Patiently waiting for Truth

Does anyone see the problem with Xero's comment above ?
Well, he deliberately confuses the issue by putting the BIBLE and denomination in the same 'pot'.  
Adherence to the BIBLE is NOT the same as adherence to any particular denomination. But xero trys to pretend it is all the same. Xero, you are wrong.
 

The Org once taught that people should serve God because GOD DESERVES TO BE SERVED, not for the gain of everlasting life. 

I know one thing you're not doing. Preaching the good news of God's Kingdom. Opposers are like fat leftist introverts who stare at their shoes and play dungeons and dragons and go to cosplay conventions because they loathe life and the demands it makes on them. Therefore anything excellent, they seek to tear down. They don't create, because to create is to be subject to criticism. Nope. They just like to sit in their fat, unaccomplished obesity in their mother's basement.
 

I shouldn't reply. But hey. Buddy... Unless you are part of a denomination you aren't going to go door to door pushing living by the Bible. If you do w/o being part of a group, then you'll come off like the dangerous kook you likely are.

This might actually be simpler than it sounds. If you look at the style of many standard commentaries, for example, you can see that some weather the ages better than others, such that certain commentaries from 300 years ago,  have much greater, lasting value than many that have been made in the last 30 years. Of course, there will be obsolete sections in almost all works of men.
Take for example, a denomination that sets itself up as a teaching ministry, such as ours which says this about the meaning of the name Jehovah:
*** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***
What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.
I don't think any Christian-oriented religious mind would find anything really debatable in that sentence, and it even includes the non-presumptuous statement that we cannot be dogmatic, and that this is our current understanding. So we are prepared for the idea that it is subject to change when and if more is learned.
This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

More musing...
Conscience seems very "gustatory" in the mouths of many. Taste and see. But when you don't like what you've tasted, maybe you tasted the wrong thing. Maybe you didn't cook it right. Maybe eating healthy is an acquired taste.
Even looking at organizations requires a certain artistic viewing distance.
A lot of complaints about chronology and other expectations. I get it.
On the other hand, I suspect w/o the expectations related to the imminence of the kingdom's arrival, this organization known as JW's wouldn't exist.
Who's to say Jehovah isn't behind allowing a little "operation of error" go to his servants so they do what they need to do?
If you were living in the 1st century, and Jesus said. "Come follow me. Of course you'll end up getting persecuted and you'll die before the end comes, but you'll eventually be happy you did and BTW that's thousands of years off from now." Just how enthusiastic would you really be?
People don't have the stamina to be on the bleeding edge of enthusiasm in perpetuity.

Somehow this reminds me of the old riddle:
There are 2 doors: life and death. There are 2 trolls: a lying one and a truth telling one. You have to get through the right door by asking both trolls the same question. (Only one question.)

I don't deny that this was a subtle (and to some, not-so-subtle) way of insulting others. I have only denied specific false claims about ways in which persons claimed I had insulted them.
I don't mind calling out trolling behavior. I have specifically pointed it out with JB/4J2 and I don't mind that you have said that this can be insulting to others. There's an admitted element of trolling in what I just did, too.

Musing more on conscience.
To listen to some, you'd imagine they'd suggest that to promote adherence to the Bible or any particular denomination one would have to first find one which currently had zero debatable anomalies in official statements from any imaginable scriptural, historical, archaeological or scientific "truths" perspective w/regard to belief otherwise to these, you're committing some kind or moral crime unless you in detail provide an exhaustive analysis of defects along w/the appendices of apologias on each side of the arguments.
 

You're going to have me racking my brain all day now!

Gentile parents teach their gentile children about own morals and standards, with or without "Christian" ethics. And they, parents and children, decide in mutual interactions what sort of conscience they will have and grow. How do you explain, where is the place/position and influence of "nature" spoken in Romans 2:14 in that process? And how do you explain that Romans 2:14 speaking in favour, very positive about them, gentile people, in comparison to Roman congregation to which Paul directed those chapters?  
Verse 15 continue with:
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Which and whose requirements was written on their hearts? When and how? Because their parents was "gentile" distanced(??) from "Christian" moral, standards and ethics.
I agree with some of your thoughts how there are unknown and invisible processes around all this. 

