ComfortMyPeople

I think that the exception has been pretty consistent. It has always been with respect to the primary goal of finding more ways to spread the Kingdom message more efficiently.
(Philippians 1:4-7) . . ., 5 because of the contribution you have made to the good news from the first day until this moment. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that the one who started a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. (1 Timothy 2:1-4) 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. JW attorneys have not worked with the goal of fixing this world through better laws and more inclusive civil rights, but I see no reason why this would be condemned. Cases have been argued right up to the supreme court of the United States and in high courts elsewhere with the goal of legally establishing the preaching work. (See especially Covington, Moyle and some more recent cases.)
So while it's true that Jesus did not push for social reform directly, he was concerned about protecting as many as possible from the situation that was about to come upon the lost house of Israel. Paul, however, used political leverage to help establish the preaching of God's Kingdom.

Carbon 14 breaks down very quickly. Look it up on Wikipedia.   Mr. Butler - do not be too humble my dear.... one does not need  intelligence to understand it - one just needs to take a little time to do the research.... search and you shall find.   Jehovah's spirit helps with the rest and an honest and unbiased spirit helps to find the truth.
There are many kinds of scientists but I do not believe that evolution is a science - no scientific method to speak of and not much evidence (fossil record non-existent especially at the bottom (basis) of the evolutionary tree - also no evidence how birds developed. ... all conjecture.  There are really too many unexplained miracles (miracle: a remarkable event or development that brings  only positive consequences.)
(The Cambrium explosion shows that all species suddenly appeared fully developed.  Here is a definition of it Cambrian explosion - I quickly looked it up:  "The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively short span event, occurring approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record." (Of course these dates are totally manufactured dates.... similar to the so-called pictures of the progression of man.)
Dating is also a subject that has not withstood the "science" test. There is a lot of data available in this to read.
The foundation of our belief is Jehovah and Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of the first prophecy of a seed / king that would pay the ransom and then later rule to restore the original purpose of God.  Additionally, how God worked throughout the ages to fulfill this prophecy and how he gave us a genealogy and a timeline to understand the progress of his plan. 
I did not  know that evolution versus creation was the most important subject - as you indicated in your remark.  For me the Bible is enough evidence that God exists and created everything and has a restoration plan - but evolution versus creation helps to provide the additional proof. Whether it is 7000 years or not does not change the fact that he created it all and we are now in the day of rest which is about 6000 years so far. According to Hebrews 4 there is another rest within the rest waiting - the 1000 years.
I have seen quite a few videos where the high priest of Evolution - Mr R Dawkins said that something can come from nothing.  I also have seen the audience laugh at this - which is quite right.   I also have seen him say on two occasions that 'aliens' seeded our life...... that is the extent of the evolutionists brilliant philosophy.  His book: the god delusion, has misled thousands of people and these people believe he is so smart.  When one uses the magic word 'science" these days everyone thinks it is infallible. 
I have some of my own opinions but I do not go and preach my own personal opinions because I believe the kingdom message is the most important and this is what we must preach.  There is no doubt in my mind that the faithful slave understands the kingdom government perfectly. Other Christian religions fail on this topic completely.
Mr Butler, a person can make a lot of trouble for yourself if you go and preach your own message.  Jehovah will correct all discrepancies in his own time.  If you do not trust Jehovah to correct things then you cannot be a witness and serve alongside his other servants. ... and then you may lose your everlasting life.  One cannot act in an immature way and act independently and insist you are right - it is disruptive and egotistical - anointed or not.  
I agree - the dynamic energy of Jehovah created the entire physical universe  - Isaiah 40 says that the stars came forth by his dynamic energy (projected energy).  So the physical universe did not come from nothing.  If one can put this in a human scale - I always think of Jehovah bringing forth the entire physical universe (with all its galaxies) and with its beginning of  time and  the 3 dimensions of space and all the different forces such as gravity, weak and strong force, into existence by his  dynamic energy as small as a single dust particle.  (it may have been a singularity but then the explosion would have been totally controlled to bring forth the elements in the universe)
"The big bang theory actually proved a 'beginning' so scientists quickly moved away from this and started playing with math and string theory to try to prove alternative universes (23 of them) to increase the 'chance' of life starting somewhere out there.
One need not be a scientist to understand the creation - there are many books out there written for a lay person and many books that also show the 'science delusion".  A very good one is The "devils" delusion by Dr Berlinsky which actually shows one the delusion people have about science.
People always think scientists are not driven by ambition and ego and always follow the truth -  where the facts lead.  Think again.  I do think there are some sciences which are more scientific than others but do not be mislead at what goes on behind the scenes and the reputations involved.  
To believe that one needs a science degree to understand creation is ludicrous - it is similar to the Pharisees which did not believe that Jesus or his disciples could understand the scriptures because they did not have higher education in the Mosaic law.
 

But they weren't were they? Paul admitted failings. Peter admitted failings. Paul chastised Peter, James and John. All of them had wrong ideas. We can think that they got all they needed at Pentecost to make them "perfect." But these failings lasted well beyond Pentecost. So we are forced to take a reasonable approach to what it means to be "perfect." There are scriptural principles which probably explain this saying of Jesus perfectly well in the context of the Christian congregation. For now, I think you will at least agree that the apostles were not perfect. Yet we can still imitate them in ways defined by scripture.
And the early teaching was that the great crowd were also anointed. Lately there have been articles that teach that many scriptures which were only recently applied just to the anointed, can now also be applied to the great crowd who have an earthly hope.
To the extent that they have exalted themselves, they are wrong. To the extent that they have tried their best be servants (a faithful slave class) they have perhaps seemed exalted, too. I don't think this is the criteria by which we accept or reject the doctrines they promote.

