BillyTheKid46

Some critics need to get a job.

There is more "projection" going on here than a Drive-In Theater for Brontosaurs !
... ever think about chasing garbage trucks as a hobby?
 

The Society never apologizes for anything they totally screw up ....  and to the best of my knowledge, NEVER has apologized for anything in ruining peoples' lives, historically,  .... because they can just change the definitions of what words mean ("new light"), or where it is to their advantage to do so to push the agenda,  keep them so ambiguous, they can mean ANYTHING.
Here is the test (and perhaps I am wrong because I missed it somewhere along the line ... please correct me if I am wrong ....):
How EXACTLY does the Society define "Brazen Conduct"?
What is included?
What is excluded?
How about ten or so REAL WORLD, CONTEMPORARY unambiguous examples?
To the best of my knowledge ... currently it can include anything the Elders don't like.
If I am wrong, please point it out to me, and I will change my viewpoint, and embarrassed, beg your humble pardon.
I think we need an 18 paragraph unambiguous, non touchy-freely and non scripturally recursive,  direct and comprehensive Watchtower Article on this ONE topic only .... instead of the usual circular logic topics reiterated, over, and over, and over, and over ...
...and over and over and over and over.
I am sure I would stay Awake!, for THAT one.
 
 

I did not agree with all of your post, where I quoted from you the above comment ... but I "upvoted" it anyway, because I know your quoted cringeworthy statement is true.
... just any JW try it at the next Watchtower Study.
.... raise your hand and ask a tough question, using unapproved words.
.... after the meeting, you would have to get back to the parking lot through infamous "ROOM 101".
This was first "legally" established in the not-so Super Secret 2010 Elders' Handbook, with the  term "Brazen" conduct, which was a catch-all that could include ANYTHING ..... and when it hit the fan that there was no Biblical backup for this,  three years later the 2013 "Silver Sword" NWT came out with the word "Brazen" several times ... WITH THE WHOLE BIBLE PARAPHRASED, of all things ... THE WHOLE BIBLE "SIMPLIFIED" ... to back up  the direction given three years earlier.

... ever notice that the Popes all look all worn out and hunched over, threatening to fall and impale themselves on their bejeweled  gold sheep catcher sticks ?
... makes me tired just watching !
It's the 30 pounds of clothes, the 8 pound gold crosses, and 15 pound two-story hats glued on with denture cream..
...  a lot for ANY 82 year olds.
Seven more pounds  .. same as a bag of concrete!

I never thought of the WTB&TS as having a hierarchy ... the thought never crossed my mind ... perhaps because they did not have the clown suits that the Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, and many others have .... until:
1.) In several court transcripts where the Society was confiscating real estate from local congregations, and the congregations sued the Society, the Watchtower Lawyers declared and asserted under oath that no individual person owned the Kingdom Halls, and that they had the right to appoint and remove trustees in whose positions the Kingdom Halls were titled, BECAUSE, the Organization WAS a hierarchy, EXACTLY like the Catholic Church, and that the "Church" owned all Jehovah's Witnesses'  property, everywhere,  no matter whose name it was in, or how it was titled, and,
2.)  In child sexual abuse cases, the Society in many places, many times has asserted in secular courts, under oath, that the Elders are Clergy, and are entitled to "Clergy-Penitent Privilege" of confidentiality, and as such were not legally obligated to report the crimes.
I had never EVER heard these things asserted at the Kingdom Halls, and in paying attention since 1962, was frankly stunned by these sworn testimony (under oath)  assertions, declarations and/or admissions in the secular civil courts.
That is why I read full transcripts of the Society's court cases, when I find them ... as what is said at the Kingdom Halls, and what is said in court ( ... under oath ... ) is quite often  two (or more ...) dramatically different things.
I never remember any Kingdom Hall assertions, that we were "Clergy", entitled to any special legal privileges ... only that we were "Ministers", and could assert that our commission as ministers was equal to clergy's "ordinations" ...  although I remember from circa 1974-82  that the ex-Bethelite Pioneer Brother that ran off with my first wife  liked to witness in the jails and prisons, as he would pull the "Minister Card", and they would give him clergy privileges to go in and out any time it suited him.
Perhaps the next step is start baptizing young children, and have some kind of special JW clown suits like Christendom has ..... perhaps with a Nautical theme.
I often wonder about the Catholics' Heirchy ... where do they get those 15 pound hats?

