Srecko Sostar

I had different "motive" why i "had to" quit school in the middle of second grade of high school. (In Croatia we have 8 grades in Primary School and then 4 grades in High School. ......After you can go to "Higher Education" aka University .... ahahaha)
To come back ... In first and second grade, school has program (Communism era) of learning about weapons inside subject called,  in free translation "Pre-military training". In first grade you learned theoretically and in second grade teacher bringing rifles and after students going to shooting place to shoot one or few bullets in wooden target, ...I guess it was wooden :))) .
If you not complete and went to shooting, you can't get evaluation and in final missed to passed a school class, year. I have been baptized in that same month, one Sunday in November 1977. And next day, in Monday, had to, must to "defend"  my "christian belief" in front of teacher. Of course, without happy outcome for me :)))). Well, as i can not see any future in this, i quit school and looking for some job. Imagine. Even elders made meeting in congregation with me to ask about what was happen, but i felt as i was suspected of something from elders.
What can you do without some school or skills or practice and experience? But after one year i get job and learning to be bookbinder in one small workshop not far from home place, in fact 10-15 minutes by walk.....  Doing that for some 1,5 year, in meanwhile went to prison for known reason, and then continue next 1,5 year at same workshop.
 

... many, many years ago i heard JW people talking the same "story"here mentioned. 
You open interesting question. Why would god provide help, protection to some JW and not to other JW. When i was much younger, that means, many, many years ago ... again, i heard another "story", true or not, do not know. Some young sisters preached  from house to house (from flat to flat in building) to some young man. A re-visit was agreed. They came next time and then several men raped them.
So, again why would "angels that stand around you as protectors" in preaching service and in life, generally, allowed this crime to happened ?????????????????????????????
Is the answer? To be proved how this World is in power of evil one????... or maybe ...."People must answer on Universal Questions about god's sovereignty, ...or this .....Would people obey god from Love?????? .... or maybe ... So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no one knows whether love or hate awaits them. 2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad,[a] the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not........
I have seen something else under the sun:
The race is not to the swift
    or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
    or wealth to the brilliant
    or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all.
Please, Do not joke/yoke me with this or similar answers !!!!!!!!!

ahh, do not worry, this typing errors comes with age and common vision problems  

This sounds correct, and it's an excellent way to explain how the holy spirit would lead them into all truth, yet Paul said that still see incompletely and imperfectly, as if looking into a hazy mirror.
This is why I was a bit disappointed at the implication by GJ that seems limiting when it says that holy spirt created the Bible for us (true) but it seems like the holy spirit is not described as playing a part in the process of helping the GB understand it. It's presented as if the HS has already done its work and congealed itself into the Bible, but reading and rationalizing and remembering how verses might apply is the way the holy spirit "acts." He did mention prayer but gave no connection to the process. It ends up sounding like the way people apply Dylan lyrics to their lives or Shakespeare quotes to describe an experience or a "moral" of a story. (The difference being that the Bible "contains" holy spirit.) 
His analogy to the Bible as a "constitution" was very appropriate for the legal setting, but it too is a bit disappointing in the context of how the Governing Body, in effect acts like a congress to pass new and improved bills (doctrines) based on a majority if not unanimous voting.
And there's that historical problem. If holy spirit is needed to understand (and I thin it is) then what does this say about doctrines that are constantly changed, sometimes back and forth.

ahh, do not worry, this typing errors comes with age and common vision problems  

@Anna quote " They wouldn't need anyone to teach them (perhaps such as the scribes and pharisees?). " 
Or a Governing Body ? 
Quote "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." The clue comes in the last 4 words 
What the W/t writer is saying is that the Anointed need instruction from the GB / Writing dept' just like everyone else.
Quote "Otherwise you would be saying God discriminates on account of position, that somebody with a higher position has more value in God’s eyes than someone of a lowly position. "
If 'Experiences' (in Yearbooks / Watchtowers etc)  are to be believed, then it would seem that God / Jesus Christ has / have saved some brothers/sisters in certain circumstances, but not saved other brothers/sisters in other circumstances. Now both God and His Son work in their own ways, working together as one, and i would never question what they do. I am humble enough to know that their ways are much higher than mine. But they must have their reasons for saving some and not others. (If experiencies are to be believed). 
An example of a supposed 'experience' : A sister was on the ministry and knocked on the door of a man. The man turned her away. The man was later arrested for rape/murder of a woman in his own home. When questioned as to why he did not invite the sister in etc, as she had been his first visitor. The man said that she 'had a man stood either side of her', she was not alone. But the sister had gone in to the ministry alone, so the 'man either side of her' must have been angels guarding her. ... True or false I do not know, but I do know it was offered as an 'experience' at a meeting a long time ago. 
 