I don't think the GB praise themselves as much as is implied here. They have recognized that they have an awesome responsibility caring for the flock. And if they are true believers that the blessings bestowed upon this organization truly come from Jehovah, then this recognition of the seriousness of the responsibility of trying to lead such an organization is a given. They see themselves trying to organize the worldwide work, coordinate the distribution of Bible-based publications, make decisions about serious issues affecting the ministry.
One of the obvious issues is legally establishing the preaching work in an effective manner under the current laws of many countries. When those laws are not in our favor they have pushed to have them changed or clarified such that religious and civil rights are protected. This has helped others, too. There are even cases where those laws are so much against our preaching activities that the GB have devised ways to try to circumvent those laws because we honestly feel they conflict with God's law to preach the good news of the Kingdom. This has sometimes been effective and sometimes not and sometimes we just can't know whether it is or it isn't.
It should be seen that the position of a Governing Body is a natural outgrowth of such a work and such an organization. It makes sense that the Lutheran Church, the Methodist, the Baptists, etc., all have similar groups that act as leaders of their activities. When the GB look back for Biblical precedents, they see the apostles, but do not wish to claim "apostolic succession." So they look for another Biblical precedent, and find one that seems appropriate. Jesus once told about how, in the time of the end that his servants could be likened to a household where the Master had gone for some time, and his return was delayed. It would be easy to imagine the chaos that could overrun a household of servants in such a situation. It would be easy to imagine how some would invariably act faithfully, and some would act unfaithfully. How do employees act when the boss has been away for some time and no one knows if he is returning tomorrow, next week, or next year! Jesus said that  that he would be able to identify who was really a faithful and wise servant, and who was an unfaithful and unwise servant. This would be by the way they acted during the time that the Master was gone.
This illustration seems appropriate because it had traditionally been referenced as far back as Nelson Barbour to hint that he might be that faithful and wise servant. Russell used the same verse to indicate that he himself was that "faithful and wise servant." Personally I don't think it's about any particular leaders at all, it's just a parable showing how easy it would be --due to the apparent delay of Christ's parousia-- to act unfaithfully and unwisely if we aren't putting the interests of the "household of faith" first. It's an illustration that spends a lot more time on the ways that this "servant" might be shown to be UNFAITHFUL rather than focusing on how faithful a particular slave might be. It's about one of the difficulties in remaining faithful, as we walk by faith not by sight, putting faith in the one who is unseen.
This fits Jesus words in related parables:
(Luke 18:7-14) . . .Certainly, then, will not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, while he is patient toward them? 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” 9 He also told this illustration to some who trusted in their own righteousness and who considered others as nothing: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give the tenth of all things I acquire.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing at a distance, was not willing even to raise his eyes heavenward but kept beating his chest, saying, ‘O God, be gracious to me, a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his home and was proved more righteous than that Pharisee. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humiliated, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” The irony of course is that the Bible says not to be wise in your own eyes. To most Witnesses if anyone disagrees with the GB on any particular topic, they are accused of becoming "wise in their own eyes." So the fact that the GB are considered "wise" is used as a kind of weapon to "beat" their fellow slaves. It's true that a lot of so called "wisdom" that people put forward about their own view of the Bible and critiques of various doctrines are clearly so far off that it really ought to be brought under some kind of arrangement to produce unity and agreement in our speech and doctrine. And it might seem that the only way to speak in unity about doctrine is to accept some person or small group as the doctrinal authority. For about 100 years in our organization this was always pretty much one person at a time: CTRussell, JFRutherford, FWFranz. So again, it makes sense that a specific person or small group who agree on what is right is the easiest and most logical fallback position - from a human standpoint at least.
Some of what you said is specific and is based on discussions of specific scriptural points. These points are good and should be discussed. But part of this argument seems based on the supposed absurdity idea of a group of imperfect persons, making doctrinal mistakes, could still provide doctrinal and other types of organizational leadership.
I accept that you have pointed out some claims that should not have been made from a scriptural point of view. These should be taken seriously. But I also think that it is natural and expected that a "governing body" of this sort exists, imperfections and all, and is used for a particular purpose that is very close to the current purpose.

The first issue of the Watchtower made the point that truth is truth even if it comes from the mouth of Satan the Devil. Of course, we might expect the Devil to be selective about which truth to reveal, how much of it, and then be on the lookout for ulterior motives. Same is true of truth from anywhere. I think your attitude in the above statements shows reasonableness.
You might know that I also do not think the GB are the exact equivalent of the "faithful and discreet slave" of Jesus' parable. But this does not mean that we can't learn from the GB, get spiritual food from the GB, learn to grow and mature from such food, and then grow into mature Christians ourselves who should be able to distinguish right from wrong, and move on to more mature doctrines, including "standing on our own." I think that the GB serve a purpose within the congregation. They are imperfect and should never give the impression that their word is final. As one of them has publicly admitted, this would be very presumptuous of them if they did this.
A lot of Witnesses are anxious to relieve themselves from any spiritual responsibility and push all their thinking off on others, not realizing that this was never the way Jehovah intended for any of us to worship him. So a lot of JWs effectively "worship" the GB and hang on their every word. Sometimes that reverence for the GB takes a more subtle 'tack' and we begin to think that criticism of the GB makes Satan happy. Or that questioning the GB is the same as doubting Jehovah. I won't bore you with a dozen scripture showing why this is wrong, because I suspect you already know them.
 

Yes, you are very correct of course. But I am the exception. You see I am totally unbiased
Seriously though, it is a very interesting subject and I wish I had more experience of it as an adult. As a child I could not understand why people were not allowed out of their own country and why the borders were guarded by soldiers with guns and dogs, not to stop people coming in, but to stop people leaving. At one time my mum and I were traveling out of the country (because we could) on a train and the border guards were searching underneath the trains with flashlights and dogs. There was barbed wire everywhere.
Just wanted to add one more thing. Some people may not realize but many of our illustrations in our publications remind some people of communist propaganda, especially those where people are seen building houses and sharing food. After the iron curtain fell it took some brothers and sisters a while to get used to some of those illustrations. Not so long ago my mum gave her study the Kingdom book, and this lady, in her 70s' was horrified and said it's like communism. Well it kind of is isn't it? Lol.
Maybe someone should create a topic for this in the JW only club...

