Patiently waiting for Truth

I agree too. But why WTJWorg making doctrinal issue of this, and try to maximize instructions/policies on issue to not looking for "higher education"?  They create social climate in congregations, through publications and public talks, how higher education is from "devil" himself. 
On other side, all wrong/false teachings, doctrines and instructions inside WTJWorg, in history and in present time, (as sort of "higher spiritual education") originated, sourced from WHOM THAN?? (from whom then they originate)

Is this how we know that it should not be each Christian who should act as a true Christian neighbor to fellow humans? Because it is in the form of a question?
(Luke 10:29-37) . . .: “Who really is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jerʹi·cho and fell victim to robbers, . . .But a certain Samaritan . . . took out two de·narʹi·i, gave them to the innkeeper, and said: ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides this, I will repay you when I return.’ 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself.”
By our current logic, the good Samaritan would be the faithful and discreet slave, and those fellow Jewish persons who ignored the victim might just be hypothetical.

That's good.
And that's why I bring it up. These other issues don't bother me. Still, I think we should be honest about them and only discuss these issues when it seems that some Witnesses believe we need to hide our past, or tell new people that something was really nothing. However, if you want me to be bothered about the religion in general, then show me where I should support war and nationalism and Trinity and hell-fire. I know that there are some arguments a person could make on a few of our major doctrines, but the overall sense I get from the Bible on those issues matches up to the Witness view. Also, I don't consider chronology to be a major issue, nor do I think that the GB is the FDS. But I have nothing against the usefulness of a GB, and I think they should be a part of the FDS.
As usual, you bring up CSA, and I agree that our moral standards should prove to be higher than elsewhere. But perhaps Jesus should have had less prostitutes following him, too. I'm more concerned about the level of emphasis, focus and correct counsel on CSA and other moral issues. I don't claim we are better than everyone else on every issue. But I like the most recent policies, even though I spoke out against the weakness of previous polices.

Perhaps you've done more study on this than I have. You probably know that the NIV has been "trashed" among several church groups, especially the KJV-only crowd. This is, in large part, why there is a common complaint all over the Internet that Zondervan published the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex.
Feb 17, 2020 - ... (NIV) was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. Bayside Church Melbourne » The NIV Conspiracy Jul 15, 2015 - The Facebook post mentions that Harper Collins also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex – and that's completely true. It's the ... Rikus Jansen - VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!! Hello beloved ... I'm sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. Bible Altered by Homosexuals and Satan Worshipers ...
Jul 15, 2015 - ... that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. There are literally hundreds of these references. But unfortunately the gay sex book was not published by Zondervan. Perhaps you have done more research into the other books on homosexuality published by Zondervan, but from what I can tell, most of them are about gay persons trying to live a celibate lifestyle and the potential conflict between grace and sin. This is also the gist of articles on this topic on Zondervan Academic. Harper Collins did buy Zondervan in 1988, well after Zondervan had already been publishing the NIV and books by "Christian-related" authors. Having a Christian books division does not stop HC from publishing whatever else it wants from other authors. It doesn't mean that the persons who run the Zondervan division agree with everything published by HC in general.   

Clearly - No, but it seems you haven't understand what was conveyed. As for this statement of yours, by this remark of yours, it is easily seen you have taken the misguidance of the mainstream media and applied it to your own.
Do not always eat from the hands of the MSM, otherwise you will become like them. The issue is not about race, but, it became a race issue because the media is swinging the axe of racism, which in turn, begets action and negative influence.
The best thing for you is for me NOT to dive into this issue (that is if you can see the truth out of the falsehood regarding this issue), for the last person on here who did this was enthralled when race, sex, and CSA was involved, and so and so deemed me a racist for quoting facts from the FBI.

I agree that in general modern Witnesses do not follow Watchtower history.
But this doesn't mean that the Watch Tower publications aren't promoting the idea that we should follow the history. There's a long history of history in the WTS:
CTRussell revisited his own history a couple times in the pages of the WT The Biography of Charles Taze Russell revisited his history from the late 1920's to mid 30's Rutherford revisited Watchtower history in the pages of the WT Knorr ran a serialized version of the WT history through several successive issues of the WT Those articles culminated in the history book: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (jp) Almost every "Book Study" book and book covering Prophetic explanations included at least 60 pages of Watchtower history, including the most recent ones Every Yearbook included at least 40 pages of Watchtower history for at least one country The 1975 Yearbook became an update of the jp book The Proclaimers book became an updated history book Three of the four major tour attractions at Warwick are all about the history of the Watchtower Society. (And the major displays at the Watchtower Farm are also about the Watchtower history.) Every year the Watchtower reviews milestone highlights in articles about the history of the Watchtower Society, including a related set of articles for several years now about things that happened "100 Years Ago" Like I said, though, there is nothing wrong with this, assuming the purpose, honesty and clarity are there.
I'm sure you aren't saying that the WTS is "triassic" or in a "bubble" for repeatedly promoting this history. It's part of our current beliefs about how most of the prophecies were fulfilled.