 

Perhaps it's misguided, but it's a view from "Witness" that I agree with 100 percent.
Fred Franz was very intelligent, of course. But when I recorded two interviews with him for over an hour each, I was forced to come to my own conclusions about him based on the content of things he said, and certain expressions he used.
I think most of what you need to know about him comes from his September 1975 Gilead Talk which I have already linked to in the past. I'm not talking about his argument against an active Governing Body that would form a committee, or ecclesiastical body of some kind, although even that says something that he would use that opportunity for a political speech directed at the other members of the Governing Body disguised only slightly by working in some awkward references to the Gilead students. (Like, 'And don't you get the idea that you need to form committees in the countries to which you have been assigned!')
The Watchtower summarized his talk with only vague references to what it was really about:
*** w75 11/1 p. 672 Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work ***
Addressing the graduates, F. W. Franz showed why they were not being sent by any ecclesiastical body such as exists in the churches of Christendom. According to the Scriptures, neither Philip nor the apostle Paul, two outstanding evangelizers or missionaries in the first century C.E., received missionary assignments from the apostolic body at Jerusalem. Both men did their work under the direction of the real head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ. Paul had, in fact, been directly chosen by Jesus as an apostle to the nations. Later, at the direction of God’s spirit, Paul and his companion Barnabas were sent out from the Antioch congregation. Both men recognized their assignment as having come, not from men, but from Jesus Christ.
I'm referring more to his comments about 1975 in that same talk. The typical anti-JW sites, usually cut off the talk before he gets to these comments because those sites are more concerned with his views against the Governing Body. But I'm sure you can find the whole talk somewhere. It's what he says after he pulls out his Jewish calendar to show how it was now the 2nd day of Tishri 1976, and therefore now, "the 2nd day of the 7th millennium of man's existence here on earth." That statement got what sounded like the biggest cheer of the talk.
I don't know if he intended it, but it recalled the day that C.T.Russell came down to the dining room on October 1st, 1914 per the Watchtower of that time period (and later changed to October 4th, and currently stated as October 2nd) to announce that the 'Gentile Times have ended!'  F.Franz then rambled on about some wonderful, "startling, surprising, happifying things" of numerical significance, since this was the 59th Class, meaning that the 60th was about to start later that year, and "60" should remind us that 6,000 years is 60 centuries. Isn't that amazing!?!?! That this class 59 was only one number away from 60, which somehow gave new significance to 1975.
If you pay close attention to his books on Daniel's prophecy (and others) you will see some of the same types of unspiritual thinking.  For me, F.Franz proved to be a prime example of why we should not put our trust in a man:
(Psalm 146:3) . . . Do not put your trust in . . . a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
 

I think I see now what you’re saying.    Jesus raised the bar to exceed the written laws given to the Jews, allowing sinless perfection in love to be obtained through the writing of the laws on the heart. Heb 10:9-18  He introduced a New Covenant, one where we worship in spirit and truth, sanctifying us through truth. 
The Pharisees were good at tweaking, bending and adding to God’s laws, making the load impossible for the people bear.  It all sounds very familiar 😊   The organization has done the same thing with the teachings of Christ.  It spiritually murders, steals, covets and commits spiritual adultery by bending Christ’s decrees to be supplemented by the decrees of men.  A mediator for salvation comes between Christ and ourselves – the organization. 
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.  Rom 13:8-10
Yet, if this new “law” in Christ is broken, God’s Spirit of protection is removed and condemnation follows.  God has given the judgment to Christ, but the executor is Satan, the Destroyer, and always has been. 1 Cor 10:8-11 
I always remember Moses’ words to a stubborn people, forever sinning against God’s decrees  –
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”  Deut 30:19
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6
While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”  Matt 17:5

On this particular matter anyway. The next line after Prov 3:5,6 is verse 7: "Do not become wise in your own eyes." I think that the majority of witnesses back in the 1970's were already aware that any discussion of prophetic books or chronology was always written by him or was a repetition of ideas he had already written. This goes all the way back to discussions of every Bible book or passage that touched on prophecy since 1942. In the 1968 Watchtower he was actually arguing against points he himself had made in 1955. But books and articles on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelation, Daniel, Haggai, etc., along with obscure meanings of Jesus' parables were all from him, and except for his own changes, no one else dared "mess" with those explanations until he died.
These interpretations of prophecy, also, were not written in such a way that they were open to questioning. There was one explanation and it was "the truth" until he changed it.