It is still unclear to me if we are still paying $4,000 every day to this court. Anyone know what happened to that fine? Or did we satisfy the judge by providing what he/she wanted?

*** w1955 7/1 411    Christian Baptism for the New World Society *** 
15 A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. This shows, among other things, that Christianity is not a denominational affair, that sects have nothing to do with it. “Does the Christ exist divided? Paul was not impaled for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.”—1 Cor. 1:13-15, NW. 
*** w1966 10/1 603-4  Serving with Everlasting Life in View *** 
15 This is what we mean when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah. 
--------------------------------------
*** w1958 8/1 478  Baptism *** 
22 It is essential that with the mouth a public declaration of faith be made. Two 
questions are therefore asked the candidates: (1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ? (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? 23 Everyone who can answer “Yes” to these questions is eligible for baptism and should take this step without hesitation or delay. 
*** w1960 5/15 308  "What Prevents Me from Getting Baptized?" *** 
23 The first question is: Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ? 
24 The second question is: On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? 
25 Everyone who has answered “Yes” to these two questions is eligible for baptism and should be baptized at that same circuit or district assembly of Jehovah’s witnesses. 
*** w1973 5/1 280  Baptizing Follows Discipling *** 
we suggest that you consider the following two questions, which are asked of 
candidates for baptism: 
(1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his SonJesus Christ? 
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? 
If you find that you can answer “YES” to these questions, then it would be appropriate for you to speak to the presiding overseer in the congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses with which you associate, with a view to getting baptized. 
------------------------------------
*** w1985 6/1 30     Subjecting Ourselves to Jehovah by Dedication *** 
The first question is: 
On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will? 
The second is: 
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization? 
Having answered yes to these questions, candidates are in a right heart condition to undergo Christian baptism. 
*** w1987 4/15 12  Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism *** 
By baptism you identify yourself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s worldwide congregation.
*** w87 4/15 12  Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism *** 
Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.
*** w1989 1/15 13  What Prevents You From Getting Baptized? *** 
for the first of two questions the speaker asks them is: “On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?” Only if the individual answers in the affirmative and also understands that his dedication and baptism identify him as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization can he acceptably undergo water immersion. 
*** knowledge 176  18 Make It Your Aim to Serve God Forever *** 
 Baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ signifies that the baptismal candidate 
recognizes Jehovah’s holy spirit, or active force, as God’s instrument for carrying out His purposes and for empowering His servants to do His righteous will in association with His spirit-directed organization.

If God created the animals before Adam & Eve....and death and disease weren’t introduced to the world until Adam & Eve disobeyed God them please explain how this dinosaur had a tumor?
Very simple ......
 

Just a little more longwinded opinion here.
I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting.
Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary.
To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. 
When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations.
Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

@Kosonen If we could say we were still waiting for specific prophetic events to occur in advance of the final judgment at Armageddon, then we would be saying that the Bible is lying. The Bible says that this "day" will come as a complete surprise, as a thief in the night. That final parousia/visitation/revelation/manifestation/synteleia/judgment --that every eye will see--  will come as a complete surprise, effectively without warning to Christians or the rest of the world. It  just as the final days of Sodom and Gomorrah came upon the men, women and children of that day without any warning. The initial prophecy of Matthew 24, relates to both Daniel and Revelation, and was about the overall results to the nation of Israel for their the rejection of Christ. (rejecting his  ministry, rejection of his life [clamoring for Roman execution],  and rejection of his resurrection.) At any point after that "parousia" upon Jerusalem and Judea, the final parousia upon the world could come at any time, "immediately." There would be know secret prophecies to figure out because that day (parousia, synteleia, judgment, destruction, revelation, manifestation) would be a surprise; it would appear suddenly and unmistakably, like lightning.
(Luke 17:24-30) . . .For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day. 25 First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation. . . . 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed. (Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. The only warning we have is that it WILL happen, and this day is closer every day. We will not be able to look at signs and prophecies to figure out anything about the time period: the day and hour, or the "times and seasons."
(Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. Rather than use these scriptures only as an excuse as to why we continue to make the same mistakes the early disciples made, we should learn the actual lesson they offer. That we cannot know anything more about the times and seasons.
Notice that in Luke's account, there is only ONE thing that would be a true prior sign before "THE SIGN" that would finally and "immediately" appear in heaven. That was "(Luke 21:25) First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation." Similarly, Jesus said that the "sign of Jonah" is all that would be given to that generation as a warning. That was also the same sign of Jesus rejection (execution and resurrection). It was THAT sign of Jonah (picturing Christ's ministry, death, and resurrection) that fulfilled the crushing of the final world power. It's what finally sent Satan hurtling from his position in heaven down to the earth, so that all of us have a period of tribulation in this world due to Satan:
(Luke 10:18) 18 At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven." (John 12:31-33) 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.” 33 This he was really saying to indicate what sort of death he was about to die.
(John 16:33) 33 I have said these things to you so that by means of me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world.”
We can quickly test the inspired utterances, and know if they originate with God. We know it is not scriptural if a person tries to use prophetic time periods to identify the times and seasons we are living in, especially if they are looking to some current or future event as the beginning of a time period so they can say: "The time is at hand."
(Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ . . . (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. If a person, or even an entire religion tries to present itself as having special knowledge of the times and seasons, we can know immediately that they have overstepped, and therefore have become unfaithful and indiscreet. After all, Paul said:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence 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. Paul lived at a time when there really was another fulfillment of prophecy on its way, prior to 70 C.E. But he also knew that Jesus had said that people would be eating and drinking and going about their lives so that the end would be a surprise to them, and therefore he knew that watching for specific signs (such as wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilence, etc.) could not help them foretell the one SIGN that Jesus responded to in his answer to Matthew 24:3. But notice that Paul did use this one prediction about a "man" of lawlessness, an "apostasy"  just as Jesus had predicted in Matthew 24:
Matthew 24:11,12, Many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold. . . . 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. John, who significantly was likely writing after the year 70, says that this was already fulfilled, and this is how Christians knew they were already in the "last days" the "last hour":
(1 John 2:18) 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. So it's true that all these ideas have a counterpart in our own day, just as they have had a counterpart in all of history since the first-century congregation. We have been living among these "deluding influences" ever since Satan was cast down through Christ's death in the first century.
(2 Thessalonians 2:6-9) 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. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) 14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, 15 and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. The point is to keep conquering Satan down to our last breath in this system, which is only possible due to what Jesus has already conquered. In his day, Jesus also conquered all governments and by taking out of them a government, a kingdom of its own.
(Colossians 1:13) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, So it should be very possible to already see the spiritual fulfillment of Jesus conquering the world, from way back in the time of the Roman empire. There will be a physical fulfillment against all governments, too, but we need not look to try to discover the time of any specific physical fulfillment against a future manifestation of Rome or other bestial world powers. When Jesus and the first century congregation conquered Rome, that was all the prophetic fulfillment needed to fulfill all the time-related prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. We are not to look to any future time periods because looking to discover any time related fulfillments would negate the idea that the end comes as a thief in the night.
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

