ComfortMyPeople

The NWT says at Zechariah 8:23:
23  “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nationsj will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe* of a Jew,* saying: “We want to go with you,k for we have heard that God is with you people.”’”l
I have noticed that one poster in particular has referenced this scripture several times and put it in the context of being able to identify the true religion at the time of the final judgment. The poster admits that in the meantime, he can't really tell who that "Jew" represents. But it is evidently associated in his mind with a group of "truly anointed" persons. By this he evidently means those who are truly led by the holy spirit, who are truly motivated by the holy spirit, and who therefore give proper guidance and to others. They should be giving always healthful, if not "perfect" spiritual food, and always at the proper time.
For that particular poster, this disqualifies the eight or so men who currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave" since they admit that their food is not always perfect (and therefore could not qualify as "at the proper time," either.)
When a verse from the "OT" is not specifically repeated in the "NT" with an explanation, we are pretty much on our own to decide whether it has a specific prophetic application to our own day, or to the near future. In many cases the verse will look quite specific, but we can only give it a general application to our own day. In other cases there are specifics, and we can try to make specific applications to those specific references.  Of course, in every case we could look to the overall situation, the historical context, and find either warning examples, teaching examples, or encouragement in the words (2 Tim 3:16,17).
In this case, the historical context is an audience of Jews having trouble getting up the willingness or courage to overcome obstacles related to rebuilding their temple. Some of those obstacles were economic (including bad harvests) and some of it was the fear of encroaching enemies, and more populous nations around them. And some of it was no doubt an overall despondency that it would take too long and never get finished, and thus be a wasted effort. Those kinds of issues are easily generalized into our own personal issues with respect to overcoming obstacles related to our own spiritual goals. They can also be looked at in terms of our willingness to be involved with organizational goals or congregational goals when economics, delays, mistakes, and the despondency of others can take a toll on our own courage.
But what about the Watchtower's usual interpretation of this verse? Is it definitive? Can it mean anything else? These are the kinds of questions that Christians should always ask of everything we believe, if we want to be like the Beroeans, or "make sure of all things."
 

Just a side observation, a little off topic, but I am sorry to say, I felt the same way. Like you though, I don't think Br. Jackson is haughty, and probably neither are the others, but it seems that Br. Jackson was looking down on counsel assisting as someone who was completely incompetent and ignorant of the scriptures and had no idea where to find any of the Bible books. I understand why most of us believe "worldly" people lack knowledge in that department, because most probably do, but I could see it really started to get on Stewart's nerves when Br. Jackson kept repeatedly "guiding" him to find the books. In a few instances I felt like those two were like two roosters in a ring.
 

Brother Jackson did an excellent job under the circumstances. Some of what he said indicated that the GB really would go back and rethink policies that were in place, and I believe it's no coincidence that we have seen more good progress since the ARC hearings.
However, I never heard anyone (who watched Jackson's testimony in its entirety) point out any instances or evidences of humility. Sorry to say it, but his overall demeanor, to me, actually stood out as haughty and smug. I don't think that was just me. And it's not that I think this is how he is, or how the GB usually are, I have seen many instances of the GB showing humility and true concern. But I saw several evidences of the opposite, here.
In fact, I think that McClellan, took notice of Brother Jackson's (who is an Australian citizen) attempts to reposition his testimony as an "opportunity" and something that worked out because he was only there (traveling in Australia) to take care of his elderly father. In fact, I understand that for no other person did Judge McClellan thank someone for their testimony and then add the words he added here at 1:07:41-45. The Judge, with a possible bit of derisive head-shaking of his own adds: ". . . you are now formally excused from your summons." It's even possible to interpret the half-second loss of Brother Jackson's "smirk" to that very remark at 1:07:47.
 

WITH RESPECT TO 'GOING BEYOND THE LAW'
(Matthew 5:40-42) 40 And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; 41 and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one asking you, and do not turn away from one who wants to borrow from you.
I sometimes think of this scripture when it seems that the courts want us to 'air our dirty linen' (our inner garment) by asking for information we have tried to keep secret.
 

