ComfortMyPeople

Here I am getting the credit for doing "heavy lifting" while you are the one presenting the best possible defense for the usual reading of these incidents through the support in Acts 15.
So, yes, this phrase "although we did not give them any instructions" is the key that defends Peter and James [and John, not mentioned in Acts].
I don't believe it's correct to call the apostles and older men in Jerusalem a "Governing Body" but for simplicity of communication, I'll still abbreviate them as the J-GB. We don't know how many were involved in this J-GB. Perhaps Peter, James and perhaps the entire remaining group of apostles and evidently a couple other elders at this time (unless James, the brother of Jesus, was one of the elders, and we know that Judas-Barsabbas and Silas/Sylvanus were also leading men at Jerusalem). Perhaps all the 12 apostles from Acts 1:26 were still around, with at least the obvious exception of James the son of Zebedee (brother of John, son of Zebedee) --Acts 12:2.
But the reason I called these three (James, Peter, John) Judaizers is not because they were ACTIVE Judaizers, the ones going out themselves and creating the trouble, but because -from Paul's perspective as presented in Galatians- they are guilty of creating the problem. Is it possible that Paul only assumed that the J-GB had given instructions to SUBVERT him, and he learned differently for the first time when they explained it in Acts 15? Or was Paul much more sensitive to the lack of action against these subverters, realizing that the passive act of sending out spies, with active Judaizers included in their group of spies, made them guilty of Judaizing?
Paul thinks of Judaizers as "false brothers" no matter how sincere they were about their faith and Christianity among their own Jewish brothers. Paul says that they were "sent" from James. Acts merely says "they went out from among us." Who is the "us"? Jewish Christians? Jerusalem brothers? "Elders" who were included in the so called J-GB? No matter what, at the very least, James and Peter know that some had gone out from "them" to subvert Paul's ministry and teaching, even if they had not been instructed to subvert it.
I think that Paul included the experience with Peter in Antioch, because it was the perfect indictment of the attitude of the J-GB. They knew that Paul was right, but they cowered at actively supporting his ministry to uncircumcised persons of the nations. Obviously there were other brothers there with Peter who were Jewish Christians, and those Jewish Christians were "false brothers" in that they would not extend a full hand of support and fellowship to the Gentile Christians, separating the brotherhood. (Even though Jesus had said the two folds would become ONE flock. 😉) Peter proved himself a Judaizer by choosing to "side with" the conduct of the Judaizers. Paul said that this was HYPOCRISY (the actual Greek word Paul used was hypocrisy, which is softened in the NWT to "pretense" just as Peter being CONDEMNED is softened to "in the wrong"). Paul said that Peter was thereby COMPELLING people of the nations to live according to this Jewish custom of separation from uncircumcised persons. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong [Greek: 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. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek: HYPOCRISY], so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense [HYPOCRISY]. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
Paul explains his reasons for such language, because Peter, for example, was a transgressor by tearing down things he had himself once built up (recall that Peter was the first to go to the uncircumcised). He was REJECTING the undeserved kindness of God, in effect, rejecting Christ's sacrifice. Paul is therefore speaking of the EVIL influence of the condemnable and hypocritical actions of Peter and the men James had sent:
(Galatians 2:18-3:1) . . .If the very things that I once tore down I build up again, I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. . . . 21 I do not reject the undeserved kindness of God, for if righteousness is through law, Christ actually died for nothing. 3 O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence,. . .
Luke, in Acts, is merely putting the overall past picture in its simplest form without including his own judgment about whether Peter and James were absolutely correct in their claim. Luke in Acts also removes most of the controversy. Without Paul (in Galatians) we would not even be aware of some time periods being so many years, when Luke uses expressions like "a few days" "many days after this." For example, Acts does not give the impression that Paul went off to Arabia for 3 years.

I would guess that this particular understanding might have become popular because it moves the conflict away from the hands of Peter, James and John. But I think that Paul makes it very clear that he is referring to these same ones. Note:
Chapter 2 (1-5) says that Paul (after FOURTEEN YEARS away from Jerusalem), went up, not because they called him, but because he had a revelation from Jesus Christ, to pay "them" a visit. Who do we think that "them" refers to? So far, the only persons he has named from a previous visit to Jerusalem are Peter and James(1:18). And he had said back then that he hadn't yet gone to Jerusalem to meet with those who were apostles before he was. So, I think you already agree that "them" refers to apostles and older men in Jerusalem. 
Paul met privately with these men who were "highly regarded." He didn't want any big blow-up. And he didn't want to give anyone a chance to completely undercut his ministry before he had a chance to defend it PRIVATELY to at least a few of these "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem. Paul had already made it clear that he himself didn't show any HIGH REGARD to any persons, no matter what their reputation. He was ready to curse any highly regarded person, even an ANGEL, if necessary, and went on to say that he wouldn't have gone there to please any men. (1:8-10) He did this to make sure he was not running in vain. Now Paul already said that he knew his ministry was directly from Christ Jesus, so he already knew that his teaching and his ministry was not in vain. He was not looking for approval. He was looking to see if this visit was an opportunity to clear up a problem that brothers from Jerusalem had started to spread to other congregations.
But notice that he is still at this private meeting with apostles and older men at Jerusalem. For surely he could only see this problem get cleared up if he met with those who were held in the highest regard. He could not go to some fringe element of brothers who were not so well known, and expect that this would somehow solve the problem of people undermining his ministry to the nations.
Therefore, it's with respect to meeting with apostles and older men at Jerusalem that he says NEVERTHELESS, NOT EVEN TITUS was compelled to be circumcised, EVEN THOUGH he was a Greek. The dynamic is that Paul is writing to people in Galatia who would have expected to hear that the APOSTLES would have surely forced Titus into submission. Sure, maybe Paul could stand up to them and argue theological theory, and they could do nothing to him because he was already circumcised anyway! But the real AUTHORITY to make people submit, they all "knew" (or thought they knew) could not be denied if it came from the apostles.
So these Galatians were assuming the necessity of submitting to the authority of the apostles. This would be the reason why Paul went to so much trouble to "diminish" the supposed authority of the Jerusalem apostles and elders.
Paul says "that matter came up because of false brothers brought in quietly." Well who brought them in? Who sent them? Is Paul referring to the experience back in Antioch, or something that just happened in the middle of his "private" session with the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem? Granted he calls some false brothers, and probably is referring directly to the ones who were "sent" or "brought in quietly." This is not a mistaken translation. It means persons who were smuggled in sneakily. We don't like to think that Paul could have referred to any of the elders or apostles themselves as "false brothers," but remember that he just potentially called such ones "ACCURSED" up in 1:8-9, so it is possible that he refers to a point in time when they were acting falsely. At the very least Paul does nothing to exonerate the apostles from the idea that they, the apostles, had secretly brought these "spies" to a private meeting, or involved them somehow.
If Paul is referring to false brothers brought in back in Antioch, then we already know that these men were sent from James. (2:12) No matter what, though, we know that the so-called pillars are Peter, James and John from 2:9. We also surmise that the matter was apparently cleared up for the moment, as is indicated in Acts 15 -- after no little disputing!
There is also a parallel in 2 Cor 11, which is also the only other place in the Bible where Paul uses a word that means "false brothers." It's clear that Paul was not always referring to Jerusalem whenever he mentioned apostles, false apostles, and false brothers (at Corinth). But note something that might be even more important in this parallel to Galatians 1:
(2 Corinthians 11:4, 5) 4 For as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you receive a spirit other than what you received, or good news other than what you accepted, you easily put up with him. 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing.
We tend to understand it as if these Corinthians had their own "superfine" apostles. "Superfine" only in their own eyes. But, first, the Greek does not support the word "your" here. And, second, the term "superfine" is not the most likely meaning of the phrase, which is used only here in 2 Corinthians and nowhere else. That specific translation, not just in the NWT, might be preferred because it would then seem that there was no conflict between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem at this particular time in their ministry.
However, the Greek text might only be saying. "I have not proved inferior to THE (not "your") EMINENT APOSTLES." The words making up the phrase actually mean just that, literally. In no other context do we find it necessary to make such words mean "super" as if in some snide or sarcastic sense. Therefore some translations say the following, instead:
https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/11-5.htm

Berean Literal Bible
For I reckon in nothing to have been inferior to those "most eminent apostles."

New American Standard Bible
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

King James Bible
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

New Heart English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For I think that I have not come short in anything compared to those Apostles who greatly excel.

New American Standard 1977
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

King James 2000 Bible
For I suppose I was not the least behind the very chief apostles.

American King James Version
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very most chief apostles.

American Standard Version
For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great apostles.

Darby Bible Translation
For I reckon that in nothing I am behind those who are in surpassing degree apostles.