I lived for a few years in the former USSR. I could hear comments why Stalin was admired. Some liked his brutality. One new broder liked Satalin's expression that translated sounds like: 'When a person is gone, the problem is gone.' = 'Нет человека, и нет проблемы.'
Many liked also that Stalin was the leader that defeated the Germans and that he expanded the Soviet union. Especially the native Russians liked that. But subjugated territories were not so happy with that. 
Actually the ethnic Russians were only about 50% of the Soviet union's population.
My wife is from Latvia, and she has told me that they dreaded the Russians that Stalin transfered to Latvia. The Russians spyed on Latvians for slightest discontend. And many Latvians were caught and sent to Siberia and never came back. 
Yeah, the Russians felt like they owned the world thanks to Stalin.
 

This is the kindergarten 2 classroom of the Favor Kingdom Primary Institute. Here in this classroom learning is conducive for all children.

I do think that the united nations is now forcing everyone to comply as far as possible.  Next week when they sign the immigration Compact one of the stipulations are that journalists would be 're-trained " to only speak positive of the plan.  Journalists who print anything negative will be hauled before the Human Rights court (UN Human Rights Org) which is an organization now run by mostly muslim leaders.  This Compact will basically get rid of national autonomy and replace it with open borders - to get all people equal - this is the goal and the dream.
Muslim leaders are voting each other in at the UN - this is why they (UNESCO) voted more than a year ago that Israel has NO history in Palestine at all!   So Rome in 70CE never happened???  and this organization is supposed to protect "heritage". 
At present - African countries who do not comply to the UN "re-education" of children are already cut off from much needed funds.   Google, Facebook, twitter have received fines if they allow certain kind of speech and are actually enforcing sharia restrictions on speech in many Western countries and of course also complying with surveillance in China. 
Independent journalists on internet are finding their funds cut off -  I used to follow and ex-intelligence analyst who served in British intelligence for many years.  His funding was cut on Youtube recently by Mastercard. Visa and Patreon doing the same.  Many people against this plan are disappearing off internet -  this is really happening- it is not a conspiracy.  
These global corporations have digital clout and their master is the EU/UN  with its utopian  ideology.  All global corporations are now staking their claims and influence to supply the future food, housing, water, property for this plan.  Monsanto is one of them.   All food, water etc will be rationed.... and all other utilities will be provided to you.  Of course - China is already getting ready for this... with huge empty buildings standing around.....  I always wondered what this was for?   Now I know.
I do not know how far the UN will get - but I think pretty far because the young people have all been indoctrinated with this new philosophy without anyone realizing how far it has gone. (this gender equality and feminism is part of it).  Many organizations in America has already been infiltrated....... so nationalism may just be a flash in the pan.   The IMF or world financiers will break the US economy by bringing in a global monetary digital system.  At present the US dollar is coping because of the dollar exchange rate which is propping it up.  This could disappear. 
The large digital Corporations   have been brought in control by legislation or fines to do the bidding of the UN masters.  Bilderberg and all these guys with their trillions have a dream of uniting the world under the UN and they are ideologs who really think that peace can come by providing everyone with one set of morals and laws and restrictions and control everyone.  Digitally they will be able to see what you are buying and selling and basically everything about you.  You will be classed as a favorable or unfavorable subject.... and there will be penalties just like in China at present.....
So do I believe we will see the worst oppression in human history when they only allow so much food to be produced for everyone?  And water and all your needs rationed? I think so.   It will be a tribulation all right.  The dream of satan and his lackeys to bring a wonderful, peaceful, united world under his UN governance.... 
If this happens then Jehovah has been so accurate in his predictions..... The GB have not yet said anything about it..... and they must be careful to say anything about it......I know that. What I see is that Satan is being drawn out of his liar.... he does not care what suffering he brings or if many people die - he is the father of death after all..... he just wants to see if he can manipulate things to get this done. All these people are under his influence. - the philosophies of the last 2 centuries has been leading up to this.  Communism was a beautiful philosophy but together with atheism it brought 40 million dead in USSR and 100 million dead in China etc etc.
The world leaders are so blind they cannot see that Islam is a dangerous religion - all people and all religions are the same - so they think.  They are using it to bring one government.  islam believes it must rule the world so it has infiltrated all the "freedom organisations such as women's rights (even though they have no women's or children's rights).  Iran etc. has been funding many organizations in USA. So when they have served their purpose - satans purpose - the UN will act against religions by bringing in their own moral set of laws.
This plan comes from 18th century philosophers and was picked up by Kalergi - go read about it.  There are other spiritists also involved.  This is why the Lucis trust is so heavily involved with the united nations and the Bahai religion....  I have not read this document below but I quickly looked it up for you  just to give you an idea what has been lurking under our noses all along.  See which prominent religions have been influenced by this way of thinking!
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_lucytrust04.htm
Yes - the world will soon see the biggest upheavals in 2 millennia.... it will start  with protests  and oppositions groups such as the nationalists ...but then protesters may disappear in the sea of control.
Satan loves to control - anyone who loves to control - has qualities of satan in their personality. It will show very soon!
I have a lot more to add... but I think the implications are huge for the future of the globe. I may not be around but I would like to hear how it played out when I am resurrected. China and these governments also want their stake.  What if there is a great war?   Then the UN will get its wish even faster than anticipated because then most countries will be so relieved to have the UN around and will willingly give them control of unity and peace in the world....... (this compact also talks in a very strange way of freedom of religions - it must be subject to UN thought). 
The 8th world government (mentioned in revelation)  will rule for a short period of time.  They will also restrict religion for their purpose.    I hope they put us all in prison together.... will that happen ? I do not know..... only our creator knows.  But he is preparing us now in a most loving way. 
 