Wish it were that simple. This is only ONE of the reasons to be insular. Another reason to be insular is to hide the fact that you are just like the world in some areas and still hope that people will think of you as no part of the world. In other words, it's to hide your dirty laundry.
(Romans 13:11-14) . . .. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime, not in wild parties and drunkenness, not in immoral intercourse and brazen conduct, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not be planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.
I think it's helpful to always remember that we are talking about crimes: crimes that can be akin to rape and murder and torture and kidnapping and terror. Granted there are some aspects of child sexual abuse that don't appear to sound like crimes. Some persons get caught during the times when they are only "grooming" children for more serious abuse. (Romans 13:14 "planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.") A recent court case includes an elder who was able to convince the other elders that it was "accidental touching" before being caught in several other cases at various stages of abuse. 
I remember when Brother J.R.Brown did an interview and kept focusing on false accusations, accidents, and "lesser" areas of child sexual abuse, such as an 18 year old committing fornication a 16 year old. I didn't see the old 20-20 interview about CSA and still haven't. But I remember listening to J.R.Brown's comments and immediately thinking that he must know that this is a common way to shift attention away from the serious crimes of CSA, which often includes rape/violence. I believe now that the WTS had already paid out millions of dollars even back then, but this is not something that Brother Brown could admit. He made it seem like we didn't really have a problem. I think this kind of hiding, or keeping people in the dark on a matter, could have been very dangerous in that the problem was not dealt with openly. Hinting that matters of "sexual abuse" are associated with apostate lies is another way to keep people in the dark. (Granted that Lett's quote was technically accurate, but it served the same purpose because he was not willing to admit the extent of the problem.)
Brother Jackson at least admitted that these cases of real CSA were not associated with apostate lies. He admitted that it is a real problem in our community, just as it is in the world at large. That was an excellent "change" in the way we began to address the issue. I think it has led to the current shift away from trying to save the reputation of the organization, and make sure that the blame goes to the perpetrator.
Again, I think that even when a person comes to the elders with a case they would like spiritual guidance on, but don't wish to have the case go to the police or other authorities, I think that a desire for privacy should not always be a valid concern. Many types of CSA rise to the level of overriding the legal requirements. Abusers repeatedly are caught repeating the crime with another person. I think there should be times when the elders tell a parent:
"We understand that you want to avoid publicity, embarrassment, and reproach that this would bring on your family and the organization. This family head and 'breadwinner' may even lose his job and no longer be able to easily care for the rest of his family financially. And you may even have the law on your side when it comes to keeping such a terrible thing hidden. But, as for us, we must do all we can to protect the innocent, not the guilty. It is our Christian obligation to protect the innocent, look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and therefore if necessary, to err on the side of mercy and love for the innocent. If we must make a judgment, we should err on the side of those who are often trampled by the world's justice: the children. It's what we are willing to do for the "least of these" that is deemed as if doing the same for Christ himself.
(Proverbs 11:21) . . .Be assured of this: An evil person will not go unpunished, But the children of the righteous will escape.
(Isaiah 10:1, 2) . . .Woe to those who enact harmful regulations, Who constantly draft oppressive decrees,  2 To deny the legal claim of the poor, To deprive the lowly among my people of justice, Making widows their spoil And fatherless children their plunder!
(Matthew 7:11) 11 Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him!
(Matthew 18:2-5) . . .So calling a young child to him, he stood him in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also.

I'm not saying the individual congregations are not part of the CCJW or the Watchtower, I'm just showing the kinds of legal arguments that must be made to protect the financial part of the current kingdom "interests." It's not that I think that attorneys should not try to do what they can to limit financial exposure either, as long as they are also looking for "fairness" and "justice" for the victims. But all Witnesses should be aware that the material resources that we currently enjoy as part of the organization are not permanent. They are not "promised." In fact, all of us should at all times be willing to walk by faith and not by sight.
A lack of money can result in a breakdown of the lines of communication between a local congregation and various entities in New York. Are we willing to make the best of such a situation and trust in Jehovah? The WTS/CCJW is currently trying to prepare Witnesses for such an eventuality. Will it happen as predicted? Will it happen in a way that doesn't come anywhere close to what is being predicted? What if the GB are taken by some nefarious forces, as you have spoken of? What if they are put in prison for covering up child abuse? They have surely considered these possibilities themselves. What if, instead of the protection expected in an imminent great tribulation, our religion and organization becomes an object of derision for 40 more years? (These are not predictions and have nothing to do with any Bible prophecies that I know of.)
In any particular country, or perhaps even on a more international scale, we have certain expectations bolstered by prophetic interpretations, and we will easily maintain faithfulness if those expectations seem to align with our beliefs about ourselves. But we also need to be prepared for maintaining our faith under completely different circumstances. One of those circumstances might be merely going on for another 50 years as more and more of our brothers lose their enthusiasm, and cannot seem to be goaded any longer by proddings of 'imminence.' We can go back to a Biblical question in Luke 18:8:
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.
Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.
This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 
As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?
I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.
Always feel free to correct any mistakes.
According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.
True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.
I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
 

You know what I think would be a GREAT new feature for JW.ORG Streaming Programming?
( A rhetorical question, as I realize there are truly infinite answers ....)
Have a monthly feature on JW Broadcasting, where Witnesses from all over the world, can call in live, and ask a round table of the Governing Body any questions they want to ask, and have them answered in real time, "on the air" streaming video.
They could have it broadcast from the Gazebo on the shores of the Society's Lake at World Headquarters, every Wednesday after the Governing Body has their weekly coordination meeting (weather permitting ...). 
...... Sort of Like Trump addressing the nation from the South Lawn of the White House, and answering reporter's questions! (weather permitting ...)
Unrehearsed, Unedited, Non-scripted, truly spontaneous, and all encompassing.
Things the writing staff has not addressed, since 1870.
Anything at ALL!
I am betting that those Brothers and Sisters that live on the other side of our rumbling, heavy planet would by the millions, without any encouragement at all, set their alarms, and get up in the middle of the night to enthusiastically catch THAT Internet Program!
Those that habitually fall asleep from time to time at the Kingdom Hall, including myself, would watch with eyes frozen open !  We might even have trouble BLINKING!
Over time, it would probably become more popular than original STAR TREK reruns.
We might even get MORE Telly Awards !