Webster's Bible Translation
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very greatest apostles.

World English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.

Young's Literal Translation
for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles,
Those translations sound more like they refer to the prominent apostles in Jerusalem. (Even as it stands, it could be Paul's way of referring to the Jerusalem apostles, similar to "those who seemed to be something." Now, if Paul has just given a parallel to Galatians in this portion of 2 Cor 11, then it could easily explain why, in 2 Cor,  he might also be following it in this very next sentence with a statement about the apostles in Jerusalem. It could then be for the same reason he called them the "so-called pillars" which he named in Galatians 2:9 as Peter, James and John. These men were "chiefest" apostles in Paul's words because as he said in Galatians, these were the apostles who came before him. (1:17) He considered himself the "least" of the apostles because he had persecuted the congregation.
(1 Corinthians 15:5-9) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 But last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.
(Galatians 1:13) . . .I kept intensely persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it; (Ephesians 3:8) . . .To me, a man less than the least of all holy ones,. . .
(1 Corinthians 9:2) 2 Even if I am not an apostle to others, I most certainly am to you!. . .
It makes more sense that Paul thought of himself as "least" in comparison, not with local eminent apostles in Corinth, but compared with the "most prominent and eminent" apostles in Jerusalem, which in the same context he names as "James, then to all the apostles."

I have always deferred to you whenever you showed evidence that I was wrong and you were right. And, assuming I am right about your past avatars, this has actually happened more than once.
What I am still saying is that I am willing to accept where the Biblical evidence leads. And most of the time it leads me support the Watchtower. You have already seen this many times, but those areas where I support the Watchtower hold no interest to you. The biggest discussions always ensue over those areas  where the Biblical evidence leads away from the Watchtower's traditional views. These are for the most part chronology-related, or doctrines that we ended up getting locked into, because of our chronology doctrines (generation, etc.).
I have been very clear that I'm sure the Bible does not support our chronology teachings. I can now say that I have no doubts about this. The pseudo-archaeology we have used to try to get "outside" support for our chronology is undoubtedly also against the WT view, and it also happens to support the Bible's view. But I'm more interested in what the Bible itself says about our chronology doctrines.
I am 100 percent in agreement with our teachings on Soul, Trinity, Paradise Earth, War, Neutrality, Elders, Smoking/Recreational Drugs/Alcohol, Morals, Pagan Roots of Worldly Holidays, Meetings, Our Ministry, using God's Name, the Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, His Eternal Purpose, and probably hundreds more specific understandings of scriptures that vary from the way that most of Christendom understands them.
Also, it doesn't "suit me" to contradict the Watchtower in those areas where the Bible evidence leads away from certain traditional teachings we have not broken free from yet. These differences sometimes result in painful realizations. Sometimes it's the realization that many are suffering (or have suffered) unnecessarily. The difference in the way certain young brothers are now treated in several countries where they were once told not to accept any kind of alternative service when their conscience would have allowed it is an example. We now know that there have been literally hundreds or even thousands of abused Witness children for whom any kind of justice was made difficult due to a policy that put the reputation of the organization first. 
Any difference between my own views and those of the Watchtower must always be based on Biblical evidence, prayer, meditation, conscience, reasonableness, and always FIRST giving the benefit of any doubt to the elder men who publish our teachings in the publications and through approved representatives. This way, if I find there are areas of doctrine I can no longer support in good conscience, it is no longer based on any doubt or conflict. There are also certain areas where I am still trying to follow the Bible's counsel to "make sure of all things." Those areas where I am "making sure" I am also willing to discuss here. And I'm happy to hear any Bible evidence you have that is appropriate.

Brazen sounds a bit archaic, and can sometimes offer ambiguity if persons are familiar with another meaning of brazen, such as the ONLY definition (made of brass) that it had in the previous NWT. In the Appendix of the NWT Reference Bible (1984):
*** Rbi8 p. 1575 4D “Tartarus” ***
In Job 41:31, 32 (41:23, 24, LXX) we read concerning Leviathan: “He makes the deep boil like a brazen caldron; . . . "
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
I took 4 years of Hebrew in College (7 semesters) and learned a bit of Greek at Bethel. Still an amateur, of course, but learned enough to know that the NWT is actually an excellent translation with only a few verses where bias has created areas for further study. Most of its "mis-translations," in my opinion, do not necessarily add false informaiton, just interpreted information. Most of the time I'd say the interpreted information is quite likely true, just unnecessary for a pure translation.
Personally, I find both the 1984 and 2013 NWT to be very good, even the simpler revised version. But I couldn't do without an Interlinear. There was more consistency in the old NWT, and where words were added there were usually brackets around them. You have to really know a more literal translation well, for the Revised NWT to also be as useful. And, for the present, most JWs have a good knowledge of the NWT (more literal) and the NWT Revised, which puts them in pretty good shape. A simpler, easier to read version, is better for grasping the context, and a literal translation is better for study. We have them both, plus an excellent Interlinear (KIT).
I might have a few minor complaints with the NWT, but I have hundreds more with the KJV, RSV, and ASV. There are a few things I like better about the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV, but it doesn't matter so much any more. We all have the ability to check all kinds of good Bible language resources online, and dozens of parallel Bibles online for comparison.

Yes, it does, and the verse seems pretty convincing.  You quoted the verse inside the Watchtower quote. I'm repeating it here for reference:
Sometime after the attack of Gog begins, all the remaining anointed ones on earth will be taken to heaven. Then Revelation 17:14 tells us about the reaction in heaven  to Gog’s attack. The enemies of God’s people “will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.” Thus, Jesus, together with his 144,000 anointed kings in heaven, will rescue God’s people here on earth.
17 That rescue will result in the battle of Armageddon, which will bring glory to Jehovah’s holy name....................
You probably have heard people say that you shouldn't create a doctrine that is based on only ONE SINGLE Bible verse, especially if that verse is only found in a book like Revelation where symbolic, literal, past, future, present and prophetic references are commonly juxtaposed.
But there is another thing about this particular verse in Revelation 17:14. It's not translated correctly in the NWT. An additional meaning is added to it, to try to make it clearer to understand. That "meaning" might be correct, but it's commentary and interpretation, not translation. When an assumption requiring interpretation is required to make sense of a specific wording then a translation should make a note somewhere (through brackets or footnotes) that it was added.
The Greek here very clearly (and simply) says the following
" . . . but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him, called and chosen and faithful.”
". . . καὶ [and] οἱ [those] μετ’ [with] αὐτοῦ [him] κλητοὶ [called] καὶ [and] ἐκλεκτοὶ [chosen] καὶ [and] πιστοί [faithful]."
The Greek "with" could mean they are "WITH HIM" in the sense of being on his side, or even (rarely) WITH HIM in the sense of being "AFTER" him, but this would be unlikely in context. The best translations don't try to add meaning, but just go with what it says, even if the meaning is not immediately clear. For example, the CEV says:
"But he will defeat them, because he is Lord over all lords and King over all kings. His followers are chosen and special and faithful." (Rev. 17:14, CEV)
Of course, even here, the phrase "WITH HIM" was interpreted to limit it to the specific sense of "FOLLOWERS" but this is just as likely as a translation that requires the repeating of a verb action that isn't even found, such as by adding: "will do so." [NWT]
But even by adding the interpretation "will do so" doesn't necessarily tie it back to mean they will BATTLE with him. To me, the most likely meaning, and the very reason for the kind of vagueness about specific action, is because the phrase ties back to the idea that they CONQUER with him, just in a different sense from "battling." It reminds me of a similar verse in Revelation that I'll get to in a minute.
At any rate, there are several ways to make sense of this verse without the implication that humans raised to heaven will battle the enemies of God's people from heaven. It seems likely to me (but not definitive) that the main idea is not about the TIMING of when these chosen ones are in heaven during that particular BATTLE, but every sense will imply the fact that these are ones who are on the same SIDE as Jesus Christ, and very likely that these chosen ones are ALSO conquerors over God's enemies, and therefore are reward to share in the "crown" as kings (not just priests). There is another sense of these chosen ones battling God's enemies in Revelation 11, and through certain plagues on God's enemies that they (the chosen ones) are involved with:
(Revelation 11:3-12) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and consumes their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, this is how he must be killed. [probably meaning that their own words, or their own "weapons" will be turned against them.] 6 These have the authority to shut up the sky so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish. 7 When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them. 8 . . . 11 After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them.
and:
(Revelation 13:7) . . .It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.
Nearly all of this is symbolic of course, but the idea is that the chosen witnesses (and those they represent, we can assume) PARTICIPATED in the conquering through their faithfulness, and were thus key actors in the battle against those enemies.
To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’
(Revelation 2:7) . . .To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Revelation 2:11) . . .The one who conquers will by no means be harmed by the second death.’ (Revelation 2:17) . . .To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and written on the pebble is a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it.’ (Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father. This last one is more closely related to the interpretation that the NWT gives to Rev 17:14. Rev 2:27 indicates that "he" refers to each of the chosen/anointed who have conquered on earth will gain authority in heaven to shepherd the nations with an iron rod, just as Jesus does. But just how literal this is we can't say, because it may even refer to the authority to keep the peace for 1,000 years during, perhaps even referring to the entire period, up to the time at the END of the thousand year reign, when the nations gather together again:
(Revelation 20:7-10) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Of course, there is another way to read Revelation 20 which avoids the idea that it merely an unlikely repeat of the Armageddon as depicted in Revelation 16, but this time a thousand years later. That "other way" solves some problems and creates some problems. This other method is quite radical, but if accepted the NWT would not have to add those parentheses around Revelation 20:5. It would make more sense as originally found in the Greek without the additions.
I'm sure that didn't really answer your question, not directly anyway. So I'll just repeat that the judgment in Matthew 25 need not be a specific point in time that we call the "Judgment Day" but it makes sense either way. (Back when I was baptized, we were still teaching that the great tribulation had started in 1914.) I think the focus is on the final Judgment Day, similar to the wheat and weeds at the time when the bundles are separated for burning or glorification.
(Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. . .
We once thought that was 1914, but many of the ideas we associated with 1914 have now been seen to make no sense scripturally:
*** w13 7/15 p. 8 par. 19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
Your reference to Mt 24:22 was initially the primary reason that the great tribulation was seen as starting in 1914, but after nearly shutting down the WTS, it was seen as a relief in 1918/1919 when the days of that tribulation were stopped, giving the WTS a chance to regroup and grow.
In terms of the chosen ones, it would seem to indicate what I said above, that the BATTLE against God's enemies is going on while there were still chosen ones on earth needing protection from the ones causing tribulation.
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) . . .This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. It could also be interpreted, based on this and Revelation, that these ones causing tribulation will temporarily conquer all the chosen ones through death, but the verses about the "harpazo" (rapture) show that not all would die. Of course, the recent tendency in explaining all these verses tends to minimize the importance of 1914, but that's another topic. 
 