You keep mentioning the "truly" anointed ones. Did you know any personally?  I have known quite a few in my life time and I believe they were "truly" anointed, but I don't recall them ever having a problem with calling God; Jehovah. 
I am sure you have mentioned it, but I am still not sure what you consider wicked acts, in order to prove themselves a wicked slave. I know the pedophilia issue is one thing. But looking at my brothers and sisters (and I have belonged to quite a few congregations in different countries) I cannot say that those who apply Bible principles in their life are adversely affected. In fact many are extremely grateful they have found the congregation of JWs  because they have helped them discover Bible truths, and help them live by Bible principles. You can listen to their life stories to see they are genuinely happy they have found this brotherhood.  I am not denying there are a few bad individuals in congregations, and some loopy ones, but those always get rooted out eventually. It's nothing new, there have always been some who are wicked, even in Bible times, but there is nothing hidden from Jehovah that won't be revealed. So we have nothing to be worried about.
 

The GB might be on a pedestal. That will happen naturally, just as it did for Apollos, Paul, Cephas, and some "superfine apostles" back in Corinth.
Kind of funny that today I sat in the audience with two members of the Governing Body and two Governing Body Helpers. They did not have special seats. Not one person in the Hall made any special attempt to talk to them. No one seemed nervous around them or tried to impress them. No one tried to take pictures. They talked in groups as normally as anyone else there both before and after the meeting. I know this doesn't PROVE anything, but if it had been different, I would have made a point of how wrong that seemed.
I was sitting one row directly in front of one, and I kept checking to see that the crease on the back of my slacks around my knees, calves and ankles still had some "slack," so I honestly seemed like the only person there who might have been a bit self-conscious around them. This same brother only commented once at the WT Study, and the other GB member, not at all. Although their wives made one comment each. (But who's counting?)
I do think that other JWs put these men on pedestals more than they themselves TRY to be put on a pedestal.

Of those two, only Russell was removed from the "list." Rutherford remains, but some of Rutherford's faults have been candidly admitted. I wouldn't say anyone has "disowned" Rutherford, although I worked with two brothers in the 1970's who still admitted that they held a strong grudge against the judge. If you know some of the stories about him it's a lot easier to read between the lines in the publications and from experiences various brothers had with him that have been mentioned in interviews. But you don't have to be liked to be faithful and discreet. There are a few things I don't like about Rutherford and a few that I do like. I don't think of him as a key part of the FDS nor any kind of "foundation stone." Among many righteous and courageous things he stood for, he was instrumental in keeping control of the assets of the Watchtower Society, and that name, having been associated with Russell and the work of the Kingdom as they understood it, kept a core portion of Bible Students together at a critical time. Otherwise, it's possible that Rutherford might have become a footnote.
A couple things make no sense, because human traditions create strongly entrenched things. Things just get more awkward when someone has to grasp at straws to make sense of things after they have been proven to be obsolete. Outside of about 5 topic areas, however, I happen to think that most things make even more sense now, especially looking at all the changes since about the year 2000. Also, I think we've dropped a lot of things that just can't be made to work anymore, but the WTS hasn't completely abandoned the ideas completely and has sometimes chosen untenable solutions to issues created by the older teachings. It's like sewing new patches of unshrunk cloth on old garments. After everything is "cut and dried," it just doesn't wash!
All anointed Christians are no longer identified as THE faithful and discreet slave. But this wouldn't stop anointed Christians from being faithful and discreet slaves. This is something that all Christians are supposed to be, no matter what they claim to know about their ultimate place where they will serve in God's Kingdom throughout their eternal lives. True Christians who are faithful and discreet slaves will have this attitude:
(1 Peter 4:10) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. (1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . . I agree that it is an unfortunate circumstance that has probably led the Governing Body to believe that they need to bestow this title upon themselves to be respected for "authority" they believe is necessary to effectively lead thousands of local congregations and millions of brothers and sisters. I think it is a human failing to be expected in every religious organization on earth. For me the point of an organization is the idea that it provides a ready-made social group with which we can begin putting our Christianity into practice. It's a support group for the stronger to help the weaker, the richer to help the poorer -- and for all to provide an example to one another, both physical and spiritual encouragement and nourishment to one another. 
Such a group will be expected to put forth a set of teachings, which might be half right and half wrong, but it's a start for us to discuss. As the teachings are tested and questioned, the surer things and the more important things will rise to the top. It's true, as you say, that weak elders will not question and will become "policemen." But it is still our duty to test and question. If we are kicked out for it, so be it. If the "policemen" think it's right to break up families and natural affection over such questions then this is a tragedy and needs to be changed if we want to be Christian. Christianity is a constant fight for righteousness. It's easier in a social group of like minded persons, even though a social group, being human, will naturally have abusers who want to rise to the top just to be "policemen."
*** w77 10/1 p. 599 The Christian Congregation and Its Operation ***
They are not governors or “masters” of the lives or faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but are viewed as brothers and equals having a duty of stewardship. —1 Cor. 4:1, 2; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 4:10. Back in 1977, discussing the Governing Body, this verse from 2 Cor was included along with the two other scriptures I already quoted above. The one I hadn't quoted yet was the middle one:
(2 Corinthians 1:24) Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. This is one big problem. I'm not minimizing it. We no longer encourage the hiding of child abuse. It still happens, of course. I think it's from shame. We just don't want to admit something so horrible is as much among us as among others. Those who think it's best to hide it are not thinking the way Jehovah wants us to think; they are not thinking about what true justice really is. It's rampant criminal stupidity, and we are not immune.
True. Some have left, thinking this might allow them to push for change more effectively. Some, in the past, have pushed on the issue and then even been pushed out when they did not want to leave. But you left and I wonder if you really think that it made more people aware of the problem, than if you had just brought it up matter-of-factly in normal conversation to as many people as possible first, before leaving. Also, don't you think that this really requires a top-down approach. And by the way, I know of an elder in California who has stepped down and discontinued his former level of association with the congregation and who spends much time actively campaigning for worldwide change and national political change on this issue. If he is to be believed, he has not been approached by any persons or committee about disfellowshipping or disassociation. I honestly don't think the WTS would ever want to make a move against such a person again. It would be devastating to the current and potential court cases. Also, note that in recent court cases there are apparently less of them trying to mitigate against the seriousness of the specific crime itself. They are primarily trying to mitigate against financial loss to the corporate entities whose representatives argue that the responsibility for child sexual abuse does not lie in following the promoted rules, guides, and processes of the WTS, which they also believe, in good faith, have been Bible-based.
True. I don't expect the leadership of any human organization to be perfect. Ultimately we must be, and it should always guide our motives and goals. But don't expect it anywhere. As TrueTomHarley has often tried to point out, we might expect that Christian methods of dealing with the issue might make our numbers (statistics) actually come out better when compared against institutions of the world. Perhaps they already are. But there are factors that might fight against this, too. Just as Catholics bring supposedly celibate men into the priesthood, Witnesses attract persons who believe that association alone might change their wicked desires. Witnesses might also attract those who believe that fellow Witnesses are extremely trusting and naive, "babes to badness" as it were.
If that happens, do you see yourself believing that this organization must have been "God's chosen" one, just as Jerusalem represented an earthly organization of God's chosen ones? I get the feeling that you don't feel there is any significance to the JW Org in our day, and probably don't feel that big changes would really be a cleaning out by God's direct intervention.
I think that most if not all the current Governing Body are doing a pretty good job as expected in most areas of concern. But they are also steeped in our own long organizational tradition, and captivated by the idea that they have been asked to serve in an awesome, overwhelming position of responsibility. One of those areas of responsibility is finding and choosing others who should be asked to serve in such a position. In such a situation, I don't see them as bad or unworthy, but just trying to do the best they can in the situation they find themselves serving. An ex-member who was a strong critic of the Governing Body called it being "captives of a concept." The same ex-member said that a big part of that "concept" is based on seeing certain changes as inconceivable, especially where it comes to a perceived need to "police" the faith of millions of followers. I think you (and the ex-JW I refer to) are both partly right in this regard. Because their vantage point sees reports of activity always "rolled up" in terms of a works-based faith, it will likely be a while before we see a change from "activity-based faith" to "faith-based activity." As people who came up through the rules of the organization as they have always been, it's probably all they are seeing every day, and it's so much to deal with that they haven't yet looked very far outside the box.

