Srecko Sostar

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.
Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.
One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.
Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

I wouldn't look back at the 1st century so much in the context of one's beliefs (mine or yours) about events in the distant past.
Our reality today is to decide/discern whether we should accept or reject or more thoroughly consider, unencumbered with the influence of WTJWorg, GB's statements about their claims to be the only ones who correctly interpret the Bible the way they do, from their inception to the present day.
With the abundance of archival material available to us, authored/written by the people at WTJWorg, it is possible to see a chronology of doctrine. The text from the publications gives us a certain insight into the personality and condition of those behind the text. Also, by relating it to events inside and outside WTJWorg, we can see more clearly why some things (doctrines, instructions, interpretations) were written in one way (as irrefutable and the pinnacle of true knowledge) and later changed, more or less modified, adapted or completely rejected. And with some doctrines, it happened that they were thrown out for a while and then reintroduced as correct after a certain period of time (the so-called flip-flop).
It is unnecessary to question whether an individual believe or does not believe in God and his ability. That doesn't solve anything. The question must be asked whether we should believe in People who claim that God is speaking contradictory things through them, and that both are true.

I wouldn't look back at the 1st century so much in the context of one's beliefs (mine or yours) about events in the distant past.
Our reality today is to decide/discern whether we should accept or reject or more thoroughly consider, unencumbered with the influence of WTJWorg, GB's statements about their claims to be the only ones who correctly interpret the Bible the way they do, from their inception to the present day.
With the abundance of archival material available to us, authored/written by the people at WTJWorg, it is possible to see a chronology of doctrine. The text from the publications gives us a certain insight into the personality and condition of those behind the text. Also, by relating it to events inside and outside WTJWorg, we can see more clearly why some things (doctrines, instructions, interpretations) were written in one way (as irrefutable and the pinnacle of true knowledge) and later changed, more or less modified, adapted or completely rejected. And with some doctrines, it happened that they were thrown out for a while and then reintroduced as correct after a certain period of time (the so-called flip-flop).
It is unnecessary to question whether an individual believe or does not believe in God and his ability. That doesn't solve anything. The question must be asked whether we should believe in People who claim that God is speaking contradictory things through them, and that both are true.

…
 

…

No it did not help.
To me the whole thing was just rationalizing gobbledegook.  
I don’t care if you believe it or not, but if you are an Elder or the Governing Body you can  … and do … ruin my life and family relationships if I don’t believe pretentious crap.
The Society never needed more than one book of hard facts (besides the Bible), easily understood and to the point, without the pretentious crap.
But NOOOoooo …. they came out with really good NWT of the Bible, and then PARAPHRASED it, so the crap was justified.
 

People should be educated, and that means sending everyone to a fishing course. Move/to displace people to live in places with water so that they can hunt for themselves and have fresh fish in their hands. This will be possible only in NW system :))

Flesh we can eat.
Blood has to be returned to God.
He says the blood belongs to him!
It is symbolic.  A form of teaching obedience and respect … to God and the animal.
Interestingly enough, it seems to only apply to animals who have “the breath of life”.
I have never heard of anyone bleeding a fish.

It is depressingly sad when the WTB&TS finally adopts the right viewpoint, then screws it up listening to their accountants and lawyers to avoid being sued by indecisive people terrified of dying.
What part of “Abstain from Blood” is not crystal clear?
Stealing a car is wrong, whole, or in dozens of car parts. It’s STILL a stolen car!
If you separate whole blood into 13 components, and hook up 13 tubes to your body and pump it in, you don’t get disfellowshipped.
…. and the Society doesn’t get sued.
 

You have described well the true state and position of followers within WTJWorg. Namely, in the changes to the baptismal question that is publicly asked of the candidates immediately before the baptism, this reality was highlighted. The candidate does not tie his affiliation and loyalty to God and Christ, but only and exclusively to the Legal Entity that is registered as a non-profit Corporation/Organization.
2. Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization? -https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014954
I'm glad someone here has given a clearer view of the legal position of (ordinary) JW individuals, who are not considered as "members" in the new terminology, but only individuals, as "one of".
Of course, this will only be useful to those who will read this on a forum or blog, because the candidate with whom the "Bible study" is being conducted will not learn this from his "teacher".