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:
"Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.  Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 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;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".
What I am understanding here is that Paul went up to Jerusalem to speak with the "the highly regarded men/pillars" to talk to them about a matter involving false brothers (Superfine apostles/Judaizers).
Then the following verses (6-9) I understand Paul to be talking about the  important/highly regarded men/pillars saying that it does not matter that they were circumcised because: "God does not go by outward appearance"  and so they did not impart anything new to him in that regard, on the contrary they saw Paul had been entrusted with seeing to the uncircumcised in the same way Peter had been entrusted with the circumcised. And when they (those who seemed to be pillars) recognized that, they gave him (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I don't see any animosity between them and Paul, even though Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).
However, those who Paul called false brothers seem to be the same ones he is talking about in Acts 15: 1-2 and the same ones he goes to Jerusalem to talk to the "highly regarded men/pillars" about. "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue".
So it seems that these men from Judea were the Judaizers who insisted that without circumcision there is no salvation, not those who were in Jerusalem (the highly regarded men/pillars) even though some, like Peter had succumbed to a pretense for a short time because of fear of man (and even Barnabas succumbed) but then must have responded to Paul's correction (Galatians 2:11) However,  aren't the "false brothers/Judaizers" (those of whom the apostles in Jerusalem , he highly regarded men/ pillars wrote in Acts 15:23-14) the ones who caused trouble?: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions "........

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, 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.
It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 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.
The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 
I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 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,. . .
Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?
What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 
You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?
I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.
(Hebrews 13:7-17) 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. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .
Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.

No. Certainly not! They were Judaizers. So he said they "seemed to be pillars."
(Galatians 2:6-9) . . .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, . . .

That's how I had always read it, too. But there is also a strong possibility that he really means that he wanted to be sure that everything he was doing was not being undone by these superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John). James and Peter had influence outside of Jerusalem, obviously all the way up to Galatia, where James sent people to undermine Paul's work, and Peter actually visited himself and ended up setting a bad example for the brothers, there.
Under another topic you already responded to some of these points, but I'll pick up on them again here.
Remember, too, that Peter was a big influence in Corinth, too, so that some were saying they belonged to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Paul drops several hints even in Corinthians that the superfine apostles included the "James gang" and others from the "Jerusalem party."  It was easy for the Corinthians to see these apostles appointed by Jesus as a kind of Governing Body representing themselves as THE (superfine) FAITHFUL STEWARD. So Paul made a point to them that he was not a steward that needed such a human "tribunal."
(1 Corinthians 4:1-3) . . .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.. . .
It's also pretty clear that Paul is speaking of this same tribunal that he speaks of in Galatians. Even the timing is set for us.
(2 Corinthians 12:1, 2) . . .I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in union with Christ who, 14 years ago—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—was caught away to the third heaven. (Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation,. . .

Most of us know this, but this case has been noted by many organizations around the world. Here is an example from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: https://www.uscirf.gov/dennis-christensen
---------------------remainder of post quotes the article ----------------------
Key Fact: Danish citizen and Jehovah's Witness
Charges: "continuing the activities" of an extremist group (Jehovah’s Witnesses) 
Sentence: 6 years imprisonment
Biography: Dennis Ole Christensen is a Danish citizen who lives in Oryol, Russia. Before his detention, he worked as a carpenter while living with his wife, Irina Christensen, who is a Russian citizen.
As of May 2019, Russian authorities have brought 74 criminal cases against Jehovah's Witnesses across Russia, and are investigating a total of 197 Jehovah's Witnesses.
The current Russian state campaign against the Jehovah's Witnesses began with a crackdown on the faith community's literature and legal entities. Since 2007, Russian courts have banned at least eight local Jehovah's Witnesses organizations. The authorities have also placed over 95 pieces of Jehovah's Witnesses literature on the state list of banned extremist materials.
In June 2006, the Oryol Regional Court determined the local Jehovah's Witnesses group to be "extremist." On May 25, 2017, members of the Federal Security Service (FSB) disrupted a Jehovah's Witnesses prayer service in Oryol. Detaining some 70-80 people wihtin the building for several hours, the authorities held about 20 persons overnight before arresting Dennis Christensen and 15 Russian citizens.
On January 30, 2019, the prosecution demanded Mr. Christensen be sentenced to six and half years under Criminal Code Article 282.2, Part 1 for "continuing the activities" of an extremist group. On February 6, 2019, after appearing over 50 times in court and being detained for over 600 days, Mr. Christensen was sentenced to six years imprisonment. On May 23, the Oryol Regional Court denied Christensen's appeal and upheld the February decision to sentence him to six years in a penal colony.