@JOHN BUTLER  I like this quote from JW Insider;  " I think the only way we can see past the human error and focus on the leadership of Jesus under the headship of Jehovah, is to avoid putting the human leadership on so high a pedestal in the first place".

Anna and Outta Here have already said it and pointed to material that says it, and I'm sure you have heard the argument before while associating with Witnesses. But here it is again: there is a logical problem with your argument. God's name in Hebrew is YHWH, true, but this doesn't automatically mean that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. Why not Yehowah? In fact, there are languages today where the most common pronunciation of the Divine Name is exactly that: Yehowah.
Admittedly this was influenced from English, and a major contributor to the popularization of that form of the name was a Catholic monk. But as Anna said, there are other names where we use a modern English or other modern-language equivalent. The name for Jeremiah was YRMYH. Do you argue,  why not Yarmayah? It's possible (though highly unlikely) that this was how it was pronounced. But some modern languages will pronounce it Yeremiah, even in the WTS publications in those languages. The divine name is a special case and perhaps this means we should give it special scholarly treatment in selecting the most likely pronunciation. However, even here, if it turned out to be Yahweh, that form in English would be Jahveh. We don't say Yeshuah, we say Jesus (because that form of the name Joshua had already been "hellenized" to Yesous.) Sometimes the change is even more significant, like Yakob to James or even Santiago.
To me, these arguments sound a bit like straining the gnat, but not very consistently.

That has happened, but it's not what I said. There was a time when the focus was always on Russell and how great he was as one of the major historical contributors to the "faithful and discreet slave." We had a doctrine that claimed that there were always members of this faithful and discreet slave alive at any given time on the earth since the Christian congregation was formed just after Pentecost of 33 CE. 
In fact, there was a research assignment for history buffs that was supposed to become a part of the "Proclaimers" book, that was supposed to go into a lot more detail about some of the groups that our publications had identified in the past, who were typically persecuted for not believing in the Trinity (Arians, for example), and those who stood up against the powerful religious leaders of their time and tried to publish truths for wider distribution to everyone. The GB members behind this effort were so disappointed in the results that they dropped the idea from the "Proclaimers" book, and began to drop the teaching altogether, so that we rarely spoke any more about about Arius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Waldenses, etc. 
The focus of that book became a chance to show how Russell stood out among those he had learned from: Grew, Stetson, Brown, Miller, Paton, Seiss, Storrs, Barbour, etc. But even this effort began to show that Russell was rather eclectic, and was just as apt to pick up a wrong idea as a good idea and run with it. But the biggest "new" issue that was being learned about Russell was that so many of the early Bible Students who followed Russell were actually in an end-times chronoloy cult. This was not Russell's fault, but he had the kind of convincing personality that drew people to him. Rutherford was a Russellite cult member too for many years. But it was in 1919 that Rutherford realized this. If Rutherford had not used shrewd (and technically illegal) means to grasp the Watchtower organization from the majority of the Russellite leadership that Russell had chosen, then the Watchtower would probably still be just another Russellite "cult."
The real cut-off from Russell began in 1919, and it took another decade for Rutherford to completely figure out how to do that. And this is one of the reasons that the Watchtower today, since 2012, teaches that the true "faithful and discreet slave" no longer includes Russell, even though for many years up until 1919, Russell was had been considered to be the ONLY member of the "faithful and discreet slave."
I'm not saying that the current Governing Body necessarily did the right thing in identifying only themselves as the current FDS, but at least, since 2012, they have taken measures to remove much of the emphasis on Russell himself, by removing him from any identification with the  "faithful and discreet slave."