I have slowly and carefully read the past 20,000 or so words, and both of you have many valid points, some I fully agree with, some I “somewhat” agree with, and some are wishful thinking.
It boils down to two elements:
1.) You have NO moral obligation to support ANYONE when they are wrong.
About ANYTHING.
2.) We all have a “natural conscience” and with every statement each individual alone has to decide what part is TRUTH, and what part is agenda.
The classic example is practice and policy on disfellowshipping.
Do we do it as Jesus said in Matthew 18?
NO WE DO NOT!
We even take hostages and punish THEM, 
Show me THAT in Matthew 18.
I 100% agree that we should conform to the standards and edicts of Congregational Authority ….
…. unless they are WRONG, and you can prove it.
OTHERWISE … we don’t even NEED a conscience !!
Sometimes a Christian is  called upon to sacrifice his life or his freedom for the sake of Christian Unity, but he should never be called upon to sacrifice his Conscience.
 
 

A congregation is a group of people, believers. The JW congregation is led and governed by elders. Elderse is set by GB. Consequently, the GB governs all doctrines and instructions in the congregation, not the group of believers. 
Submission to the JW congregation is direct submission to the GB at US Headquarter.

Sorry, but they put themselves in this or that category with their doctrines. They publicly say/claim that Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through the FDS.
Hey,  didn't to a single JW in the world explode his own brain after GB member Gerrit Losch stated that on JWTV? Memories fading.., collectively?
Gerrit Losch, to this day, has not been sanctioned for his statement by the rest of GB.
In fact, he should not be sanctioned because Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through WTJWorg GB, ..........but through HS.
But the rest of the GB team should have removed him for a simple reason. It causes public embarrassment, scandal and threatens followers' faith in the Organization.

The dilemma is 2000 years old. For/To WTJWorg GB, the Gospel was not transmitted from the Apostles.  So the chain of reliability of information transmission was broken a long time ago.
On a personal level in modern times (20th and 21st century) all generations of newly baptized persons are faced with the fact that the doctrines they accepted through BS with a brother or sister has been changed in the meantime. If they would adhere to the principle stated in your comment, then these people should not subject themselves to new interpretations that arose after their baptism.
Which statement is stronger? Perfect Direct Instruction from Galatians or the Imperfect Interpretation  by GB based on the biblical passage about "the light that shines more and more"?
The first thesis (direct instruction), is based on a clearly expressed position of the writer. Is the apostle's statement open to some interpretation that might be softened by the GB's interpretation about "progressive knowledge"? Shall we allow to water down the Apostolic faith?
One excludes the other, and GB must decide which Doctrine, between these two, it wants to implement in practice.
As an illustration of how an individual should act in such cases, we can use the well-known "command" to obey God more than people. In the JW doctrine that explains the position of Christians before worldly authority, it is ordered to disobey the authorities when that something goes against God's commandments. Any JW would therefore be able to reject GB doctrines and instructions without consequence, as he would HAVE to use his conscience in deciding. Not WTJWorg Doctrine and Instruction, but own Conscience.
The issue of shaping/reshaping the JW member conscience is a new topic.
 

…. When someone says “that’s not the question that should be asked…” because it’s offensive or inappropriate or awkward, or just plain embarrassing……
That’s the question you should be asking!
 
 

We touched on the topic of "tyranny" in previous comments. WTJWorg uses some forms that can be classified as "tyranny", because it does not allow members to question the GB, does not allow the asking of "uncomfortable" questions, does not allow the use of arguments that are not in accordance with the GB doctrines. 

sure…. lizards eat insects.
So did John the Baptist.
…. and that was before toothbrushes!

… “Food at the proper time” means different things to different people.
Ice cubes should probably not be made with hot dog water.
 