[Dennis Christensen’s closing statement]
First, I want to thank my wife Irina, who from the very beginning did everything in her power to help and support me. She took care of me, passed me clothes, groceries, medicines and other things that I needed in the SIZO (Pre-Trial Detention Centre). She has supported me emotionally and spiritually with her visits and letters that I have received from her every day.
My dear wife, your strong faith, your great patience, your peace of mind and love for me and for the truth, including your optimism, have all been a great example to me. You should know that I love you very much and that I am very proud of you!
I also want to thank my family in Denmark, especially my elderly father and my sister. You should know that I miss you so much. I love you and appreciate everything you have done for me. During my stay in the SIZO you supported me with your numerous letters and telephone conversations. I am sure that you will never give up and lose hope that we will be able to come together again as a family one day.
I also want to thank all my many friends from all over the world. You supported me with your letters, encouraging thoughts, beautiful drawings and various gifts. All this has helped me to understand that I am not alone, and that I have a large global family.
Dear friends, you should know that every letter, big or small, has encouraged and strengthened me. Please do not be discouraged if I do not have time to respond to your letters. I will find you, thank you and hug you in the future, I promise!
I also want to thank the Embassy of the Kingdom of Denmark in Moscow and all its staff. You attended many court sessions and repeatedly visited me in the SIZO. Your helpful advice, guidance and encouragement mean a lot to me, and I really appreciate your support and the great help that you have given me.
I would also like to thank the Court of Appeal for the fact that I personally was able to attend this court hearing. When I participated in other appellate cases through videoconferencing from the SIZO, it was difficult for me to hear everything that was said. I had to guess half of what was happening there. This is an unworthy way to defend someone. In addition, when using the conference call in the SIZO, you must sit in jail, as if you were an animal in a zoo. I consider this an unworthy, inhuman treatment today, in the 21st century.
At the present, I have already been in the SIZO for almost two years, and this trial has been going on for 15 months. To endure all this, not to give up and not to lose heart, it is extremely necessary to have a certain inner strength. The Bible says - in Philippians, the 4th chapter, the 12th verse - that “I can do everything by him that strengthens me.” In the book of the Prophet Isaiah, the 12th chapter, in verse 2 it is written: “Behold, God is my salvation: I trust in Him and have no fear; for the Lord is my strength, and my song is the Lord; and he has been my salvation. "
Throughout this period, I have felt that my God, Jehovah, has been next to me and has given me the strength to endure all this. The power to not give up, not to lose heart, to be joyful and happy and to continue to smile. I am sincerely grateful to him for this and am proud to serve Him as one of his witnesses, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Many people have asked me how this criminal case have affected me. Of course, it is not easy to be in a SIZO for such a long period of time, to be cut off from your wife and from close contact with your family and friends. The last two years I have lived a very closed life. You could say I have just existed. 23 hours a day I have spent in my prison cell of 3 by 6 meters, and for an hour every day I have gone for a walk in the walking yard, also 3 by 6 meters, although under the open sky. During this time, I met various people with whom I had many interesting conversations. And I noticed that many of them are trying to achieve a decent, honest investigation and trial. Most feel that the system does not hear them, and I have also felt a similar feeling in the past two years. I tried to support and encourage them as best I could, because I am sure that Jesus Christ would have done the same.
I made many new friends, some of them were present at a part of the court sessions, and some wrote letters to me. I personally know some of them, but others not yet. Some havethe same faith as I do, others do not, but they still support me, because they cannot tolerate the injustice that is happening here in Russia, the way some here try to make Jehovah’sWitnesses, citizens who love their neighbour as themselves, out to be criminals and call them extremists. This is completely illogical and ridiculous. Many are shocked by the fact that such things happen here, in Russia, in the 21st century.
Someone asked me how this criminal case has affected my faith. Thanks to this criminal case, my faith has only become stronger, and I have experienced what the Bible said in the Epistle of James, the first chapter, in verses 2 through 4: “Take great joy, my brethren, when you meet with various trials, knowing that the test of your faith produces endurance; but endurance must have its action complete, so that you may be complete in its entirety, without any deficiency. ”
I am still far from perfect, but I have learned to be steadfast and remain joyful in my ordeals. And the most important thing I want to emphasize is that I have drawn even closer to my God Jehovah and have received an even more ardent desire to tell others about him and his purposes, an ardent desire to continue preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God, which is the only solution for humanity. A fervent desire to share with others the joyful message from the Bible about the world and eternal life here, in paradise on earth to help them get closer to the Creator and help develop strong faith in him and his promises.
This speech is officially called “the last word in my defence,” and maybe these will be the last words you will hear from me today. Maybe this is the last court hearing in this criminal case, and it will become an end to this last two-year period of my life. But I want to assure you that these are not my last words in this case about the injustice that is happening here in Russia against peaceful and completely innocent people. I have just started, and I have a lot more that I want to tell you publicly. I'm not going to be silent, as if I am guilty and have something to hide. I have a clear conscience, I have not done anything wrong, I have not violated any law of Russia and I have nothing to be ashamed of.
What is being done against me and other Witnesses here in Russia are false accusations of extremism, interrogations, detentions, searches, confiscations, discoveries, threats, and now even torture. This should be shameful. It is of course adisgrace. The truth always becomes apparent, and justice will sooner or later prevail. In the Bible, in Galatians, chapter 6, verse 7, it says: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap. ”
The court of first instance sentenced me to 6 years in prison, but for what? Nothing. There is no evidence that I did something wrong. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that I enjoyed the rights granted to me under Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I observe the law of the Russian state and am an honest person. I am a Christian, a believer, a Jehovah's Witness, and I love the Russian people. What are they punishing me for? Why should I be in prison for 6 years? Nothing. This is unfair.
I sincerely hope that the Court of Appeal today will protect what is right and take care that justice prevail. That it will namely stop the persecution of faith, which is happening now in Russia. I very much hope that this court of appeal will send a signal to the whole world that here in Russia there is freedom of religion for all people.
In the near future these words will be fulfilled: “And he, God, will judge many nations, and they will cast their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles; nation will not raise the sword against nation, and they will no longer learn how to wage war. But each one will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one will frighten them.” The words of Micah, chapter 4, verses 3 and 4.
God always judges justly, and under his rule there will no longer be disagreements, violence and wars. On the contrary, there will be peace, and there will be no anxieties. In other words, there will be true happiness for all of humanity.
Your Honor, with your decision today you can make a big step in this direction, in the direction of justice and peace. A big step towards a world without anxiety, sadness and injustice. And I hope you do that. Thank you in advance!
[The appeal failed. Seemingly, it had already been decided that it would.]
 

Who is more loyal?
This is a real conversation I had with a brother. He insisted I should follow some instructions in our congregation. I agreed but I also mentioned this arrangement was silly. Then, he insisted, if I were more loyal I would not think it was silly. So, I gave him one example:
One person is blind, and his master demand him: “take this envelop and deliver it in the house at the end of this road.” So, he does, helping himself with a walking stick, happy whistling while is serving his chief.
What the blind servant ignores is that the road is flanked, surrounded with deep cliffs. But as he didn’t see anything was very happy and confident.
Now. The boss orders to another employee doing the same thing, but this time the servant see perfectly the riffs. And still worst, he is afraid of heights.  But this second servant also obeys the master. This time without whistles, but swallowing saliva and sometimes closing the eyes.
Then, I asked to my interlocutor: who is more loyal?
And he insisted, “both sowed the same loyalty.” What’s the opinion of you, the reader? Who was more loyal?
A very difficult situation.
Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation.  I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him!
Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey.
What I’m proposing is: if I want to be loyal, must always agree with the instructions from the “slave” class? Have I the right to think some orders, explanations, directions from these brothers are silly, sometimes completely wrong?
I follow these teachings, of course, but, please, don’t force me to always agree with them!

Summarizing this topic.
What are the reasons, in my opinion, provoking this situation, that make the GB appear as not humble?
TO CONVEY CONFIDANCE
Anna quote is, in my opinion, unsurpassable:
·        “I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence”. TO PROVE THIS ORGANIZATION IS GUIDED BY GOD’S SPIRIT
I’ve mention in this post that God’s people, and therefore the GB, are guided by God’s spirit. But in this epoch not miraculously. The lack of miraculous wisdom or knowledge (1Co 13:8) would make necessary display of characteristics such as “power of reason” (Ro 12:1)); “accurate knowledge and full discernment” (Ph 1:9); “sound in mind” (1 Pe 4:7); “insight” (Da 11:32) and so on. And these qualities don’t would come through “flashes” of God’s spirit, but by means of study, pray, effort, mistakes and rectifications (Da 11:35).
But, our GB, I think, is afraid at some degree of showing themselves error prone because this could show we aren’t under Jehovah’s hand in the eyes of others. I remember when I was serving as special pioneer in 1981 I was assigned to a small congregation with only one elder and me as his helper. All the brothers were newly baptized. I had to direct one Watchtower study regarding some change regarding the meaning of “sacred service”. The elder gave me the advice: “don’t focus excessively in the idea that a change was necessary, this could disturb the congregation.” The idea these new brothers shared, to a greater or lesser extent, is that we’re the organization God is directing by His spirit, and consequently the necessity of changes only should be seen as improvements, not corrections.
In spite of this, many brothers opine the “slave class” is humble because they recognize their errors. But in this forum has been shown evidence, for example, that the “error” of 1975 was distributed, spread between all brotherhood. Even worse, the decrease in the number of publishers was attributed to the influence of “some apostates” rather than the disillusion caused for the excessive emphasis on dates (w86 12/15 p. 20 pars. 20-21). Even Allen Smith (thanks for this) quoted this:
·        *** yb12 pp. 142-143 Norway *** There was a steady increase in publishers from the mid-1960’s till the mid-1970’s. But expectations regarding the year 1975 proved to be a test of faith for some brothers. When the great tribulation did not come in 1975, a few left the organization; and between 1976 and 1980, there was a slight decrease in publishers. Others who felt disappointed slowed down in their Christian activity for a while. What statement about the main reason of decrease is more accurate? “apostate influence”, “self-generated expectations” or some statements in our literature.
·        (1 Sa 15:20,21) “However, Saul said to Samuel: […] But the people took sheep and cattle from the spoil, the best of what was devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God at Gilgal” Saul, in other words, said “the mistake wasn’t mine, but people’s”. In modern times, “we have not guilty to promote false expectations, some individuals here and there have misunderstood us.” Was Saul humble?
Also, recently we have read in the W that in 1918 the ZWT followed the petition for “pray for peace”. but the original sources show, instead, that ZWT asked the congregations to pray for United States victory (w67 2/15 pp. 111-112 pars. 27-28), “for the promised glorious outcome of the war.” In this way presenting a more favorable view of the error.
TO PROTECT THE BROTHERHOOD
·        (2 Co 11:2) “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” ·        (2 Co 11:18) “Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I too will boast.” ·        (2 Co 12:11) “I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you” As Paul with the Corinthians, the GB ‘is jealous over us’ because they want that the entire brotherhood be acceptable at God’s eyes. I think this is one of the reasons they are acting in a way with apparently lack of humility. Paul himself had to boast, be unreasonable, with lack of humility to reaffirm his authority. He made a display of credentials hoping the Corinthians would respect more and, consequently will follow his advice more confidently, for their own protection and spiritual well-being.
GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGH EVEN WITH CROOKED LINES
I’ve been personal witness of this situation: A body of elders had an obvious lack of judgment decision about a brother. This, humbly, didn’t protest. But his wife couldn’t endure the situation and talked with the elders. They recognized the error but replied to her: “in this way he’s receiving training from God” and the mistake was not corrected.
The attitude of the elders was: “well, God can act so that our errors turn out not to be such mistakes”.
Every one of us have read such things as “the brothers [some apparent mistake] but finally Jehovah [solved the situation].” And I believe this has been the case a lot of times, but this idea has led to us to think that the Organization, the GB, is in someway infallible. “What mistakes, if finally Jehovah turn out them in successes.”
ADULATION
I’ve attended three pioneer schools. The first one perhaps in 1979. In the first two of them the text book was given to the students at Sunday, the day before the beginning of the course. In such schools the normal situation for a lot of us is to remain awaken until well late at night to prepare all the information. During the classes many were sleepy, some of them anxious. This situation prevented us to fully enjoy.
Nevertheless, in my last school the book was provided a couple of months before! We all could prepare with sufficient time, only reviewing the lessons the day before each class. What a difference!
The intriguing is, how could happen that something so easy to perceive was not corrected until decades later? Did the instructors inform about what was evident? Did the branches inform to GB about the instructors complaints, if any? This real conversation perhaps gives some light.
A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.
And what was the reason for this kind of favorable report? Adulation. And I have more evidences. In my branch and in our headquarters. Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative. Only escalate favorable reactions. Yes, I’m sure not always is the situation. But I have evidence of too many.
Certainly all of us have seen good changes in the brothers leading the worldwide congregation. Let God bless the GB that this brothers with such enormous responsibility each day. Keep it that way!
You're right.
To avoid this post woud be marked as R-Rated, perhaps we should move to another more "spiritual" matter!