You might be stating something so obvious that the Watchtower has explicitly used this as one reason for a recent change in doctrine (only 5 years old) that states that the GB/FDS* only counts from 1919 onward. Previously, we said it was from 33 CE onward and would thus have included the indiscretions of Russell and a few of Rutherford's. The new doctrine now leaves Russell completely out of the picture. Also, Rutherford's time of saying how the League of Nations was 'wonderful and awesome' changed in just a matter of months, just before the beginning of 1919.
*** w91 6/1 p. 13 par. 14 The Spiritual Drunkards—Who Are They? ***
In 1919 she was among the foremost promoters of the League of Nations. While Jesus said that Christians would be no part of the world, Christendom’s leaders cultivate relationships with political leaders. *** ip-2 chap. 13 pp. 184-185 par. 9 “Cry Out Joyfully in Unison”! ***
When the Greater Cyrus, Jesus Christ, freed God’s covenant people from captivity to Babylon the Great in 1919, they came to a better understanding of Jehovah’s requirements. They had already cleansed themselves of many teachings of Christendom that have their roots in pre-Christian paganism, such as the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and eternal torment in a fiery hell. Now they set out to rid themselves of all traces of Babylonish influence. They also came to realize the importance of maintaining strict neutrality regarding this world’s partisan affairs. *** kj chap. 18 p. 346 par. 28 Resurrection to Unity in a “Garden of Eden” ***
Then in the liberation year of 1919 the faithful survivors of World War I reunited with the one objective, namely, to be loyal to Jehovah’s reigning King, Jesus Christ, and to preach world wide “this good news of the kingdom.” Jehovah forgave their transgressions and cleansed them of the “dungy idols” of worldly nationalism and other religiously disgusting things.  
 

Expelling is Biblical. That's true. But what is the method and are Christians under some kind of rule of law that needs to be applied uniformly in all situations? What if it was a principle that is good, but the way it was executed even in Bible times turns out not to have been a Christian method.
For example, the Bible allows for a husband to disfellowship his wife. (The Bible never allows for a wife to disfellowship (divorce) a husband, by the way.) But are we under Mosaic rules for divorce just because it is Biblical? In fact, Jesus said that even though it was Biblical, it wasn't what Jehovah really wanted.
(Matthew 19:7, 8 )  7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. Jesus doesn't say Moses wasn't inspired when he made the Biblical concession for divorce as one of the laws in the "perfect" Law covenant. But Jesus rejects this particular "jot and tittle" of the Law as a mere concession for human hard-heartedness, especially because it was being misused in practice.  "Hard-heartedness" is a form of having "no natural affection." (See my earlier post on this topic.)
There is an even more obvious case where the Governing Body now rejects something that is definitely Biblical. In the Bible, it's OK to "beat" your children, physically. When asked about this, GB member Geoffrey Jackson, in front of the Australian Royal Commission,  said that the GB now believe that the "rod" of correction is not a physical rod, but that it is the "virtual" rod of righteous corrective discipline. Of course, what do we then do with the Mosaic Law that says that if you beat your slave to death that there is no punishment as long as it takes the slave a day or two to die? (There is a punishment if the slave dies within in a shorter time period.)
(Exodus 21:20, 21) . . .“If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money. The way in which the point was made in front of the ARC was for the GB member to avoid this Scripture:
(Proverbs 23:13, 14) 13 Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. 14 With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheʹol itself. Instead, he used another verse, from the previous chapter, which was more ambiguous:
(Proverbs 22:15) 15 Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him. Of course, all of these verses use the same Hebrew word for "rod/stick" and the same Hebrew word for "beat/smite/strike." Same word for "rod" or "stick" is used here too:
(Proverbs 26:3) 3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the back of stupid people. I'm not in favor of the physical beating of children. There are times when the principle is correct, but the methods used were "hard-hearted." The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. 
You've argued that other religions see familial DFing, for example, as Biblical. But so what? In other religions they might still beat their children, beat their wives and servants, promote racism, divorce on any ground, and promote a lack natural affection, too.

From what I can gather here about you, I think that most of the 130 do not believe you are evil, and probably do not wish to treat you badly, but as you say, they THINK they are following the rules. Also, they will not merely treat you this way just because they feel you were concerned about the "child abuse" issue. If you have told the whole story then it is pretty clear that you are treated as someone who has formally disassociated, and we are told to treat that person the exact same way as someone who was disfellowshipped. (I think that is an abuse of power by the way on the part of the WTS policy.) It's probable that someone has added a few other "details" for the ears of the congregation, real or imagined. The more likely concern is that you have somehow become a spiritual danger because you are actively seeking out false information from apostates to spread it among the congregation in order to sow divisions and contentions. Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy, even if you are personally still "salvagable." They are told that to treat you like this is a way to save you. 
I personally would not follow the rules in this regard when it is a person I have known and if I feel that my continued association is more likely to be scriptural than unscriptural. There have been two persons where my opinion of them and my association with them didn't change a bit after they were disfellowshipped. One stayed out and one came back. I don't advertise this to the rest of the congregation, for fear of stumbling others, and for my own fear of the same kind of unscriptural disciplinary treatment that others have been subjected to.
But there is also a certain kind of friendship we build up with others that goes beyond rules and regulations. We show a certain type of loyalty (loyal love) to the other person, and they to us. In the Bible, if David had become a murderer and an adulterer, Jonathan would have still loyally stuck by him. "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24)  I have seen several friendships like this, and would hope that no human rules would ever get in the way. I had a roommate at Bethel who joked that his friend who had recently been invited to Bethel, was like this. He claimed that even if he murdered someone, that this friend would never change. I thought about that and decided that he should move out and room with this arriving friend. 
If we truly have love, even for our enemies, we should have no problem dealing with tax collectors and sinners. How much more should we show love to someone who is in dire straits for a reason we already understand and one we can help them understand. This does not mean that I would go out of my way to seek out such a person, unless I was sure I could help them feel better with some encouragement. Often they truly put themselves in a situation where the best thing they  to do is to find their way back into the organization and I will often encourage that. But I would never encourage family members to disfellowship themselves from that disfellowshipped person.  It has been rare, but as I said, I have had a couple of occasions to "break the rule" in this regard.
 
