well, I'll stop here.

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.
I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 
Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 
I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)
I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.
Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."
(Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.) (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .
(Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).
Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,
(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 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. . . .
I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.
It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.
I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double honor" for their hard work and the heavy responsibility they have taken upon themselves. Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. I'm not trying to divert this topic to the specifics of any other issues of doctrines and procedures.
I know you'll disagree, but this is just to explain my own view. It's just that I wanted you to know that I think these particular elders, who call themselves a Governing Body, have put themselves in a unique and valuable position for the overall benefit of congregations worldwide. 
They have years of experience studying, speaking, and teaching on Bible topics. They are in a position to discuss certain difficult doctrinal issues with others who have years of experience studying the Bible. The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons). There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help handle related issues of logistics or issues of lesser importance. There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc. They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.  They have years of experience working with various congregations. They have years of experience traveling to congregations in various places in the world to be aware of various customs and practices that differ from their own. They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching. They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from. Of course, this is fraught with all kinds of dangers and potential abuse. Or a small mistake can quickly turn into a large one. Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.
There are other things, of course, but these ones are important to me.
Surely you would think that in any church or congregation there might be a need for organization and leadership. Agreeing on meeting times, topics to speak about, topics for Bible study, activities, care for the building, what to do with contributions, and even issues of who might join the church, who might need to be dismissed from the church, who might need counsel or adjustment, who might have special needs the church can take care of, etc., etc.
Most people would have no problem with this on a local church-by-church basis. But here we have tens of thousands of these congregations all around the world, and all of them are happy to teach exactly the same message. A group of elders who are deemed capable of handling this bigger responsibility is, in essence, no different than the local congregations. It's just that some of their functions will necessarily carry even greater responsibility.
This might be true. But it can also just be a logistical problem. Remember how Moses handled the millions in a single "congregation" that began draining his time and energy. He ended up appointing a "hierarchy of command" similar to any large army or large business corporation, so that concerns could be handled more efficiently. Also, on a personal level, while at Bethel I sat at meetings with as many as 5 GB members at the same congregation meeting. While visiting Warwick several months ago, I sat in a meeting with 2 members of the GB and 3 GB "Helpers" (and the wife of a deceased GB member, Sydlik). I could have gone up to any one of them after the meeting to ask questions. In fact, I did. I asked Brother Morris, "How are you?"
Anyway, in my opinion, the Governing Body provides a practical committee of elders handling issues that elders should handle. The difference being that they handle issues that come in from the worldwide congregation. As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body." (You might know that we are not the only religion that happens to call such a committee of "church decision-makers" a "Governing Body.") That might not be the best phrase, but it's clear that the congregations generally agree that it's appropriate to have such a group.
I personally don't agree that any such group should make a claim that they are THE faithful and discreet slave prophesied to come into existence at a proper time beginning in 1919. It's indiscreet and unfaithful to the teachings of the scriptures to accept them in that specific capacity. I'm sure they are making a mistake in that regard, but again, this is just my own opinion. It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.