Anna, I have pending some commentaries regarding other quotes, but let’s start for this one.

The tp book declaration about the proper sexual conduct in matrimony is, simply, dogmatic. Reflects the point of view of the writer: “I dislike eating snails so the Bible verses talking about uncleanness, natural or not natural, etc. apply to my view. And this view the brotherhood will do well to follow”.

As I’ve mention, the verses (Rom 1:24-27) were CHARGED with an inexistent meaning.  Later, the w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 quoted above, discharged the verses regarding this meaning. But this was in a footnote. Who read footnotes? The damage was already done. Even Melinda quoted the tp book, not the posterior Watchtower correction. This, Anna, is the concern in this topic. Lack of humility. You know the media treatment about JW: “some JW dead for blood issue” TITULAR in bold type. Weeks later “JW died for another reason.” Page xx with small type.

The damage I’ve seen with my own eyes has to do with couples that would be very happy enjoying their intimacy, because BOTH of them agree in sex conduct. But due to our (GB) teaching, as you have mention, arise doubts that disturb them.

Steve Jobs style: “one more thing.”

·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly”.
I prefer our older translation, more literal.

·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly”.
Note the words “intoxicate” or “ecstasy”. Do these words reflect… how can I say, “a quiet behavior”? (here I’m quite lost with my English. In Spanish I could pick up some exact but prudent words that convey the meaning I wish to transmit, so I apologize if I say outrages). What if the couple wants a more “expressive” behavior?

The meaning of these words is well expressed in this quote in Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/5-19.htm

·        And be thou ravished always with her love; i.e. let it intoxicate thee. The teacher, by a bold figure, describes the entire fascination which the husband is to allow the wife to exercise over him. The verb shagah is "to reel under the influence of wine," and is so used in the succeeding vers. 20 and 23, and Proverbs 20:1 and Isaiah 28:7. The primary meaning, "to err from the way," scarcely applies here, and does not express the idea of the teacher, which is to describe "an intensity of love connected with the feeling of superabundant happiness" (Delitzsch).
So, according the Bible, it is perfectly correct, clean, normal, appropriate: to get intoxicate, to get “drunk”, to lose the mind… in the bedroom.

The counsel given to this couple was:

·        The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree.
·        No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience.
·        If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7)
·        Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges)
They thanked us the help, and obviously, I’ve not ask them about any decision. But I see them happy.

Melinda, as always, your commentaries are very welcome. Too, your words reflect good reasoning, scriptural and wise.

The only issue is, in my opinion, is when we apply uncleanness to certain practices or we refer to a particular conduct as “normal.” When I’ve dealt about these matters with other people, and they ask me about reasons, or proof that some particular behavior fits into “disgraceful”, I can’t answer with my personal views, nor our literature. I need to use the Bible, only the Bible.

The 1973 tp book paragraph you’ve quoted:

·        The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God’s eyes from expressing “disgraceful sexual appetites” or “hurtful desire”?
It is modified for this posterior explanation:

·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers ***[Footnotes] Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. It must also be acknowledged that even those love expressions that are completely normal and common between husband and wife would be “unnatural” for persons of the same sex and immoral for unmarried people. Whatever guidance these apostolic statements provide as regards sex practices within marriage, therefore, is indirect and must be viewed as only of a persuasive but not a conclusive nature, that is, not the basis for setting up hard and fast standards for judgment. At the same time there is the possibility and perhaps a likelihood that some sex practices now engaged in by husband and wife were originally practiced only by homosexuals. If this should be the case, then certainly this would give these practices at least an unsavory origin. So the matter is not one to be lightly dismissed by the conscientious Christian simply because no direct reference to married persons appears in the aforementioned texts.
I see in the above quote three ideas.

First. Paul’s word regarding “natural” were about having sex between one man and one woman. This was the “natural.” We should not extrapolate to some practices between a married couple.
Second. A “simple” kiss between homosexuals is “unnatural”
Third. When the footnote mention the possibility-likelihood that some practices were originally practiced only by homosexuals, the writer is emitting an opinion. You see, no scripture sustains this affirmation.  Homosexuals also kiss and hug each other, and not for this reason should avoid the matrimonies kissing and hugging in our relationship.
I’m afraid regarding this matter of “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony is happening something similar when we refused the transplants as a form of cannibalism. We “charged” excessively the meaning of some verse, in this case, Gen 9:2-4. I reproduce next paragraphs:

·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers *** When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.
As we see, the writer of the article quotes Genesis with a basic idea: God allowed humans eating animal flesh. Now, the verse is “charged”: so, as no mention about eating human flesh in the verses, this is abhorrent and forbidden. But this idea, in spite all sane people agree with, is not scriptural.

Thus, years later was a “discharge” of the meaning of Genesis.

·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals [this was our former view, the “charged verse”] […] Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. […] It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
 

I love this kind of reasoning from the GB! I find it so humble! The Bible doesn’t directly mention this matter. The basic principle in Gen. is to eat animal flesh. Any derivation from the basic principle is up to each individual.

By the way, do you find horrible eating human flesh? Me too. But if someone allows be transplanted with an organ (eating this organ as we used to say) I respect his position. In the same way, perhaps you and I share the same view regarding the proper sexual behavior in our matrimonies, and we find disgusting some practices, right. But if other married couple opine in a different way I don’t see myself with the authority to “charge” some verses to make these persons view the matters as I see.

Melinda, I voted you favorably. We don’t share completely the same view, but your points are very valid and respectable!