As @BillyTheKid46 has pointed out, the term "governing body" had already been used prior to 1971, and it was usually used in the sense that certain types of corporations used the term. In fact, for the Watchtower Society it was primarily used to refer to the "legal" leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses through the legal entity of the Society itself.
This is why there was a difference in the way the term was used in the 1960's and even right up until 1970, the year before the change in meaning that the Watchtower Society gave to this term. For example, the 1970 Yearbook said very clearly:
*** yb70 p. 65 1970 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses ***
So really the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses is the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, all of whom are dedicated to Jehovah God and anointed by his holy spirit.
Technically, then it was the 7 members of the board of directors, not merely the President and Vice-President of the Pennsylvania corporation. In 1942, the Vice President, and therefore a member of the governing body was Hayden C Covington, a Watchtower Society attorney who claimed not to be one of the anointed. (He had also only been a JW for 5 years when he became VP.) In fact, a few years later the rule was changed so that only anointed persons could be on the board of directors, and Covington had to resign his position as Vice President and that position was handed over to Frederick W Franz. After 2001, members of the board of directors no longer need to claim to be one of the anointed, and most of them since 2001 have not claimed to be of the anointed.
The following (about Hayden Covington) is in small print because part of it's based on what was considered to be common knowledge, and part of it is based on the claims of a couple of Bethelites I have known, both still alive. And one is also a relative of the brother who played a key part in one of the incidents described:
Just a little bit of inside information on Covington is that he was a heavy drinker, and thought to be an alcoholic, and eventually dismissed and disfellowshipped after some run-ins with President Knorr. This is in the Wikipedia article, but what's not there is that just before his death he was working on a tell-all that was supposed to expose a lot of wrongdoings and embarrass Knorr and others. (I heard one Witness claim that it was supposed to "bring down the Watchtower.") The person who takes credit for talking him out of it says it was a hard-won battle and he was only convinced after a lot of begging and pleading, including more pleading from family members. Just after that incident, over the next few months in fact, he was reinstated, claimed to be of the anointed, and died. I'm not even sure he even got a chance to partake at the Memorial. But you can still find the funeral talk that Colin Quackenbush gave, posted somewhere on this forum. You can get a small sense of Covington's problems from the funeral talk, where Quackenbush almost has to apologize for giving it, but it's a good talk. Quackenbush himself was the Awake! magazine editor, who also got kicked out of Bethel after a run-in with Knorr, but who arrived back at Bethel upon Knorr's death in 1977. 
I should add that I don't think any of us should have a problem with an international organization of any kind having a governing body. It just means that it is organized to be guided by a committee or board instead of a "dictatorship" of one or two persons. That's a good thing. And the arrangement with GB helpers is even better, in my opinion.
In addition to just mentioning the board of directors as the governing body prior to the 1971 change, it was also used as a way to refer to the entire Watch Tower Society.
*** w50 8/15 p. 251 par. 8 Answering the Foes of His Government ***
The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, with main offices in Brooklyn, New York, acts advisorily as the governing body and servant of Jehovah’s witnesses in all lands. So what is true of Jehovah’s witnesses in America must be true of them throughout the earth.
*** w50 1/1 p. 10 par. 2 Reviewing the Past Year’s Work World-wide ***
The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses, has pointed out through its publications that the kingdom of heaven was established in 1914
*** w52 9/15 p. 567 par. 7 Loyalty the Test ***
After being fed and directed through the faithful legal governing body, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, for thirty years, many said, “Jehovah is also dealing through other agencies.” Thus they could advance their own selfish interests.
Of course, the Watch Tower Society, although considered to be the legal entity by which to lead and govern all Jehovah's Witnesses earth-wide, was still considered to be the near equivalent of the old council at Jerusalem where decisions were made with respect to the rules for the gentile converts, etc. Also, Paul is considered to have been included in the governing body since he told Timothy how to make appointments of overseers and servants. So this modern board of directors was considered to be something like a modern fulfillment of the council of apostles and older men at Jerusalem, and the extension of that authority as given to Paul.
*** w52 5/1 pp. 281-282 God’s Way of Financing His Work ***
Having received free, they gave free. Their unselfish course influenced others to show love, so that many early Christians sold all their possessions and turned over the proceeds to the governing body for them to use as they saw best for the advancement of the true worship and the benefit of the Christian community in general.
So even when the governing body, technically and legally meant something else, it was still very similarly applied as an adaption of the original governing body (apostolic council) at Jerusalem. Over the years, it was tied closer and closer to the faithful and discreet slave.
*** w52 11/15 p. 683 Timothy, the Youthful Minister ***
Because of Timothy’s devotion to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus, the apostle Paul, under the guiding influence of the holy spirit, appointed Timothy to serve as an agent of the governing body of the Christian congregation in his day; being authorized to appoint mature men as overseers and assistants in the various Christian congregations. (1 Tim. 1:3; 3:1-15, NW) In this capacity Timothy pictured or represented the instrument that Jehovah God is using today, the Society of footstep followers of Christ Jesus, which likewise appoints servants in the Christian congregation in keeping with Jesus’ promise that he would set his faithful and discreet slave over all his belongings.—Matt. 24:45, NW.
 