Isa 55:8,9; Num 23:19
Fred Franz had more faith in himself, than in God.  Prov 3:5,6

I'm saying that all the argumentation was put to use in order to counter the cautionary statements, even cautionary statements of Jesus himself. And look at the expressions and how carefully they were crafted to come as close as possible to saying what people were admittedly thinking. And they were encouraged to think that these conclusions were the ones that God would consider the most appropriate and most fitting and the one that would best fit his loving purpose. Note the question at the bottom of the page for this paragraph in "Life Everlasting:"
30  LIFE EVERLASTING-IN FREEDOM OF THE SONS OF GOD
43 HOW appropriate it would be for Jehovah God
to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand
years a sabbath period of rest and release,
a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of
liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants!
This would be most timely for mankind. It would
also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember,
mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book
of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus
Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial
reign of Christ. Prophetically Jesus Christ,
when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning
himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is
what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12:s) It
would not be by mere chance or accident but
would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah
God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the
"Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man's existence.
--------
43. What act on God's part would be most timely for mankind
and most fitting in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose?

The answer obviously is that it would be most fitting for God to make this upcoming 7th period of 1,000 years to be the start of the millennial reign of Christ.
Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do?
It's also pretty clear from this "hubris" why Frederick Franz was sometimes called "the Oracle." This is an expression I heard myself more than once.

You are asking how I could say that F.Franz was using deception to get people to think he was saying something he wasn't really saying. And you want to know how, if that was true, I could also say that:
Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting -- In Freedom of the Sons of God.")
Very simple. He did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world (or system of things) in 1975 by the fact that he never every claimed that that the end would happen in 1975. As I said, he got people to think he was saying one thing "while not quite saying it."
This is exactly why I said what I did. He knew the assumption that was being made by his listeners. He was creating that assumption by coming as close to saying it without quite saying it. But he would never endorse that assumption. He was not dumb. Far from it. He heard how the audience was laughing and applauding, just as he had heard how the Service Department was responding with statements in the KM about how we might have only have a few short months left, and that it is heart-warming to hear of people selling their homes to spend the rest of this system in the pioneer work. He knew what District and Circuit Overseers were saying about how, if you read the Watchtower carefully, you know what they are really trying to say. "Stay Alive Until '75!" In fact, he knew that this was exactly what people were saying in the 1920s: "Stay Alive Until 1925!"
He knew what people were thinking because he admitted he knew --in the same talk. So he gets the big laugh by talking about all the things that MIGHT happen in 1975, and then adding "but we're not saying." When he says 'and don't any of you go saying' he can tell by the laughter and applause that they are taking it as if they have some secret information that they know because they are entitled to know, but not the rest of the world.
It actually would have been very easy to clarify, but he never did. And I realized that everything he was saying in that talk could be understood ambiguously, and I think this is the same "game" he was playing way back in 1968. For example, he knew that people would be saying: "But what about the scripture where Jesus said, no one knows the day or the hour." Circuit overseers would take this verse and comment, "Yes he said no one would know the day or the hour - but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" How had F.Franz handled it? He addressed that verse by saying that "now is not the time to be toying with that verse." What does that mean? Again, ambiguity:
*** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . .
That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now. . .  it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind! . . . Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes.
1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!
36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?
When you make one or two ambiguous expression in the midst of 10 clear ones, it's understandable and you still have clarity. But when 8 out of 10 are ambiguous and only 2 shows clarity (by mentioning speculation, or possibilities). It's easy to reinterpret the clearer expressions about possibility into the ambiguous ones that can be interpreted as expressing a higher level of certainty and confidence.

I mean on change that is visible in aspects as; Kill "apostates"  vs turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.    100% change
The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
“If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.
David prayer against his enemies:
May the table set before them become a snare;
    may it become retribution and a trap.
23 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
    and their backs be bent forever.
24 Pour out your wrath on them;
    let your fierce anger overtake them.
25 May their place be deserted;
    let there be no one to dwell in their tents.
26 For they persecute those you wound
    and talk about the pain of those you hurt.
27 Charge them with crime upon crime;
    do not let them share in your salvation.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
    and not be listed with the righteous.

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression:
And also here:
At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit  the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

What angers them is probably your attitude. 
 