Regarding this thorny issue I feel frankly better after the last changes regarding our policies. What has hinder a better and quicker approach to the problem is, in my opinion, as usual, pride.
·        We’ve seen the secular authorities as antagonist. Judges as enemies, police as intruders, psychologists as obtrusive, social services as snoopers. ·        We’ve seen ourselves as completely and fully trained to deal with these horrors by our means. ·        We’ve treated this sin in the congregation, this frightening sin, as any other sin to deal with. ·        We’ve given more importance to our reputation (God’s name) than the cry of the afflicted I wish we would have been more humble to recognize that:
·        Secular authorities are in a much better position to discover this kind of evil. They can register a home, confiscate a computer or cellular, interrogate neighbors and coworkers. We could not. ·        The vast majority of us aren’t trained to deal with children victims of abuse. Adults accustomed to cheating cheekily, ruthlessly. So, in spite of dozens of letters and schools the elders have attended. ·        This is not a normal sin. This is not as smoking. The child is terrified and ashamed. The wife is afraid to admit it. The two-witness rule cannot apply. We should not face the victim in front of the perpetrator and three other men (the judicial committee). ·        Soon or later everything arises. God’s name would have been cleaner reporting these facts to the authorities, not only allowing the victims to do this, but encouraging them to do this to better protect them. Well, as I’ve mention, our recent policies finally allow:
·        Don’t face victim and accused. ·        Allowing a third person (parents or a friend of the victim) stay with the victim to make her feel more comfortable. ·        At least, not discouraging to go to authorities or search for professional help. ·        The circuit overseer chooses a better qualified elder from outside the congregation to preside the committee. As Anna mention, hope these policies will improve with the blessing of Jehovah.
I’m trying, here in my congregation, to contact with an inactive sister. His father, still a witness in another region, never was disfellowshipped. The elders only had the testimony of one unique witness, the victim. Now many years later this sister is very resentful with the congregation because they “could not help her.” Do you know what will be my first words when I could reach her? “I ask you for forgiveness”.
Are not others also responsible?

Do you like to eat snails, or rabbits?
Disgusting, repulsive! But you know that in some countries these are delicacies. And the same could be said regarding eating snakes or dogs!
This comes up because these strong feelings reflect well the position of the GB about the kind of sexual behavior allowed or not between spouses. At least until recently.
If we review the statements (too long to post them completely) could perceive some evolution.
·        *** w69 3/15 p. 177 par. 14 Living Up to Your Decisions *** “A Christian husband should not be harsh or demanding in this matter […] , perhaps, even expect them to indulge in sexual perversions? […] Keeping busy in the ministry, personal Bible study, meeting preparation and participation, along with other congregational responsibilities, will contribute to self-control.” So, some sexual behavior is seen as perverted. The solution: more Bible study!
·        *** w69 12/15 pp. 765-766 Questions From Readers *** We have received quite a number of inquiries from married persons asking about sexual matters […] These questions have dealt with conjugal acts […] We herein comment on such matters to the extent that we feel authorized to do so.  […] Married persons recognize the obvious way in which the husband’s organ fits into his wife’s birth canal to serve the serious purpose of reproduction. […] Thus it shows that to indulge in such perverted use of the reproductive organs so as to satisfy a covetous desire for sexual excitement is not approved by God. […] In many places even the law of the land backs this up, making certain acts between husband and wife illegal. For example, speaking about the United States, Time of August 8, 1969, observed: “Sodomy is illegal in nearly every state, even between spouses.” […] ) The fact that usually the male has the greater sexual desire suggests that he display a greater measure of self-control, even though his wife lovingly wants to satisfy him. […] However, beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go. Thus, there is an appropriate way to be good boy, even legal. If the wife agrees, it does not matter. And, as the general topic we’re considering here relates to humility, let’s ponder if the marked bold statements above reflect this quality: “to the extent that we feel authorized to do so…beyond the above observations about conjugal acts we cannot go.” I think it is obvious that the writer feels about himself as authorized to regulate completely the procedures, despite his affirmations.
·        *** w74 11/15 pp. 703-704 Questions From Readers *** That porneia can rightly be considered as including perversions within the marriage arrangement is seen in that the man who forces his wife to have unnatural sex relations with him in effect “prostitutes” or “debauches” her. […] If, on the other hand, the lewd practices were engaged in by mutual consent, […] Both marriage partners are guilty. Such a case, if brought to the attention of elders in the congregation, would be handled like any other serious wrongdoing. There is unnatural sex between spouses. This was seen as deserving of biblical divorce and the elders should disfellowship them if both consent.
·        *** w76 2/15 p. 123 par. 15 You Must Be Holy Because Jehovah Is Holy *** “Later, another issue needed attention. Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God’s people to become impure in his eyes.” More on the same line.
·        *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 Questions From Readers *** Does the Bible set forth any specific definitions as to what is moral or immoral as regards the sexual relationship between husband and wife? Is it the responsibility of congregational elders to endeavor to exercise control among congregation members in these intimate marital matters? […] A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. […] This should not be taken as a condoning of all the various sexual practices that people engage in, for that is by no means the case. It simply expresses a keen sense of responsibility to let the Scriptures rule and to refrain from taking a dogmatic stand where the evidence does not seem to provide sufficient basis. [the elders] could not conscientiously recommend him or her for any exemplary service Well, the things begin to change. There is no Scriptural instruction. No expulsion, but no privilege in the congregation. Now, what is important for our consideration about pride or humility, let’s note these statements: “a careful further weighing… refrain from taking a dogmatic stand.” In other words, “we, the writers, the GB, until now and concerning this matter, we have been dogmatic and we had not scriptural basis to sustain our view.” Would not we expect this from humble people?
·        *** w83 3/15 pp. 30-31 Honor Godly Marriage! *** […] As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion […] . A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. This is basically our (GB) present position. Some sexual activities between the matrimony are repulsive. No privileges for these persons. It could lead to expulsion it the brother advocates this kind of behavior.
·        *** W16 8/15 page 15, pf 8. “Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Sol. 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.” Could this be seen as “new light?” This recent article states (the truth) that the Bible does not provide specific rules nor limits.
Now the damages
About 50 years of statements have been presented. The evolution goes from direct expulsion to only be removed of privileges. And if there is a braze promotion of the practices the consequences could go beyond.
I’m personal witness of the suffering of these standards in a number of couples. For example, in one congregation I was serving both partners agreed in the fact they both find this conduct acceptable. They have been practicing oral sex for some time but one of them, only for the standards in our literature did not want to continue. The other partner confesses me time later that had to resist the temptation to look outside for what was denied within.
Another couple I started to study the Bible with them, have had in the past a sexual conduct far from the Bible principles. He was homosexual, she was a prostitute. When the “proper” sexual behavior between the matrimony arose in the study, they BOTH mention about their necessities, completely different from the standards in our literature. They both told me that they didn’t find disgusting these practices. On time, they stopped studying for several reasons, but I always thought that, at some degree, they found our standards too restrictive.
Finally, in my present congregation, on a shepherding visit to a Christian couple the wife told us (with some shame) that she was willing to (certain practice) with her husband, but she had heard that this was a sin and stopped. The matrimony had trouble since then.
Now, the most important
What does the Bible teach us regarding this matter?
In the Hebrew Scriptures we found some precise regulations about the type of sexual behavior. The sex wasn’t allowed during menstruation. Matrimony between some relatives was forbidden, and so on. And what about the “sexual mechanism” between spouses? Nothing. This was so, despite the fact the Canaanites were a depraved people. They had orgies and male prostitutes, so we can suppose these persons practiced oral and anal sex in their lives. Why did not God specifically prohibit it? This was during an epoch where the conscience had a lesser role in the life of Jehovah’s worshippers and everything had to be more regulated.
In the first century the morality of Greeks and Romans was everything less moral. What advice did the first Christians found in the Greek Scriptures to avoid the depravation? Quite a number, for example, the husband needs to be tender and loving. But what happened if both spouses agreed in some kind of particular sexual conduct between them?
·        (1 Cor 7:2-5) “but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent […] in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control.” Man and woman are debtors about the sexual necessities of each other. The main factor to determine the sexual conduct is “mutual consent.” What if we wish to be less “tender” and more… you know, the opposite? What if we both agree we both want, we both need, we both find it satisfying some sexual activities? According the above verses, the only answer I can find is to consider this as debt, a necessity to satisfy. And, is not this better that leave my partner “hungry”, exposed to temptation?
 