 

Hate to say it, but there are a lot of single parents, especially sisters, who ask for elders/ms to study with their young children for them. And it still ends up as part of the process for making sure a youngster is ready for baptism. The "rule" is to always have a second person along or have the parent sit in. But this doesn't always happen. But it doesn't even raise the slightest concern for most brothers and parents because we trust one another and can't imagine that anything wrong might be going on. So the sister/parent who is supposed to sit in will go off to the kitchen and make dinner or take an important phone call. (Seen it happen personally.) The adult brother (or sister) who was supposed to join the study will cancel at the last minute. (Seen it happen personally.)
But the perpetrators of these crimes end up being people we would trust with our lives, persons we could never imagine doing anything like this. In fact, TRUST and confidence is a necessary part of the equation. This is one of the reasons I don't think any of us should hold back in letting parents and other children know the horror stories that have happened in the next congregation in our circuit, or among persons at some of the highest levels of organizational responsibility. We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?
I know of no current cases, but you would evidently be surprised at some of the terrible things that have been known to happen. In the past, where the "notoriety" had been thought to be limited to the victim, victim's immediate family, and fellow elders (or fellow circuit overseers, or higher) there have been cases (I now know of two, but wouldn't be surprised at greater numbers) where the perpetrator was simply moved to a place, new circuit, or new country, where that elder was no long in contact with the victim or victim's family. Elders in the new congregation were sometimes not told at all. In fact, the person might have simply risen in the ranks again from circuit to district overseer, for example.
I believe that it is now extremely unlikely for this to happen again.

Yikes! No “data-gathering” according to the new privacy law. What to do?
As far as I am concerned, this is a blessing in disguise. Jehovah’s people will adapt. They always do. 
I even think it will be beneficial for us, overall. We have some people who become obsessed over records, the way some people do with regard to records of any sort. We have some who call back repeatedly if the householder does so much as give them the time of day—training them not to, in my opinion. Working with this new European law will force more discernment and maturity, though initially inconvenient in some respects. I wouldn’t mind if it spread to here in the States.
This law will alter the logistics of the Matthew 28:19-20 aspect of Christianity— “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, (Mathew 28:19) but it will not impact the Matthew 24:14 aspect at all: “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) It will probably even enhance it. 
The more I think about it, the more I like it.
Most of the suggested field service presentations I don’t like. I don’t like them because they do not work for me. Of course, it is “different strokes for different folks,” but from what I have seen, they don’t work that well for others, either. They are incremental in approach, and many, when implemented by anyone less than an expert, come off as passive-aggressive. Sometimes I wonder where they come from, because they do not necessarily dovetail with each other. Probably they are the products of various full-time evangelizers who are brainstorming. Since many start with floating a question that will seldom be on the typical person’s mind, such as “Where are the dead?” you pretty much have to record the response and hope that you have laid the foundation for furthering it or starting another topic. All that requires you write stuff down, which is now illegal unless the person has authorized it.
Better—or at least it works better for me—to bring up something more all-encompassing. The circuit overseer last visit made much of the 1-minute (and six seconds) video “Would You Like Good News?” Invite people to hear it—it only is one minute (and it is good to say literally one minute) The video ends with a plug for the Good News from God brochure and that brochure has a table of contents:
“Which topic interests you most?” It says. They include 
Who Is God?, 
Who Is Jesus Christ?, 
What Is God’s Purpose for the Earth?, 
What Hope Is There for the Dead?, 
What Is God’s Kingdom?, 
Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering?,
How Can Your Family Be Happy?, and 
How Can You Draw Close to God?
The video is here: 
If the person registers any interest, you can set up something then and there. If not, off you go with a sincere thanks for their time—after all, we call without appointment, which is becoming a rarety in the West, nobody is required to listen to what we have to say, so whenever someone does, I thank them for their time.
Some all-encompassing verses that also work for starters—just offer to read a verse, give a brief statement as to why you read it, ask what the person thinks about it, and then offer to disappear. Such as:
Jeremiah 29:11 - “For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.” (The reason I like the verse is because some people think God is out to rake us over, or judging from the current state of things, that there is no God, and this verse says not only that there is, but he thinks good thoughts towards us.)
Or Matthew 5:3 - “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.” (The reason I like the verse is because we all have a spiritual need, but we are not necessarily conscious of it—it is more like vitamins, that if neglected, may lead to sickness and we never know quite why.)
There are no end of verses that can be used. It just takes adjusting to the idea. All work except for the verse Tom Pearlsandswine latched onto in my first book, ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’: Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.” “The reason I like that verse,” he would say, “is that it shows sinners are going down and you’d better shape up.” He is such an idiot. 
With a flat response to any chosen verse other than his, off you go. With a favorable one, you can even go to a longer video, with the intro that I find works well, “This video runs almost four minutes, but you don’t have to listen to it all. The minute it gets boring, hand it back.” It puts the control in the householder’s hands and defuses any impression of being pushy. I hate being pushy and try hard not to give that impression. There are few people in the world easier to get rid of than me.
None of these presentations require the use of memory-jogging records. If the response if favorable, there is no difficulty in exchanging contact information if desired.
As for keeping track of who is not-at-home—JWs do this—I even know one person who writes down every address beforehand and crosses them out as she finds them home, completely reversing how it is intended to be done—one might respond by forgetting all about it. Put the angels in charge of that one. Call when the majority of persons are likely to be home in the first place, which we do not always do. 
As for keeping records of those who have requested we not call on them again—well, I don’t know. Tell them we’d love to comply but the new law is screwing us up.
Not to mention that we have long been moving in that direction anyway. That’s what the mobile cart witnessing is all about. That’s what the website is all about. They are two forms of advertising the good news without going to anyone’s door at all. On the home page of jw.org is a new Bible study feature. A series of studies that are multimedia, self-guided at one’s own pace, and require no registration or entry of info—“I’ll never know if you do it or not,” I tell people. In fact, I am looking forward to the time—the timing and circumstances will have to be just right, you wouldn’t do it just with anyone—when I tell someone, “I don’t want to study the Bible with you. Do it yourself.” We spoon-feed people too much, and it is hardly necessary with the majority. I even think being constantly obsessed over presentation of the very basics keeps us from pressing on to maturity, in some respects.
They have done us a favor with their new law, is my take.