I like a lot of what the GB and the JW org are doing, and I love many of my fellow associates in the congregation. But, YES, I really mean it. Speaking out is what I am doing right now. I often speak out against unscriptural policies, or discuss them here to help make sure whether my own reasoning is wrong. I don't have to speak out in front of my local congregation, nor do I cause divisions. I speak out on this forum, and I will sometimes speak frankly and honestly with people who approach me in person. I also send a couple letters a year to the GB and JW org. For the past few years, these have been anonymous. I have used this site to try to formulate the scriptural reasoning behind these letters.
I have already spoken out against abuse and bad policy in this regard for about seven years now -- not just on forums but in person. This is why I cannot completely understand the treatment you are getting. At several opportunities over the last 30 years, I have spoken out against a policy of tolerating spousal physical abuse against wives, because my own sister had an experience like this with the usual requested cover-up from authorities and hospital personnel. I have even turned in a young 20 year old brother who showed serious problems in this regard at gatherings. He is not quite a person of full mental capacity, but this won't matter to an abused sister who would feel traumatized if he takes these types of actions any further. And it's quite possible he already poses a criminal danger when not in public. There should be heightened awareness of these problems to protect all potential victims, and where necessary, secular authorities and law enforcement need to be involved.

My only dispute with the disfellowshipping policy is being TOLD "how to treat loved ones living outside the home" by means of videos. No matter how I slice it, I cannot see what is right about TOTALLY  ignoring a loved one and the loved ones innocent children (grandchildren) for years. The Israelites, under the mosaic law, were to stone those who broke God's laws, parents were to stone their children. Is this our version of stoning? The question is, were the Israelites also to stone the children (grandchildren) of someone who broke Gods law?
Why was stoning done away with? What was to happen with those who would have previously been stoned now that stoning was no longer practiced? Is there specific admonition by Paul which deals with family? How would we be breaking our loyalty to God if we treated our loved ones like we are supposed to treat our neighbors, tax collectors and those of the nations?  Didn't Paul say we should treat ones who have left as tax collectors? 
I would not advocate my views unless I was specifically asked about them. But I know how I would treat my son if he got Df'd. and it wouldn't be as is "recommended" in the video.
 

Witness, I don't remember ever giving you an upvote before on any topic, but I can tell from the way you took this issue seriously, and from how well you wrote the entire last response, that you are sincerely concerned about handling the word of God aright, and thinking deeply about the issue here.
Naturally, I don't agree with everything you say --especially the degree to which you take exception to WT practices-- but I was surprised at how closely your response matched the way I was about to respond to Tom on this same topic. Your first point was to make clear that the way in which DFing is handled among JWs has caused serious problems among us, and serious harm to former associates, spiritual damage to both the expelled and those perpetrating the type of DFing that we practice. The way we treat families has become evidence to others that we are not a group of people known for love among ourselves, and that we often show "no natural affection."
Of course we dismiss the way we treat the dismissed and point to how much love we have among those of us who remain faithful to the organization. But this always reminds me of these verses:
(Matthew 5:46-47) 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You are aware of the recent push to encourage us to have even less natural affection among family members by encouraging total emotional blackmail through the DFing process. This has started up again in the last couple years from videos shown at meetings and assemblies, and similar counsel. We should immediately think of how Paul told Timothy about the kinds of things Timothy should expect in congregations of the first century because it had been predicted that in those last days Timothy would see persons "having no natural affection." But there is an interesting point Paul made in this context that is usually overlooked:
(2 Timothy 2:23-3:5) 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will. 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, . . , 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, . . . puffed up with pride, . . .  5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. What is missed is that Paul told Timothy to reject foolish and ignorant debates, but also to turn away from these people who showed "no natural affection" in those last days. This is the way that the principle of DFing actually works among Christians. It's about turning away from the people, even brothers, who show no natural affection. It's not about a congregation always being in total agreement about the exact rule by which someone is greeted and another person is not greeted, or someone can eat with us and another person cannot. In fact, this doesn't ever mean that we reject the chance to speak about spiritual things with such persons, it's just that we don't share in their conduct. We avoid their influence on us, and we avoid associating in such a way that we could give others the impression that we have joined in their conduct or support their conduct. We don't become influenced by their wrong, and show restraint in engaging with them when we are the ones personally wronged.
In other words (I think it's rare, but) if we do witness a misuse of the DFing process that promotes "having no natural affection" then it is up to us to disengage and disassociate from that kind of behavior even when it is being promoted by elders in our congregation or in the worldwide congregation. We can't completely disfellowship our elders from their responsibility, but we can avoid giving the impression that we agree with these practices. Just as we avoid joining in association with a person who calls himself a brother who is a known drunkard, reviler, fornicator, etc. We should be willing to speak out against the kind of videos we have seen recently which praise a person for avoiding familial contact with their own brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers. Of course, when it comes to those who no longer call themselves a brother (or sister) in the congregation we can treat them just as we would any other sinner or tax collector; we are in no danger of giving the impression that we support their conduct, because they are not even claiming to be related to us in the faith. 
In fact, in the other place in the NWT where the expression "no natural affection" is used, we have an additional idea in the context:
(Romans 1:28-2:2) . . .God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, . . . . disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in harmony with truth, against those who practice such things.