 
 
When they ask you and you do not know
·        (Mat 17:24-27) “After they arrived in Capernaum, the men collecting the two drachmas tax approached Peter and said: “Does your teacher not pay the two drachmas tax?” He said: “Yes.” However, when he entered the house, Jesus spoke to him first and said: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or head tax? From their sons or from the strangers?” When he said: “From the strangers,” Jesus said to him: “Really, then, the sons are tax-free.” What characteristic did Peter show with this quick answer? Humility? Have you ever face this situation? Someone ask you something, and you are afraid that if you simple say “I don’t know” the consideration of others would decrease? It has happened to me a lot of times! I think it is pride. And this is exactly what I’ve seen in the statements (of the GB) when has tried to regulate this aspect in our life that God himself has not considered necessary to regulate. I sincerely believe these brothers have imposed their preferences about what is correct or wrong in my bedroom. And I’ve seen the hurt of this regulations in the life of people. I hope the path of humility will impose and, perhaps, I will see some apologize…

I've seen a lot of love and long-lasting friendships. I've seen some awful things too, and heard about many more. But the congregations I have been in over many years (from age 0 to 66) have had very few of these problems.
I thought there had not been any cases of CSA in any congregation I had personally been in, but there was a huge commotion at a recent funeral of a local elder when several tales of his abuse were exposed by family members for the first time AT THE FUNERAL itself. Several (including me) were shocked and surprised.
But this is far from the norm. I've worked in the sound "A/V" booth at many assemblies/conventions since I was a teenager, and have made friends from all over the world. Then, when traveling, I have often met up with these friends. Perhaps I assume that this has been the norm for most Witnesses.
I know that there has been a trend toward more problems, although that's also just my opinion. But I hear about more problems and also see attendance down in several places.
We'd all like to see CSA eliminated from everywhere. I don't believe that we will ever be immune from problems the rest of the world has. But I'd hate to think that it's just as common with us as it is in some other religious institutions. But I don't blame the two-witness rule for the crime, but I do blame it for the slow wheels of congregational justice. And who knows? I think people like Raymond Franz had a chance to fix that part of the problem much earlier, and yet he was evidently blind to it.
I have a feeling that both CSA and shunning will both be "fixed" to the best of the organization's ability from a procedural/rules perspective within a couple of years. It will still happen, of course, but the policies will be adjusted to conform to something more loving. I heard a well known brother in a responsible position at Bethel say that there were only two things that needed to change to nearly remove all the "deserved" animus against us: our shunning policy and our blood policy. He thought both of them should be changed for scriptural reasons. I'm sure he hadn't realized how big the CSA problem would be when more fully exposed.
Local squabbling will always be a problem when brothers see titles as positions of "power" for their ego, instead of opportunities to serve one another more efficiently. I've seen a share of it, and assumed it didn't happen as much elsewhere. I was in a place to hear some yelling and screaming back in the 70's and 80's at Bethel, and a friend tells me that he thinks all the GB get along very well, but that the "helpers" have been known to squabble loudly. Perhaps some things are worth squabbling about. (and most things probably aren't) The apostle Paul speaks of such things even in his own life as a Christian.
Well, you probably know that I don't try to defend everything that's wrong, and I think that everything that's wrong should actually be exposed in the city gates. Exposure actually reduces bad behavior. I've seen it happen directly a few times. Perhaps even bad doctrines and bad decisions and bad policy can be revisited if enough people raise questions publicly. I heard a brother in the Writing Department say that he'd like to see all the things fixed right away that Raymond Franz exposed, and he lamented that some would not be easy to fix. But many of them have already, by now, been fixed.

100% true.  Somehow though I think that the idea of unquestioned obedience to a group of uninspired men exists in the minds of some Witnesses, but not all. I had a conversation along similar lines with Witnesses on another website, and when I pointed out that Br. Jackson of the GB himself indicated that we should not have unquestioning obedience to them, and I even quoted Br. Jackson to support what I said, I got thrown out of the forum. I paraphrase Br. Jackson here as I am on another computer and do not have access to the transcript where he made that quote. Basically, the gist of what he said was that "if the GB said something that was out of line with the scriptures, then all other JWs who have the Bible, would see that it was wrong direction". In other words, if others recognized from the Bible that certain direction was wrong, they would not follow it, no matter who it came from.
So really, that kind of solves the problem. Someone has to take the lead, and if we use the Bible as a measuring stick, and see that that person, or body of persons are going against the scriptures, then it would be wrong of us to obey them in that particular instance as we must obey God as ruler, rather than men.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a big deal to repeatedly say there is no academic understanding here. You began repeating that idea (under other names, I think) when someone implied that it would be OK to make longer quotes from other sources for education purposes, based on common practice for commentaries on other person's writings  under 'fair use' law.
But that's not what this is about. It's been a common practice of yours to sometimes just dump a bunch of commentary from various places, but without any comment of your own as to whether you think it even applies to your own view or someone else's view. Often it is contradictory to the Watchtower's view (as it was this time), which is why I think you either hadn't even read it, or at least why you didn't comment on any of it yourself. It seemed pretty academic, but you didn't give a source for any other readers here, who might not have been able to tell whether it came from a Watchtower source or a Christendom source or some other academic source. And for someone who is bent on repeating there is no academic understanding here, it makes no sense that you had just done this earlier in this same thread with the words:
Of course, you didn't give any reference or attribution to that either, and you were addressing someone else, not me. And by the way, I didn't just automatically know where the references came from; I had to look it up.
I didn't sidestep the questions, I only indicated to you why the questions, as stated, didn't mean much of anything. As a reminder, here were the questions I "sidestepped":
In between those two questions, you merely copied information from "Christendom's" commentaries without any context. Those don't even sound like legitimate questions to me. They sound like questions from someone trying to imitate post-modern pretentiousness and who thinks vagueness sounds impressive.
Wow! And did anyone mention your propensity for projection?
Your resources did not agree with the Watchtower's view. You yourself have seemed to question the Watchtower's stated view on who makes up the Body of Christ, or else you just wanted to be disagreeable. Your own questions and statements often sound something like this:
BTK: Why do you say that only the anointed are in the Body of Christ? That's untenable and seals your fate as an apostate! Response: But the Watchtower says that only the anointed are in the Body of Christ and I believe this is correct. BTK Then why do you say the anointed are not in the Body of Christ? That's untenable and seals your fate as an apostate! I don't see how I have failed to see that I copy/paste from Watchtower literature. I actually show the reference each time to show exactly where I copy/pasted from, and to make it clear that I am posting from Watchtower literature. See the difference?

Thanks for explaining. This was the impression I got from you, and it was reinforced with this other idea that you conveyed: that since the scriptures were only written to and for the anointed, we must take a kind of 'sit-and-wait' attitude until it becomes obvious who they are. You also have said that you think the end will not take place before the end of your own lifetime, an idea probably also partly based on the fact that no group of anointed has yet become so obvious in our day that '10 men are taking hold of them' because they can see that God is with them.
One reason I responded with an entire thread on this was because this overall idea seemed too passive. It really would lead to the idea that unless some group of truly anointed were making it extremely obvious that they were right in some inspired kind of way, then all of us can just sort of wait until that changes. But Jesus seemed to say that preaching and converting others through making disciples of him was going to be the way in which this message about God and his Kingdom through Christ would reach to the ends of the earth. To me that seems quite different.
Also, just my opinion, but I don't think we need anything except to keep our eyes open and see the works of various Christian brotherhoods to know whether or not Jehovah's spirit is acting upon them. By their works you will recognize them. It's not that works result in our salvation, but that the "works" of the spirit result in "love, joy, peace, patience, etc., etc." If our hearts desire Christian association with loving, peaceful, patient persons, we would find such ones to associate with. The nuances of doctrine (like "who is the Jew with the 10 men at his robes?") is completely unimportant. But a doctrine of peace that results in them not going to war with each other would seem quite important. Personally, I would not wait for a group that explains Scripture better than the next group. That has always just been a "sub-religion" much like the philosophies of the Greeks that they thought was real wisdom.
Scripture is already there for us. We don't have to understand it any further than what was already put there. In our hearts we know enough about Jesus parables just by reading the overall message. We have no further need of prophets, and voices, and tongues, and inspiration, because Jehovah has already put the basic message in our hearts from what inspiration has already written. This is one of the reasons that the book of Revelation was almost voted out of the 66 book canon. It was written in such a way that it took away from the idea that we need nothing further to be written to us (by future interpreters). Yet even this book exercises the depth of our Christian faith if we remember that it should not distract from the idea that the end could come at any time, and that we are not waiting for specific events to happen, but that it can happen at any time. 
On that topic, remember that Jesus said the end could happen at any time, and it would be a surprise, as if without warning of any kind. Of course, he also made it clear that it could happen at any time immediately after the Roman armies sacked Jerusalem, which basically happened in 70 CE. Your own view makes it easy to put this off, by waiting for an additional sign. Paul did mention an additional sign prior to 70 when he said that we weren't waiting for a group of semi-inspired anointed to watch for, but that there would be a semi-inspired powerful force that would have to come first. This kept the Thessalonians from getting too excited about the end coming when 70 CE had not even come yet.
He told them that we needed nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons of the parousia because it would come as a surprise, like a thief in the night, even though we are "awake" enough so that it will not overcome us as victims the way a thief overcomes his victim. He reminded the Thessalonians that people could be taking note of peace and security, and therefore it would be a complete surprise. But he also told them to prepare for the possibility that they would sleep in death before Jesus returned. But that semi-inspired or pseudo-inspired powerful force to watch for apparently turned out to be the many anti-Christs that John spoke of in his letters. Paul had put it in "apocalyptic terms" and I think the book of Revelation even more so:
I'll end on this because it's long, but I think it's curious that Paul's only warning sign prior to the parousia was about a man of lawlessness (the apostasy already at work) and a counteracting force of restraint that was almost out of the way. (This was apparently the apostles, but some could argue that it extends to our day as the apostleship continues to be represented by men governing the congregation.)
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. John, possibly the original apostle by that name, apparently outlived the year 70 CE, and he still says something similar, but his solution is that all of them were anointed and all of them therefore have no need of someone or some group to continue teaching them, because the anointing itself teaches all of them the truth.
(1 John 2:18-27) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort. 20 And you have an anointing from the holy one, and all of you have knowledge. 21 I write you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie originates with the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will also remain in union with the Son and in union with the Father. 25 Furthermore, this is what he himself promised us—the life everlasting. 26 I write you these things about those who are trying to mislead you. 27 And as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things and is true and is no lie.. . .