Photo: DSC00212 by gauge opinion
 

I have avoided my old habit of fault-finding for quite a while, but this one just brought up the need for some good, old-fashioned nit-picking again. One thing I like to avoid is the use of a scripture that appears so removed from context that we look like proof text cherry-pickers. I know the average householder is not going to notice at all, but it still seems like a stretch to use Jeremiah 29 as an "all encompassing verse." Here's why:
In context, Jeremiah is saying that his fellow Jewish countrymen just have to give in to Babylon (in effect, they must now compromise with Babylon and pray for Babylon and whatever city they end up in) and let themselves be taken willingly to Babylon as captives.  He says that if you allow Babylon to take you, you can try to do the best you can while you are living there and, because the entire Babylonian Empire is only supposed to last for 70 years max, and at least 13 or 14 of those years are already used up. (The 14 years detail is not part of our doctrine, but is clear from the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:25; 28:17, 29:10, etc.) So, Jeremiah says that you are going to be a long time in Babylon, so if you just give in, by building houses, planting fruit trees, and getting married and having children in Babylon, you might even personally have a chance to come back to this nation, when Babylon's time is up. 
So, in context, Jeremiah is saying that this is a situation where people are lying to you, but if you follow Jehovah's thinking, there is a good solution by compromising with Babylon. But Jehovah's thinking also includes the thought that if you decide to listen to prophets like Hananiah, or decide to defend Israel/Judah, or defend the Temple, or defend the Davidic kingdom, or even listen to certain misguided prophets already in Babylon. For these Jehovah's thinking is as follows:
(Jeremiah 29:1“For this is what Jehovah says to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, your brothers who have not gone with you into exile, 17 ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.”’
18 “‘And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and a curse, and an object of astonishment, something to whistle at, and a reproach among all the nations to which I disperse them, 19 because they have not listened to my words that I sent to them with my servants the prophets,’ declares Jehovah, ‘sending them again and again.’
“‘But you have not listened,’ declares Jehovah.
20 “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah, all you exiled people, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says. . . , ‘Here I am giving them into the hand of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will strike them down before your eyes. 22 And what happens to them will become a curse spoken by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Jehovah make you like Zed·e·kiʹah and like Aʹhab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire!” . . .
“‘“I am the One who knows, and I am a witness,” declares Jehovah.’”
. . . 28 For he [Jeremiah] even sent to us at Babylon, saying: “It will be a long time! Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit,—”’”’”
In other words this is not an all encompassing verse about how Jehovah is not ready to rake us over, or that he is thinking good thoughts toward us. It's about a specific set of circumstances when he is about to rake a lot of people over, and is thinking to make a curse out of those who won't listen to Jehovah. In this case, Jehovah wanted his people to stop defending Judea and Jerusalem and their Davidic kingdom. He would only protect them if they "compromised" with the enemy and prayed for that enemy, at least until its 70 years was up.
I wouldn't be as nit-picky about your use of Matthew 5:3 because I'm sure we all have the right idea on this one. But there is something to note here:
Very few people know this verse as one that says anything about being conscious of something, especially not conscious of a spiritual need. In Greek, the verse just says, happy are those who are poor in spirit (the same words that would mean  depressed or broken hearted or those with a "broken spirit." Most translations correctly say something like "poor in spirit" which aligns with parallel expressions in context about those who are meek, merciful, or mournful. Our NWT translation is more likely an interpretation rather than a translation here. If it were in an obscure place like Jeremiah it might be different, but a lot of people know the "beatitudes" from the Sermon on the Mount, and this could give them the impression we have changed the Bible to fit our beliefs.
There are plenty of good replacement scriptures, however, which I'm sure you already know.