Xero:  I'm trying to find a way to formulate, by way of illustration or otherwise (the shorter the explanation the better), the dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility and actively being told by authority that some non-obvious thing is true and that one must believe the non-obvious thing is true and teach someone else in the same manner that this non-obvious thing is true.
dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves - Rom 2 14
Gentiles don't have "Law", don't have "Knowledge", don't have WTJWorg "moral and standard".....but have "Natural driving forces" to act in a way as God accepts. 

"However, firstly the scriptures are for the Anointed ones, secondly the scriptures do not apply to false religions. Otherwise that scripture would take away a person's own conscience. "
Prove this by scripture. Otherwise you should really stop while you're ahead, you keep digging that hole you're in you'll never get out.

Matthew 28 : 18 & 19. 
 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19  Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 
It was a straightforward command from Jesus himself.

BUT, you have just mentioned that all so called Christian religions use this same idea.  So are you telling Catholics to to be obedient to the Pope ? How would you JWs get new recruits if everyone was obedient to the ones taking the lead in their religions ?  No one would listen to you because they would be being obedient to their vicar or priest etc.. .  
However, firstly the scriptures are for the Anointed ones, secondly the scriptures do not apply to false religions. Otherwise that scripture would take away a person's own conscience. 

I don't like it when people are banned.
I especially don't like that they lose the continuity of the good points and arguments that they have been making. When a person loses their temper or says something that sounds threatening, they aren't really hurting anyone, in my opinion. I think it's appropriate to publicly criticize and even remove certain types of abusive content like spamming, porn, gore, bullying against specific groups/individuals, overt racism, and deliberately threatening or inflammatory content -- but not to completely ban individuals who merely lose their temper or use harsh words. We should be adults here. We can expect some harsh words here and there. There are very few "child-safe" places on the Internet.
And on a religiously charged forum, we should also realize that "attacks" on our views are not usually meant personally. If Allen Smith attacked my views, he might have appeared to be attacking me, but I present myself almost anonymously here. So what does it really mean to attack me personally? I certainly don't feel it that way. I'm sure the intent is to attack the views themselves, and usually with the full backing of the Watchtower's current views. This is easily understood. I also see it as a means of him trying to warn others who might be influenced by evidence that goes against the Watchtower's current views on certain specific topics. This means that he may very well be a Witness, but just very frustrated at the difficulty in mounting counter-evidence. Different people will handle that situation in their own way. Frustration for some means cursing and threatening, name-calling and judging. For others it will present as child-like tantrums. For some it will be grasping at straws or non-sensible counter-arguments. And for some, they will very seriously study the issue and find real counter-arguments.
So, the various types of responses can actually say something about the strength of the original arguments and evidence, and even the cursing and the tantrums and the name-calling will often inadvertently speak to the validity of the original evidence. In these cases, especially, it's much better to keep all those uncomfortable words and exchanges on the forum. Along with negative responses to them. The same effort it takes for an admin/moderator to evaluate someone's words as supposedly worthy of banning, is about the same amount of work it takes to merely flag the questionable comment and write up a quick explanation of why the forum owners/admins/moderators don't like the comment.
Banning removes the entire continuation of argument/evidence and counter-argument/counter-evidence. I still don't like banning anyone. I haven't seen anyone here whose posts rose to that level. For my own comfort level, there have been a few curse-words I would have "asterisked" (mostly from another Alan) but that can be usually be set automatically in software.
 

You are able to come up with some logical reasoning, but then you let go of reason and start assuming things that aren't true. JW do not worship the org. because all know that worship belongs to God only.
You pull out the Roman scripture (subjection to superior authorities) as proof that the org. is bad. You expect the annointed never to draw the wrong conclusion. You expect them to be either perfect, and sinless or led by holy spirit to the point where they do not have their own thoughts but are more like robots. 
Then you pull out the CSA as proof that the org. is bad, again insinuating that every JW should be perfect and without sin. 
Well I hate to break it to you again but that's not what the Bible says about Christians. Time and time again examples of faithful men and women who made mistakes were pointed out to you, but you ignore it...and then of course there are some that were bad and had to be thrown out.
 

D.O.'s? How long has it been since you were a JW?

Sure they do. For that matter so do CO's and DO's.
BTW The same is true for the prophets.
"27  About noon E·liʹjah began to mock them and say: “Call out at the top of your voice! After all, he is a god!+ Perhaps he is deep in thought or he has gone to relieve himself.* Or maybe he is asleep and someone needs to wake him up!”  - 1 Ki. 18:27 (paraphrasing the trash talking prophet ..."Baal IS a god after all. Maybe he had to go take a dump. Since he is a god that's got to be a massive dump.")