"Pops", "Bud," from a 15 year old that thinks he knows everything. Oh dear.
From a 'person' that uses a black ghost to identify with. Interesting, from a supposed JW. 
Quote "There's one person in particular who is a special case whereas I made promise to meet with her at least 2-3 times a week. It is something that is both personal and private." 
Um, are you a young man meeting up with a female in private ? That is a disfellowshipping offence you know. No two witnesses needed to accuse you of fornication. GB rules. 
Quote 'Anti-pauline is a legitimate expression'. Yes so is homophobia. What point are you trying to prove ? 
I love and believe Paul's writings to the congregations. However my feelings are that Paul was talking to those of the Heavenly Class / the Anointed, not to any of the earthly class. More is expected of the Anointed because they have been given more responsibility and have a greater reward. (Being in heaven with God and Jesus Christ is surely a greater award, even though a pure life here on Earth will be wonderful ).
Quote "Can you give an example of non scriptural rules ? "  
The two witness rule concerning Child Abuse. 
The misuse of the scripture about the Superior Authorities, from 1929 to 1962  I believe. 
The accusation of fornication if a man and woman enters a place with no other Witnesses with them. 
( But no accusation about two men or two women, which could be seen by others are homosexuality ).
The Blood Issue rules that keep changing. 
The shunning rules, when a person 'resigns' from the JW Org. 
Reasons the GB use for disfellowshipping. (This touches on other subjects but would make another topic).
So young person, I'm not your 'Pops' and I'm not your 'Bud'. 
You completely lost your side of this discussion by using those expressions, and yes, you showed yourself as Not having the Mind of Christ

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.
 

Of course, people have to change previous doctrinal nonsense. If doctrinal nonsense including some trivial ideas that not affect your life in important things then it can be possible for all JW to laugh together on that.
But when some doctrinal nonsense cause prison, death, personal and family problems ---- ???? what comfort and what kind of love will GB Teachers  give you as compensation and help?    
As we can see, from past to today, they give you another nonsense.

Can't you see this as the perfect setup for a "Wicked Slave" to wield authority over Christ's other slaves?  Matt 24:48-51  It shows the organization for the scam it is; not only are the anointed scattered, they CANNOT bond, according to your magazines.  They cannot reveal their identity as one of Christ's slaves.    That would threaten the rule of the GB.  Yes, it is clever how the anointed in the organization are unable to "dispense spiritual food", even if by letter form to the ruling authority.  Luke 22:24-27  It is easier to throw them out, rather than let them gather and bring their own spiritual food to the table.  John 16:2    
 

Now this is very wrong indeed. However I'm wondering if this fits in with the misuse of the Romans 13 scripture concerning the 'superior authorities'. 
The Society / GB were still misusing this scripture until 1962 I think. So JW's could not use that scripture correctly and say they had to obey the Superior Authorities' meaning the Government / Secular Authority..... Because the Society /GB were telling lies and pretending it meant God and Jesus Christ. 
From 1929 to 1962, the Superior Authorities became “the Most High God Jehovah and his exalted Son Jesus Christ.” (This Means Everlasting Life (1950) p.197)
Which is absolutely stupid as the scripture says :- 
 Let every person* be in subjection to the superior authorities,a for there is no authority except by God;b the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.c 2  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.
Note :  'stand placed in their relative positions by God'. So if you believed the Society /GB they were saying that the Most High God Jehovah, was 'placed in his relative positions by God'. It makes no sense at all. 
Now back to other stupid ideas.
1. that communal work was as bad as killing people. 
2. that it really mattered who gave the  orders. 
Which takes us back to Superior Authorities being placed in their position by GOD. And if the Armed Forces are part of the Superior Authority because they enforce that authority, then so be it. 
The fact that it was perceived being "the same as"   shows a complete lack of spiritual guidance. 
 

Is this some sort of defence of the Society /GB ? If it is it's a poor try. 
Yes to suffer for the reason of serving GOD is a good thing, BUT to suffer for the reason of serving MEN (the society /GB ) will never be a good thing.
'Put not your trust in earthling man, in whom no salvation belongs'.  Those men in charge misused their 'power' that is so obvious. 

@JW Insider Quote "If he answered, “Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the judge, and thus had broken his integrity. "
Broken his integrity to whom though ? The Society / GB obviously. Not his integrity to God. 
So the Society / GB were demanding that these men serve the Society /GB..
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
Quote " In England, there were 1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. "
As a side note. 
The 'big house' that i am 'caretaker' of, was known as Spicelands in the 1940's. It was run by Quakers and took in conscientious objectors. They were taught farming work and worked on the land around the house. 