I definitely agree with that. No matter how sure I might sound, I am just giving an opinion on what I believe a Scripture might mean. Even if I don't have any doubts about it, it doesn't make it true.
And that too. BTW, it's this tendency to conflate "inspired" and "anointed" that made me think you might have thought that the GB ought to be "inspired" in some way even though they have clearly said that they are not. I know you have never said it that way, but you have made previous comments that make me think that you believed a TRUE "faithful and discreet slave" should "in effect" be inspired in some way. You have said things like the following:
I probably read too much into it.
I personally do not think of the Governing Body as "THE faithful and discreet slave." I don't think anyone, or any particular identifiable group is "THAT slave." It was merely an illustration that showed how some Christians might be like that good slave, and some might be like this other bad slave. In fact, Jesus gave many more examples of how the slave might be bad than might be good. I think that Jesus gave the illustration, not to create a hierarchical group that might try to "lord it over" their fellow Christians, or try to be "governors of their souls" or "guardians of doctrine." I think Jesus knew that most Christians, imperfect as we are, would strive to do good and probably fall short many times. Jesus is already identified as the "One Governor" of our faith, and he told us not to follow those who want to be called Leader, Father or Teacher. We can find many different teachers under many different circumstances in our Christian experience, and we can try to be one of those many teachers to others, when called upon.
I think Paul dealt with people who looked to men (like Paul, Apollos, and Cephas) to be their Governing Body, or other superfine apostles. But Paul spoke out against the idea in several ways, even though Paul himself really was a "guardian of doctrine." Here are some excerpts from the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 4, where we actually find some  comments about supposed "faithful" and "discreet" "stewards" and the idea of "lording it over others" which is exactly what Jesus' illustration warned against:
(1 Corinthians 4:1-21) . . . 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.. . . the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. 10 We are fools because of Christ, but you are discreet in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in dishonor. . . . 14 I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. 18 Some are puffed up with pride, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if Jehovah wills, and I will get to know, not the speech of those who are puffed up with pride, but their power. 20 For the Kingdom of God is a matter not of speech but of power. 21 Which do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and mildness of spirit?
To me this sounds like a commentary on the parable itself. It contains the idea that some would want to beat their fellow servants. They would want to take matters into their own hands before the Lord comes in his due time. Some would be puffed up and wish to begin ruling as kings (governors). These human tribunals (governing bodies) are considered unimportant to Paul. They are trying to judge matters before their time. They are drunk with power, puffed up with pride. Not even the apostles look for "honor" or present themselves as "discreet" and yet these persons want to present themselves as discreet (wise). So Paul sends people to them (like Apollos and Timothy) who are NOT at all like that, people such as Timothy who follow the mild and loving methods of Paul, who will treat them like a father admonishes beloved children. And as far as "guardians" Paul says that they may have "10,000 guardians" not just 8 or so. 10,000 was on the order of the actual number of Christians in the Roman Empire at that time, according to Acts.
Now most Witnesses probably think about the GB as exactly the kind of loving admonishers that Paul and Timothy and Apollos must have been. So this should not be taken as an indictment of the idea of a Governing Body. But I understand some of the problems you have with the Governing Body and their claims.

I probably wasn't clear. The Watchtower considered the 'faithful and discreet slave' to be the complete number of anointed here on the earth (from about 1879 to 1897, and then again from about 1927 to 2011). But recently it has become a small, identifiable group of persons we can know individually by name: the members of the Governing Body. (Between 1897 and 1927 it was taught to be one person we could know individually by name: Charles T. Russell.)

The GB use the argument that many are fed by the hands of a few --and only 8 "NT" Bible writers fed the entire 1st century congregations. And since you can't practically follow many different anointed persons, at least there is a practical way to follow a few. One of the points is that you can't necessarily trust that just any person who claims to be anointed is truly anointed. There really are many claimants that most Witnesses would consider to be just people with mental or emotional problems. Most of us have known such persons in our local congregations. I think this is already a 'given' that other Witnesses realize and the GB are acknowledging it. Of course, it's clear that the GB use this fact with the purpose of adding evidence that only a few persons can really be trusted to represent the anointed. This should lead us to agree with them that Jesus trusts the faithful slave [Governing Body] and therefore we should, too.
This is a product, unfortunately, of being so absolutely sure one has the truth. Anyone who would deviate from obvious, rational truth must have a deviant mind. They'd have to be crazy to give up on all the truth based on a few mistakes here and there. Anyone who does so is some kind of apostate, like a dog returning to his vomit, and must be "mentally diseased."
I agree that this is a dangerous result of the reminder (acknowledgment) that SOME really do have mental or emotional problems, and we should be wary of giving anything they say too much importance. You will notice that whenever I say something that differs from the GB's current teachings in the WT, that someone like BTK will surely be around to try to discredit it so that no one gives it too much importance.
(I think this is actually a safeguard so that no one takes only my own opinions and experiences as something to follow without questioning them first. I welcome the push back, especially when it can help me to further endeavor to make sure of all things.)
You say that this is an admission by the GB that they don't really have holy spirit to understand the Bible. It's probably more of a caution not to give just anyone a 'pass.' We shouldn't quote someone who says they are anointed on some doctrinal point, just because we heard it from an 'anointed' person. But the word "necessarily" probably also reminds us that some anointed might get more holy spirit than others, a possible way of saying that we could expect the GB to get more holy spirit to understand Bible truths whenever Jehovah deems it necessary.
I don't think they are saying they don't have a clue. I think they are actually (overall) saying to trust them for now, even though things can still become better and clearer, but definitely don't just automatically trust any person claiming to be anointed who disagrees with us. This is practical advice for unity. It might not ALWAYS be the correct advice in all circumstances, but elsewhere they have already admitted that not all their advice will turn out to be correct or Biblical. But then again, what religion can you think of where people are told to just follow anyone who claims authority of some kind?

There was evidently no voice booming from heaven in the original context. I get the sense that it was by reputation. Not even that the nation of Israel was out there trying to make proselytes (converts) but that it was by reputation people were hearing good things about Israel.
It was based on a common promise that is found many times in the prophetic books: if the Israelites continue to forsake their spiritual heritage (temple, law, etc) then they will be punished, but if they continue in the ways of Jehovah's law, they will be blessed. In this case, blessed so much that surrounding nations will hear that God is with them, and people from those nations will want to become Israelites, too.
We know that the original context is that Jehovah is "jealous" or "zealous" to have his name and reputation known through his people from Zion (Jerusalem) again. And even though he has punished Judah and Israel for sins, he does not regret it. But now is time for a fresh start, and if they handle it right this time, their blessings will be so great as to attract other nations, too.
In fact, in the next chapter (Zech 9) the examples were to start with "the eyes of man" in Syrian cities to the north, even reaching to Damascus, then 120 miles north of Damascus (Hamath) and even on to Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon. 
In some limited sense this probably happened as Jews scattered by Babylon 70 years earlier, and Israelites scattered by Assyria nearly 200 years earlier, had settled into these nations all around, but would now want to firmly take hold of those blessings upon true Jews in Jerusalem. Persons they had married, and even proselytes and foreigners would want to join them too. Over the next few hundred years, by the time of Herod and Jesus, in fact, we know of many Jewish proselytes, and strong support of Judaism throughout all parts of the Roman Empire. The LXX from Egypt became a well-read "OT" Bible that was known across the empire. Even a couple of Caesars were friends of Herod, and some wives of prominent Roman leaders took a strong interest in the religion Judaism. Ancient synagogues have been found with inscribed names of Roman patrons who would have provided much of the funding for these synagogues.