In the definition of what conscience is, it is said that one of the abilities / purposes of conscience is to distinguish good from bad.
If I understood your statement well, you claim that conscience arose AFTER the sin of the first humans. A new act of God’s creativity after He created everything and start to REST from creation, is the creation of conscience in DNA?? Is it this what you talking about?
Then we have more dilemmas about First Pair, Sin, Tree of Knowledge etc. Before sin, according to your statement, Adam and Eve had no conscious. Then this would means that they could not discern what is good and what is evil. To eat or not to eat The Fruit.
We all agree that people need to have conscience ( as some comments gave picture, that would be - individual, collective or/and individual-collective conscience to be able doing right things). By your  presented scenario, there is no existence of individual conscience and there is not collective conscience too, in Eden. What Adam and Eve had? 
Furthermore, the biblical text in Genesis also says that God said after they ate the Fruit from the Tree: "Now people have become like us and know what is good and what is evil". 
This suggest, also, how this couple had any (no) knowledge about good and evil (or about anything, about many thing else too??)
Conclusion? Adam and Eve had no Conscience ... and had no Knowledge about good and bad?
Can somebody explain why would God put them (or You) on test without Conscience? Why would God put them (or You) on test without Knowledge?
According to Genesis, we could conclude that Adam and Eve done wrong decision because they were "without knowledge." And because they refuse to obey direct command from God.
By this, it could mean how people don't need "Knowledge" and don't need "Conscience". But only to obey ban about the Tree.
After all, the Bible elsewhere speaks to just that aspect and says that Israel "perished because they were without knowledge."
The text of the Bible does not speak (openly or not at all) about the competition between conscience and knowledge. To act properly we need both tools: conscience and knowledge. And then other things; faith, love, courage etc. In example of old Israel lack of knowledge caused their ruin.
What sort of "knowledge" trains individual and collective conscience in WTJWorg?? 
What sort of "obedience" substitutes conscience and knowledge in WTJWorg??
 
 
 
 

Does an Elder really react this way   I think not. Just another AKA  for someone.  But i can tell you are badly hurt. You seem to write a lot about other people's mental state, I'll leave it there................ 
I forgive all your insults and laugh at them too.

Thinking more on this.
The attached pdf has this passage:
The pastor steps up to the pulpit of his evangelical church to instruct the people on practical Christian living, especially in terms of how to function under God’s delegated authorities. The pastor begins by declaring that children are to obey their parents in the Lord, for this is right (Eph. 6:1). In response, the congregation bellows an enthusiastic “Amen!” The pastor proceeds to exhort everyone to submit themselves to the governing authorities of the state (Rom. 13:1). In response, the people shout a hearty “Amen!” The pastor moves on to charge wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22). In response, the church gives a more subdued and uncomfortable “Amen.” Finally, the pastor admonishes the church members to obey the church leaders and submit to their authority (Hebrews 13:17). In response, the congregation glowers at the pastor with suspicious eyes and murmur to themselves, “Whatever happened to liberty of conscience?”
One can see the same response today in various KH's.
Just how do opposers imagine they're obedient to Hebrews 13:17 as separate from any organization? (If they still imagine themselves to be Christian)

"4Jah Creates more spiritual food"
I think you too make presumptions w/regard to the minds and motivations of "Ex-JW's". You probably barely know your own mind.
"He that is trusting in his heart is stupid" - Proverbs 28:26
 

Mostly all, perhaps. To me it really is a matter of conscience. While my wife and I have been willing to die over the no-blood doctrine, we both agreed when our children were young that we would not be willing to impose our conscience(s) upon our young children before they were baptized. This still doesn't mean that we would simply allow them to take blood or blood-based medical treatments, but it would be a medical decision depending on risks to their physical life. It turns out there are only few limited circumstances where one could say that blood is absolutely required to offer the optimal chance of saving a physical life. But, contrary to the beliefs of many Witnesses, those circumstances do exist. The principle, for my own conscience, is built from this:
(Matthew 12:10-12) . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
Fortunately, the issue has not come up for any of us.

There are three of us, so it can't be wrong. Every testimony that is said by two or three witnesses is "the truth". :)))