My first downvote ever, since being a member here.  I am awestruck by the stupidity.  Notice, I am not calling you "stupid", but sir, your brain as well as your heart totally lacks spiritual sensitivity.  I feel so sorry for you.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A funny thing was that in Bristol Filton Congregation, here in England,  brothers would wear football ties to support their favorite football teams   Now wasn't that being no part of the world  , and didn't it cause bad feelings amongst brothers that supported different teams. Somethings you see in the Org do really make ya laugh. 
JW Org ties being sold online then are they ?  I remember a line from a film "The money is in the merchandise"...... 

awww, did your feelers get hurt? 
 
It is the same thing as the ones BTK posted and that in which many jws have scoffed at when it comes to those wearing a cross necklace or anything related to a cross. It just hurts when the hypocrisy hits you in the face doesn't it Jeff. 

It seems how i will lose very quickly my  Total Reputation with BTK down votes :)))))) What if exactly that is his Secret Mission .... to DFD me from this place ? 

I do believe that some Americans used to have 'special' number plates for their cars, such as JAH -1 

For me, it's stupidity and bad taste. :)))

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.
I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

Not too many people know about the breakthroughs of the Klingon Language Institute, either, and THEY can spit and yell at the same time!

I've had to scale it down a bit, eliminating the sliding boards, and helicopter pad for the chickens with choppers.
CHICKENS IN CHOPPERS .mp4

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

I am glad that JWI is here to do the heavy lifting .... I am building a chicken coop and run for 18 chickens, and I am pooped.

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.
I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 
Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 
I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)
I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.
Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."
(Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.) (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .
(Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).
Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,
(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.
It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

@TrueTomHarley don't talk like a wet cabbage Tom.
It's just your dream that you want opposers, as you call them, to think that way. 
I've already given a suggestion as to how a group of leaders could be earthwide and still act as 'one', and they would have their fingers on the pulse in each country. They would know the laws and traditions and problems in their own country. They wouldknow exactly how to word things and to deal with specific info'
I think you only love it so much as the 8 men are basically all American white men. 

@JW Insider Having just read your comment I would say you are too close to the GB to make a balanced appraisal.
If you are 'friends' with them then your judgement could be clouded by such. 
You have said yourself they :  call themselves the "Governing Body"  they have taken upon themselves.  
 Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse.
So here we have 8 men that chose to be the Governing Body, then call themselves the 'Faithful and discreet slave', placing themselves above all the Anointed (Luke 14 v 11).
They deliberately 'err' (do things wrong) and then use the excuse that they are not inspired. 
So these faults that you have mentioned (above) , the GB are spreading Earthwide. Yet you love them for it ? 
The increase in JW's is in uneducated / less well educated lands. The reasons are obvious. Those people do not dig deep enough into the GB and it's Org, before committing themselves to it.  I was also like that of course, I believed all i was told, then believed again when told of changes, I was as blind as those less educated ones are. 
The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons).  So 12 Apostles was too many was it ? 
There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc.
They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.
Which is it ? Do other people handle the communications or do the GB hear the questions ? Basically what I'm saying is that ordinary congregants questions and complaints NEVER reach the GB. I wrote to the London Bethel once and the reply was horrific. They basically told me to not bother them and to ask my local elders. However i wanted an opinion from those I thought would have more knowledge and understanding. How wrong I was. 
They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching.
This one made me laugh !   Is that why they talk so much about young men in tight 'pants' and also about masterbation.  Be real, they have no idea what to teach and what to leaver to people's personal conscience. 
They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from.
Dream on. They knew about the Child Sexual Abuse problem years ago. How 'quickly' have they dealt with it ? 
But it's been a known thing for the JW Org / W/t Soc / Bible students to deliberately drag it's heels when it might upset some folks. 
It took them 30 years to give up Christmas even though they knew it was wrong in the late 1800's.
It took them 70 years to give up Smoking even though they knew that was wrong too.  Not too bright, no, they didn't want to lose congregants.  
It they has sorted the CSA issues properly and quickly I think they would have lost too many elders.
 Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.
Now this is one in my favour I think. I have suggested that anointed brothers from different countries should form the Leaders of the JW Org. With world wide web communication, world wide telephone communication, and does anyone still use Fax  to send hard copy documents ?   There is no shortage of ways of communication around the globe.  So why have mainly 8 American men running the show ?  Would make much more sense to have people that know their countries laws and traditions. 
I'll finish on this one. 
 As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body."
If anyone questions or criticises the GB they are accused of 'causing a division in the congregation' and can be disfellowshipped. 