I think SS’s questions, whatever else they may or may not be the case, need to be addressed, if you want to have a dialog … it’s a two-way street.
in a forum such as this one asking someone not to ask certain questions reeks of petty tyranny at worst, and arrogance at best.
The way to handle it is if you don’t think the question is appropriate … too bad.
You are in the wrong room.
Just ignore the question and leave it unanswered. 
 

Are these sincere questions, or merely rhetorical questions intended to scandalize (i.e. cause to stumble) those seeking to find Christ’s Congregation? If you have sincere questions I’ll be glad to answer them. But if your questions are merely rhetorical, then please refrain from making use of such questions. Questions do not establish anything, nor are they a substitute for an argument. That is sophistry and it suggests insincerity and an unwillingness to make a positive case.

I put this term into the JW Library search engine, but I didn't get any results. That is significant. Apparently there is no official position on this or, on the other hand, WTJWorg does not cultivate the kind of relationship you describe. In fact, you yourself have determined that the sole purpose of "fellowshipping" between JWs and "unbelievers" is to "convert" them. A relationship based on this kind of "unity" grounded on such a motive is truly .... shameful. I have no words to describe my disgust at this way JWs look at their neighbors.
Although the description you gave of the JWs striving to get along well with the "unbelievers" seems positive at first glance, I must add that the general attitude of the WTJWorg and thus the members is reflected collectively in the notion that the "unbelievers" are destined for destruction at Armageddon and that they are "minds darkened by Satan". You cannot expect a correct, healthy human relationship from such a mindset and feeling. This world is labeled as "hostile" to JWs, and this is constantly repeated in your meetings.
And here we see an example of how some say one thing and others another (within WTJWorg).
Whether an individual JW feels good or bad under the "leadership of JW elders" should be left to the personal judgment of everyone in your congregations. I don't need to deal with that. What I feel I can say is how JW leaders (plus JW lawyers) "represent and testify for God" before courts and other public and government/al authorities and institutions. And that is something terrible to know and it would shake and scandalize many JWs to hear and see how they are deceiving the public. Jesus would probably have something to compare and point out if there are any contrasts.
 

…
 

@Srecko Sostar I'm really trying to understand where are you coming from and what is the point of all your post. Maybe @JW Insider or @Anna can help you on this topic because I'm speaking for myself in hopes that it might give you some help or insight.
As I see it, the gospels indicate that Jesus was intent upon choosing 12 followers in imitation of and continuity with the ethnic structure of the Hebrew nation. Hence, he is seen to be launching a new Israel. He is portrayed in the historical texts as investing these officers with his own divine power, commissioning them to teach in his name, and promising to send them divine help to carry out this task. Nowhere does he tell any of the twelve to write, nor does he write anything himself. In fact only 3 or 5 of the 12 actually do write anything (depending on scholarly debates). Instead the one and only earthly program he seems to have set in motion is the establishment of a Congregation. Following the divine teaching method of embedding revelation within a cohesive historical community (the sheltered environment of Hebrew society and culture), he reshapes ancient Israel. Instead of initiating a religion solely based on scriptures, he establishes a global community that allows divine messages to spread worldwide while preserving their essence. 
As I already mentioned to you, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. (Restorationism) So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
Here's an excerpt from a JW historian that traces the Watchtower roots, taken from his introductory chapter from Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization. I think @JW Insider disagrees with some minor points but generally agrees with the summary:
 
The Roots of Watch Tower Belief
I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell's belief system. So what follows doesn't even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of 'tastes' - a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. I will take you no further back than the 16th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in Europe, but Russell's acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

Before I proceed I should note that Russell's prophetic views are not the only part of his doctrinal set with roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy. The latter was common enough that William Lyford [c. 1598-1653], a Puritan clergyman, wrote The Plain Man's Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil primarily to refute prevalent non-Trinitarian belief.