We have got a great way to minimise our Not-At-Homes. We've been doing it for years:

Not Homes.mp4

OK. I see where you are coming from on this now. I don't know that the GB instructed the hiding from authorities and others in the congregation, but they certainly have known about the hiding, and have gone along with it, and could have ordered exposure of the problem instead of continued hiding. (In the past, hiding apparently happened in most, but not in all cases.) From that perspective, exposure of such crimes and sins would undoubtedly have reduced the problem. Especially the problem of repeat offenders. There are some cases that will probably never come to light in this system due to the systemic nature of trying to protect the reputation of an organization and leaders at the expense of protecting children.
They were late in their correct responses to this problem, in my opinion, but they do see it as a problem. Even if it's exposure and cost. But I know that many have seen it as a problem of justice for the victims, too. Unfortunately, that had previously been dismissed by some in power as less important.
Just an analogy to show how someone can be both right and wrong at the same time.
There are huge scriptural problems with this claim of the GB to be the exact and complete fulfillment of the FDS. I've dealt with that elsewhere. But we can't forget that it is a Christian duty to try to feed spiritual food to fellow Christians. The GB truly believe this is their duty and they also know that they are not perfect, and must admit to providing wrong guidance at times and sometimes bad spiritual food, too, in the form of false doctrines and false predictions. They probably thought them right at the time, but you are right, that it was not all 'food at the proper time.' 
People guided by God have made mistakes in Biblical times, when the very same persons had the privilege of seeing Jesus personally, or were even inspired at other times to write books of the Bible. Yet, the GB make no such claim about themselves that they are inspired in this same way. They feel that intensive Bible study, organizational experience, faith in Jehovah, meditation and prayer will all combine in some spiritual way to guide them. Other people have made claims that they claim inspiration, and the distinction gets blurry. And some Witnesses teach "present" truth as immutable in such a way that they, too, have blurred the distinction. In any case, God is not misguiding. It's just that people are so imperfect that we must learn to trust and obey God as ruler rather than sons of men in whom no salvation belongs.
No. The inability to question something is often because something just seems so clear and obvious that we just can't imagine that it could ever be wrong. Or it has been repeated so often that we can't imagine it could be wrong. We don't question things we are "sure" of. It happens to all of us, and then we might be surprised some day to find out we were wrong after all. But by not questioning, we probably will never have to find out.
So the early Corinthian congregation must also have been an unclean organization. Jesus' organization of his apostles must have been an unclean organization, too.
I think it will come close to that. It won't come immediately, but there will be some countries soon, I think, where we won't be allowed to preach unless we stop shunning family members for example. We will agree, and shunning will become a personal, private thing. Most Witnesses don't want to shun, we just do it because we are told it is loving. When there is no longer any threat of getting in trouble for not shunning, most of us will see that it is more loving not to shun. The change will happen organically from that point.
Food at the proper time.

You probably know that there were infamous cases of immorality that Paul referred to in his letters even to the very Corinthian congregations that Paul himself had "planted." So it doesn't seem reasonable that if the GB had acted as Paul was saying that Child Abuse / Pedophilia would somehow no longer be a problem.
No, I don't see it as just collateral damage. But when the Org sees it as a problem, I do think it's necessary for its leaders to do all they can to remove it, and "progress" in processes and procedures that can be seen to help eliminate it.
I had said that "the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil" to which you replied:
You are asking how it can be logical I guess that someone can be right on some things and not on others. I think you probably already know of many examples. Isaac Newton was right on a surprising number of things, but was wrong on some things, too, and only partially right on many things that he could not have been fully aware of at the time, so that he is still considered right for all practical purposes on many of those things. Aristotle, Pythagoras, St. Augustine, Jerome, Attilla the Hun, Martin Luther, Charles Taze Russell, probably even Hitler were both right on things and wrong on things. We remember them for their overall value or detriment to people or societies.
Misinformation reaches us from liars, but usually from people who truly believe the misinformation, even if it does NOT suit their own purposes. Can you imagine that Rutherford really thought he was lying when he predicted that the "Old Testament" princes like Abraham and David would come back in 1925? If so, he was preparing to be made fun of, to be seen as a fool. He evidently even admitted that he had made an a** of himself, according to the Watchtower. That doesn't strike me as trying to suit his own purposes.
Just as with Rutherford, I can't see how it "suits themselves." It's because of misinformation that they have believed for the same reason that we have believed it. GB are chosen not because of their ability to question, but because of their "loyalty." In other words, they are chosen for their reputation of not questioning. But when they get into that position, they realize that questions do come at them that are difficult to answer. Except for the "generation" fiasco, I think most changes since around 2000 or so have been for the better. And the only reason for the "generation" fiasco is the inability to question 1914. It seems like just too much of a coincidence.
It took a while, but I think they've almost gone as far as they can as of the most recent Watchtower article that covers this topic. It's now just a matter of fully implementing the processes that have been put in place. There is still a matter of compensating for the past, and this is a difficult issue to be discussed elsewhere, I hope.
I think we agree completely on shunning. I have no doubt at all that we have been implementing the shunning practice in an unchristian, unscriptural, and unloving manner. I can see our practice as OK from an "OT" perspective, but not at all from a "NT" perspective. If I get in complete trouble with the Org, it will be because I refuse to shun beyond what is written in the scriptures. I am more concerned about being in trouble with Jehovah than with humans in an organization. And even then, if I am shunned, it does not mean that I will shun in return. As far as it depends upon us, we should work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
No. Very serious. I think that moral cleanliness is preached correctly, even though we see that there are exceptions to how it is practiced. Many Witnesses lead double lives. Many are involved in adultery, fornication, child sexual abuse, spousal abuse, violence against children, cheating, lying, drugs, etc. But most aren't, and most appreciate the value and reminders we get from the platform. Most of us appreciate the association of like-minded persons who also wish to remain clean. I have heard persons say that they wish they could only hire Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, one time from a person who didn't know I was a Witness. I know of worldly persons who have come into the congregation to try to find a wife from among JWs, based on admiration of their morals. I would never claim we are more moral than any other group of people. But I think we have the best advantage in terms of an overall call to morality that includes not only personal morality, but a realization that we should not even be tainted by immorality of commercial greed, nationalistic murderous wars, etc.
Sure. It might turn out to be a temporary sacrifice for some of us. Some of us might have found ways to question and avoid any consequences. If enough Witnesses perform their Christian duty, however, even a mass of disfellowshippings will automatically produce changes. Open questioning of doctrines at Bethel became common as early as 1974 when it was obvious that 1975 would not likely turn out as Fred Franz had been repeatedly hinting at, even though he didn't predict "1975." (He only predicted what must happen before the 1970's were complete, because of 1975.) Questions became open at Bethel tables, and around Bethel "water coolers" until a crackdown began happening in mid-1978 through 1979. People got dismissed and disfellowshipped in large numbers, but this also resulted in a backlash and exposure of the witch hunting and star-chamber methods. I think the Internet itself is already resulting in a flood of questions all over again that are proving very valuable. It is these that have been been driving many of the new (and better) doctrinal changes since 2000.  