Still, you did have to have some faith in the doctors, that they would make you feel better, otherwise you wouldn't have gone in to hospital in the first place surely. The same with the Police. You must have some faith in them otherwise why bother reporting the alleged child abuse to them? And why else would you think it was important for the elders of your congregation to report the matter?
Well all I can say to that is change is inevitable as no one gets everything right the first time. It's also good to put things into proper perspective and honestly evaluate whether the change has been for the better or for worse. Some change is logical. The FDS being only the members of the GB make practical sense as most of the other anointed are scattered all over the earth and are in different time zones, so to expect for them to sit in on, and contribute to the dispensing of spiritual food would be unrealistic. In any case, I don't think everyone of the other anointed, with a few exceptions, ever contributed to the dispensing of spiritual food (apart from their own preaching, just like all the other Witnesses), so it has always been symbolic anyway. The generation teaching obviously had to change because time ran out. You are right, we don't have to look far to find them. Here is a whole list of teachings that were revised or updated: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
Do you think it would have been better to stick to the previous understanding and never change anything?
Well they obviously believe they are promoting God's thinking. Every reason or suggestion for anything is always backed up by a myriad scriptures. So I think you must be talking bout the interpretation of scripture. Wrong interpretation or misunderstanding of scripture is not a sin, it is  part of progressive understanding, making mistakes is a natural part of learning. But again, it's good to put this into perspective, have all the wrong interpretations caused harm? A few have caused some harm, but the vast majority have not. And none of these mistakes have been done in malice or for some personal gain. We need to be able to forgive our brothers. I am sure you would agree this is a Christlike attitude to have. So:
Do you have an example of a scripture that has been misused to rule over others?
I am not sue where the video is either, but I know that Br. Lett wasn't referring to the child abuse situation as lies from apostates. He said something to the effect that saying we deny or ignore child abuse are apostate lies. We do not deny or ignore child abuse.
I don't know what kind of ministry you were doing but any claim, whether spoken or pointed to in JW literature has to be substantiated by scripture. Everyone does it differently, but I always say regarding the magazines for example, that's its not what we say, it's what the Bible says and to make sure to check all the scriptures that are cited. The publication are merely Bible aids and not there to replace the Bible. That's the big difference.

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire."
Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother.
Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote.
You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere.
That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version:
The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the
fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove
itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance.
One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost
during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate
with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy
and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile
activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents
an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason
that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural
position, imposed by organizational authority.
Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely
doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience
of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that
intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even
reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably,
the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and
contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position
enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation
as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon
for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing
so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may
now be operative in this area.”
In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it
deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the
good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that
were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the
Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office
committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only
all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but
even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence.
They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect,
shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who
held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place.
In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom."
But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization
even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being
passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience
would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do
hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative
but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered,
“Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was
considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the
judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed,
approved response already quoted, and then the judge in
sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service,
he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the
apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1
Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and
the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh.
This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United
States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to
prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because
of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in
adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions
allowing them to perform other service of a non-military
nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were
1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the
policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris-
ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying
the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy
there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.
 

Just one moment for say something as general conversation :)))
In this part of world in that period of time (until 1988/89, with fall of Wall and democratic changes in East Europe and in Yugoslavia) there is no alternative service. After, with time, came optional services with this GB "philosophy". Who is in charge and order service? Nonsense of sort, for sure.
Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. 
Similar as to  expectations and obligation on JW brothers to not wearing beards :)))). If you want be ok for God, for congregation, do shave every day :))) Issue is not for comparison, but "principle" coming from same idea. To be different, to not to be "part of the world", "to be holy".
Levels of our obligations and obeys to man, is in gradation. You will obey something to certain level, until your "conscience" or belonging to particular group, or Bible verse (interpretation of that verse) said you to NOT doing or obey man, authority or so.
Similar is with army service. If young man wearing uniform, running whole day to get condition, cleaning, learning about weapons, shooting and so ... but not hurt anyone, then some will find such activity to be acceptable. When somebody order you to kill other people, that is situation in what you must have your stand and do as you think is right.
Some religious groups are very active in "proselytizing", preaching to other people. Some have unique "uniforms" and others are "civilians". But their "service" as "soldier of Christ" or "soldier" of their church, can bring also some good and some very bad results. This religious service in the name of god are called "spiritual battles". And all such "soldiers" are able, in spiritual sense, accidentally or purposely, to hurt and to "kill" other people with, sometimes,  persistent consequences. Religious teachings are the "bullets".
Parable...... Well, FDS aka GB are "Army officers" for 8 mil JW members. Would you as  an ordinary JW  rank and file "soldier" obey all commands coming from GB "superior authority"??