Anti-Trinitarian thought persisted despite attempts to quell it. Watchtower writers suggest that, among others, Thomas Emlyn stands in the history of their faith. Emlyn was republished in America. There is no proof that Russell read any of his work, though he may have come to Emlyn through reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall.  Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America and extracts from it and his catechism were summarized in tracts and the catechism was published entire in 1810. William Jones The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, written to counter anti-Trinitarian agitation in Britain, was republished in 1816. In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sabellianism or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine [a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism] from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a far larger trend.
The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to 17 Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell-era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional Immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and, as it came Russell, in the reformation era. The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to Russell, in America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly-held in Russell's as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell's supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only seemingly an accident. We see it in the pages of Zion's Watch Tower when new adherents believe Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands was an act of divine providence.
Both in Britain and in the American colonies that 'marvels' portended divine messages was a strongly held belief. In the pre-scientific era, a strayed horse, a comet, a cloud's shape, were all messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. The Gospels say that Jesus predicted a proliferation of earthquakes as a peculiar sign of the last days. In the pre-scientific era this Biblical statement was combined with lack of knowledge, resulting in all earthquakes being seen as the impending apocalyptic judgment or as God's warning to a wayward people. Charles and John Wesley saw the London, Lisbon and Boston, Massachusetts, earthquakes of the 1750s in this light, writing hymns and preaching sermons to that effect. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeenth Century, but the belief in divine providence persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God's guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell's experience we see this in his narration of a fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson, and we see it in his belief that all Christians received guidance through divinely inspired dreams.
Colonial era almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell's willingness to credit astrology even while - in Russell's case - seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England's expectation that all submit to its ritual dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19 Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only -committed, obedient Christians- is the background to Russell's criticism of morally compromised churches. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower and Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative American churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom. While Russell's connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are as important as the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came.

Russell-era meeting format derives from colonial-era structure, sometimes modified to accommodate groups who lacked leadership. The Russellite Prayer, Praise and Testimony meetings come from non-conformist belief systems. Opportunities, sometimes rare and occasionally more frequent, to testify to one's faith and to an incident of Divine Providence, gave colonial-era believers a sense of unity, of belonging to the Body of Christ. Russell's persistent condemnation of creeds and sectarianism derives from the same source. It can be traced to the Reformation Era and its aftermath. Writers and surviving sermons from that era often condemn divisions and false teachings, frequently focusing on the identity of the prophetic Babylon the Great and identifying her daughters as sects infected with false belief and false practice. For instance Benjamin Keach [1687] identified Babylon the Great as the Catholic Church and her harlot daughters as in a "spiritual sense ... unclean Communities". In America after the French and Indian War [Seven Years' War], sectarian divisions were seen as harmful to the cause of Christ. This did not lead to unity or suspension of creedal belief but to a semblance of peace between denominations. Post-Revolution commentators continued this. The Catholic Church retained its status as mystic Babylon; denominational Protestant churches were Babylon's harlot-daughters.

Radical Pietists immigrated to America from Britain, Germany and Switzerland, settling in Pennsylvania, New England and South Carolina. They were distinguished by a rejection of sectarianism. In Britain the Village Itinerancy Society was founded in 1796 by laymen who believed that the Millennium impended and that "what the nation needed was an undenominational, and by implication, unordained army of itinerants charged with the awesome responsibility of bringing God's pure word, undefiled by party or sect to a 'perishing multitude." Closer to Russell's day Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin, then both instructors at the German Reformed seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, developed a 'manifesto that included "the evil of sectarianism, and the imperative of unity within the church." They saw "rationalism and sectarianism" as the greatest dangers to the church. Claude Welch suggested that the movement derived from Nevin and Schaff's manifesto died out after the Civil War. It did not, and we find it expressed in various ways. Russellite rejection of sectarianism with its dependence on creeds derives from this long heritage. This is true of other small fellowships who described themselves as nonsectarian and of those independent congregations who fellowshipped on the basis of faith alone and not on the basis of creedal doctrine."
 

I think what SS was referring to, or alluding to was what  if Russell and Rutherford had been  Chinese …. so rourd the irrustrations in the Socrities pubrications.