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double honor" for their hard work and the heavy responsibility they have taken upon themselves. Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. I'm not trying to divert this topic to the specifics of any other issues of doctrines and procedures.
I know you'll disagree, but this is just to explain my own view. It's just that I wanted you to know that I think these particular elders, who call themselves a Governing Body, have put themselves in a unique and valuable position for the overall benefit of congregations worldwide. 
They have years of experience studying, speaking, and teaching on Bible topics. They are in a position to discuss certain difficult doctrinal issues with others who have years of experience studying the Bible. The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons). There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help handle related issues of logistics or issues of lesser importance. There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc. They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.  They have years of experience working with various congregations. They have years of experience traveling to congregations in various places in the world to be aware of various customs and practices that differ from their own. They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching. They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from. Of course, this is fraught with all kinds of dangers and potential abuse. Or a small mistake can quickly turn into a large one. Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.
There are other things, of course, but these ones are important to me.
Surely you would think that in any church or congregation there might be a need for organization and leadership. Agreeing on meeting times, topics to speak about, topics for Bible study, activities, care for the building, what to do with contributions, and even issues of who might join the church, who might need to be dismissed from the church, who might need counsel or adjustment, who might have special needs the church can take care of, etc., etc.
Most people would have no problem with this on a local church-by-church basis. But here we have tens of thousands of these congregations all around the world, and all of them are happy to teach exactly the same message. A group of elders who are deemed capable of handling this bigger responsibility is, in essence, no different than the local congregations. It's just that some of their functions will necessarily carry even greater responsibility.
This might be true. But it can also just be a logistical problem. Remember how Moses handled the millions in a single "congregation" that began draining his time and energy. He ended up appointing a "hierarchy of command" similar to any large army or large business corporation, so that concerns could be handled more efficiently. Also, on a personal level, while at Bethel I sat at meetings with as many as 5 GB members at the same congregation meeting. While visiting Warwick several months ago, I sat in a meeting with 2 members of the GB and 3 GB "Helpers" (and the wife of a deceased GB member, Sydlik). I could have gone up to any one of them after the meeting to ask questions. In fact, I did. I asked Brother Morris, "How are you?"
Anyway, in my opinion, the Governing Body provides a practical committee of elders handling issues that elders should handle. The difference being that they handle issues that come in from the worldwide congregation. As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body." (You might know that we are not the only religion that happens to call such a committee of "church decision-makers" a "Governing Body.") That might not be the best phrase, but it's clear that the congregations generally agree that it's appropriate to have such a group.
I personally don't agree that any such group should make a claim that they are THE faithful and discreet slave prophesied to come into existence at a proper time beginning in 1919. It's indiscreet and unfaithful to the teachings of the scriptures to accept them in that specific capacity. I'm sure they are making a mistake in that regard, but again, this is just my own opinion. It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.

I am finding it soooooo funny, this pretence that the modern day GB is just a 'follow on' from the J-GB as you folks are now calling it. Is this GB / W/t / JW org brainwashing ?  Or are you people so indoctrinated as to actually believe it or make it up yourselves ? 
Is there any mention in the Greek scriptures, of words that directly / exactly translate into Governing Body ? If so please put proof up on here so that I can check it out for myself. 
There is one thing however that I've found interesting, it seems it was only by some people complaining / objecting to certain 'rules' being made, that anything was done to change the situation. 
It also seems that the Apostles and older men were available to talk to directly, to be able to make complaint. Totally different to today's GB who seem to hide behind locked gates and won't even do interviews or answer questions from ordinary people. 
I do hope Anna knows that 'err' has a double meaning. It can mean deliberate wrongdoing.  And relating those anointed Apostles to the GB now is quite funny. Remember Anna your GB is not inspired, the Apostles were.  
 
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.
I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.
The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.
I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 
I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .
Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?
What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 
You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?
I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.
(Hebrews 13:7-17) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .
Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.