I was looking for some tax papers today, and found a stack of about 500 pages in my own filing cabinets. These were items from Brooklyn Bethel that I hadn't looked at in nearly 40 years. Thought someone else might get a kick out of them before I toss most of them out. One includes a first draft example of an actual assignment given to someone who worked alongside the Writing Department but who was not actually in that Department. I thought it might give some insight to the types of assignments that a "junior researcher" might get back in those days. It's also seems so odd now that we had filing cabinets filled with clippings, photos, and unused articles and experiences back before the days of scanners and pdfs.
One two-page bit of correspondence was for someone asking about alternative medicines, quartz, Native American herbs, etc. I'll include that one first.

I'd say more, but I just heard that Notre Dame in Paris is burning, and must get back to my taxes.

@BillyTheKid46, You seem to spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to provoke persons into fighting with you. It is as though you have a NEED to fight. I have seen this from you (and yours) for quite a while now. In a recent thread about Brother Morris visiting a liquor store, I agreed with you completely that the post was irrelevant and irreverent and it tried to make something scandalous out of a potentially innocent activity without 100 percent proof. (And I thought your pun was good, too. See page 4 of that topic.) You and Melinda Mills spoke about the Venezuelan economic issues under Maduro. You helped to clarify the picture that Melinda posted, the one with worthless money in the gutter, when you provided a link to the explanatory SNOPES article. I mentioned that I appreciated that same SNOPES link you provided because it gave details about how and when those pictures came about, and I quoted verbatim from your link. 
Then you inexplicably decided to reject the explanation from your own link, and claim that I was somehow attacking the vision that your mother had told you about in the 1960's. What made this so odd was that I had already agreed that the picture was related to that same expectation. My own mother referenced that point from Ezekiel 7:19, as did Melinda's.
You said:
BTK: "What was fasinating to me, My mother pointed it out to me in the '60s as a devout JW that would happen, and it sure the hell did. There is no photoshop on that. It's not a tale." To which I responded, that in spite of the propaganda use that was presented in SNOPES that, Yes. . . :
JWI: "It was still related to Maduro, and is still related to money becoming worthless. It is still supportive of the idea that people will be throwing their money (even their gold) in the streets, because money is of no value as a savior in the day of Jehovah's fury. It shows how bad things can get." To which you responded:
BTK: "I understand you are trying desperately to delegitimize my mother’s vision. Do that with your own mother, lay off mine." I didn't bother to respond, after which you added:
BTK: "Its unfortunate someone like JWinsider decided to insult and denigrate a relative, and James thinking it’s funny to do just that, makes them the biggest AH’s in this forum." I'm sure that a few people didn't realize that you had made up the whole thing about someone "denigrating a relative" just to provoke a fight in the same way worldly people do when they hurl insults about each other's mother, and call each other "AH," which has been used as an abbreviation for a**hole. When you provoke and the other party doesn't respond in kind, I'm sure it can be frustrating. But please don't bring these same worldly attitudes and posturings into every topic. You end up discrediting yourself instead of your target.
"A slave of the Lord does not need to fight." (2 Tim 2:24)

Afraid it gives the idea that it would have been OK to just let go even if we felt we could not hang on another minute, because we would have survived the fall anyway. After all we were never more than two feet off the ground.
The better idea is there, too, of course: that if we hang on to some anchor for our faith, in spite of the dark, raging storm of this world, that there will come a time when we see how easily and gently it will all works out, as if we were never in danger.
All in all, however, it would be good to balance this tense and confusing illustration with one that is a little more in line with Jesus' words of comfort:
(Revelation 2:2, 3) . . .. 3 You are also showing endurance, and you have persevered for the sake of my name and have not grown weary.
(Galatians 6:9, 10) 9 So let us not give up in doing what is fine, for in due time we will reap if we do not tire out. 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
(Matthew 11:28-30) 28 Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30 For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”
Yes, we fight a fine fight of the faith against the dark forces of this system, but we have been given all the tools necessary to find joy in our daily victories. We are NOT trying to hang in there until Armageddon proves so close that it becomes the solution to our problems. That's the same as living with a date or time period in mind. Instead, we are trying to live a Christian life of joy, finding happiness in successfully conquering the weaknesses and sins of the flesh with the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, etc. It's about being the person we ought to be -- not surviving to the advent of Armageddon.

Here's one that Brother Swingle wrote to the whole department:

 

LOL. I'm always happy to address a challenge. In this case you have claimed that I stole unauthorized material, perhaps hoping to use it against the Watchtower, somehow.
I did not steal anything. And I'm not sure what would make certain material "unauthorized." I suppose you could argue that only material that was published in our publications was authorized. But does that mean that everything else that any Bethelite saved or collected must be destroyed? Really?
Also, this first letter I shared actually went out to a sister and was therefore "published" (with only minor alterations) and the material was reused for future letters on the topic. I have three letters from Governing Body members that were written to me personally. Should I destroy them? One was a letter of recommendation to help me get a secular job after I left Bethel. Do you really think we should be ashamed of or hide anything that goes on behind the scenes at Bethel? You think that we shouldn't talk about any of these things, or that we shouldn't share anything that was written?
You appear to be afraid that this material I saved could be used against the Watchtower, somehow. Anything that I kept, I saved out of a spirit of appreciation for the experience I had at Bethel, which was a wonderful experience. I wanted to remember it and I kept things that would help me remember it. If I had wanted to find a way to use them against the Watchtower, I don't think I would have waited about 40 years to share them.
I admit that I have also shared experiences from Bethel that we could (and should) learn from. Even a negative experience could be profitable to others. I find that most people hold back on this count because they think that certain types of negative experiences cannot be profitable to anyone. This flies in face of scripture. Did Paul hold back from telling the Galatians and Corinthians about negative experiences? Did Jesus hold back? Did not Paul say we should be imitators of Paul himself?
(Acts 20:20) while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable . . .
(1 Corinthians 10:6-12) . . .Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice sexual immorality, as some of them committed sexual immorality, . . .  11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come. 12 So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
(1 Corinthians 4:14-5:6) 14 I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. . . .  16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. . . . 18 Some are puffed up with pride,. . . 5 Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations. . . 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough?
Neither Jesus nor Paul held back from sharing things that were profitable, both old and new.
(Matthew 13:51, 52) . . .” 52 Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
(Mark 4:22) . . .For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

Here is another question.
If Christ has ALREADY come to Earth as an invisible presence, and is ruling as King NOW ......  starting in 1914 ...... why are we still celebrating the Memorial?

Your entire response here and in one or two earlier posts in this thread appear to be exactly what I would expect to hear from an anointed person. I believe you speak out in the hope that readers will reject the falsehoods and accept truths in their place. Which is fine. Perhaps you also want all readers to reject the entire association with the JW Organization, as you think it has gotten so far off track. This is where I think you are being impractical.
On the first count, obviously we should reject all falsehoods and accept truths to the best of our ability. On the second part, what do you think would be wrong with continuing to associate with the same brotherhood from which has sprung so many truly anointed persons? And then, if one considers himself to be anointed, continuing to bear righteous spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc) that will have a positive and upbuilding effect on others.
I don't consider myself anointed, of course, but this (above) is also the same thing I believe I would try to do if I were. If you believe the GB are creating a "dark place" for other anointed persons, why not be that light in a dark place, as far as it depends upon you? Perhaps you personally are in a situation where you have been kicked out of the synagogue for calling the leaders blind, and it seems nearly impossible or unfruitful to go back. But if other anointed persons decided to merely set a good example of "shining as illuminators" among the same brotherhood in which they were called, do you think it would be wrong for them to remain in the state they were called? Since we were effectively called as slaves into a certain "household of faith" I think 1 Cor 7:19-24 gives a thought that might be related:
(1 Cor 7:19-24) Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20  In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22  For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23  You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

If this fact, then the WT really needs to revisit the definition of conscience!

Actually that is not true. One of the brothers in my mum's congregation has a full beard and is an elder and WT conductor. Then there is another brother, a ministerial servant with a goatiee. He does the microphones. I would post a picture of them but can't because of privacy reasons. Also I have a number of friends in England who have short beards. Now it's coming to the USA as well. There are brothers in some congregations who have beards. So far no privileges, but they go out in field service. 10 years ago you would have not seen that here (USA).  I guess it's because of this Sept 2016 WT : 17 What about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard? The Mosaic Law required men to wear a beard. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, nor are they obliged to observe it. (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Gal. 3:24, 25) In some cultures, a neatly trimmed beard may be acceptable and respectable, and it may not detract at all from the Kingdom message. In fact, some appointed brothers have beards. Even so, some brothers might decide not to wear a beard. (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:32) In other cultures or localities, beards are not the custom and are not considered acceptable for Christian ministers. In fact, having one may hinder a brother from bringing glory to God by his dress and grooming and his being irreprehensible.—Rom. 15:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7.    After that WT our CO at the time said that he is expecting some beards soon. And he was right.
Saluting the Flag was raised to a highly doctrinal matter. The flag itself is not the problem. Its just an emblem, or identifier of a country. Just like money is not the problem, it's the love of money.
True. But with some things it is not possible. Sometimes patience is the way to go.
Not the elders I know! But yes, there can be some that are not very good. But I have only met about 3 in my life time. Things always get sorted out in the end though. Yes, the whistlers are good sometimes.