A quote from C. C. / Billy the Kid. " Funny, Harper Collins published the Satanic bible, while Zondervan published gay sex. When has the Watchtower published something like that. "
Um, maybe when they did Pillowgate, and two men masterbating sitting opposite each other, not being porneia 

@Arauna  I know nothing about the pyramids but :-
One doesn't need to go back 150 years to find fault in the CCJW teachings.
In the 1960's / 70's they were teaching the 6 x 7000 year creative days, and the end of 6000 years of God's rest day. 
Now they admit to not knowing how long a Creative day was. 
And @JW Insider  you bring up the same old same old :-
Is there a a religion that teaches straightforward doctrines that set us apart from the world in general? And sets us apart as dedicated to God?
Read above, there is one proof that the CCJW does not teach straight forward doctrines. The doctrines keep changing.  (1975, blood issue, Superior authorities, to name but a few) 
Does it focus on high moral standards so that I can generally expect the persons I associate with to have the same moral outlook as I do?
This one goes without saying. Why even pretend that the morality of the CCJW is any better than the rest of the world ?  (The excuse on this forum is that CSA happens everywhere, so then what makes the CCJW moral standards any higher ? I've also been hearing about more divorces in the CCJW here in UK. )
This why I laugh at comments on here. So much pretence. 

https://sputniknews.com/uk/202005221079386943-uk-ministry-of-justice-has-open-mind-on-raising-minimum-age-to-18-to-stop-child-marriages/
I thought this article was interesting, particularly as @Arauna seems to say that the world and all it's governments are totally immoral and that all schools and colleges teach immorality etc .........
Here in the UK a politician is trying to have the legal age of marraige raised from 16 to 18, to stop child marraiges. 
Conservative MP Pauline Latham is seeking to pass a bill which would “revoke parental…consent which permits the marriage…of a child and to criminalise child marriage…under the age of 18.”
I just thought it gives a bit of balance to the usual JW cry of 'the world is wicked' 'all non JWs are wicked' etc....  I do like a bit of balance. 
The article is dated 22nd May and I have no idea of the outcome, but it's nice to read about a politician that is trying to do something positive to held young people. 

So right!
The conversation about Furuli is interesting in that it's about a man's struggle related to conscience, knowledge, and various realizations of imperfection in human organizations and bureaucracies. Shouldn't be a surprise to any of us. Perhaps with his experience at so many levels of responsibility within the organization, and in educational organizations, he more easily sees how things are allowed that shouldn't be, and things aren't allowed that should be. Perhaps he sees how a person who has given a lifetime of effort, might feel underappreciated now that he's at the age for feeling a sense of "what have you done for them lately." Perhaps he is in a position to feel "deserving" of more accolades than most, and as he gets older he finds that instead, "no good deed goes unpunished." Various things he worked hard for (freedom of higher education, for example; promotion of the NWT) are being turned against him.
I think it was expected by some that he would struggle, partly because he was too focused on defending even the minutest details of unprovable doctrines. Furuli was trying to do things for the WTS that the WTS itself was not that interested in doing:
Let's prove that our pronunciation of YHWH is exactly right. Let's prove that the NWT is the best translation out there. Let's do our best to prove that a certain year for Artaxerxes 20th year was 10 years different from the evidence just so that we can make a certain WT doctrine work out more exactly. Let's prove that a certain year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was 20 years different from the evidence just so that we can make a certain WT doctrine work out more exactly.  So he fought some unwinnable battles and was not appreciated for them, at least not to the extent he probably thought was fair. And it didn't matter to that many Witnesses.
What does matter to the average Witness are things quite unrelated to scholarship and prophecy, like:
Is there a a religion that teaches straightforward doctrines that set us apart from the world in general? And sets us apart as dedicated to God? Does it teach basic spirituality and love of God, and condemn war and nationalistic politics, and unchristian holiday celebrations? Does it promote esoteric, unclear, or contradictory doctrines like the Trinity and Immortal Soul, and a God who would promote eternal torture? Does it focus on high moral standards so that I can generally expect the persons I associate with to have the same moral outlook as I do? Does it have characteristic features that we would expect of a religion that tries to imitate the first century congregation in a twenty-first century environment, including worldwide preaching? Does this religion attract and improve people so that I am happy to associate with fellow believers anywhere in the world, and feel good about sending charity to those in trouble after natural or man-made disasters? I am aware there might be persons who have a more correct view of chronology, or persons who see a specific doctrine differently, or even a different view of prophecy in general. Perhaps I see people from a church down the street from me who go in and come out all friendly and loving and happy to meet each other, just like with my friends at the KH. But I also can tell that I could never be as comfortable there as I would be among people related to me in a faith. People for whom the answers to the questions listed above fit what I've learned about the Bible. 
I see the Furuli book as a way for some to just tear down the organizational structure, probably not with a view to improving the organization, but for destroying it. If it has any value, though, it will acknowledge that there is room for improvement without anarchy. I thought that R.Franz' book (I only finished one of the two) was the same. It was being used as a "bomb" when it was best used as a tool to fix or reduce the chance of repeating problems associated with:
certain presumptuous and haughty attitudes, Mexico/Malawi, the 1914 generation, improper prying into marital relationships, fixing the alternative service issue. For the most part, the WTS used it to make good adjustments. Hopefully, Furuli's book has some of those same values. He certainly seems to have followed a lot of R.Franz style and even matches up on several specific points of agreement, points of argument, and several doctrinal points that match up exactly between them.  

I have heard this. One quote from Russell that has been faithfully preserved since his death is, “If you stop to kick every dog that barks at you, you’ll never get very far.”
Granted, if someone barks, they may be quick to assume that such person must be a dog—but you would have to excel in scholarship to know otherwise, and as stated, that is not their strong suit, nor should it be. The second thing that ‘scholars’ do—I’ve seen plenty of it here from people who think themselves learned—is to start quibbling over the Name—this pronunciation is better than that one and since that is the case, maybe it should not be used at all. Scholars reason this way. But if I go to another country and start ragging on the locals every time they botch my name, nobody says, “Whoa! That brother is scholarly!” They say, “What a pin-headed idiot!”
Because the HQ brothers are not scholarly, they are inclined to accept that what is done is done, and what is written is written. Once in awhile someone like Splane comes along, looks it all over, and says, “We’re not doing anti-types anymore!”—maybe because too many have blown up in his face, but for the most part, the past is assumed to be stable past that can be built upon. It’s too bad they’ve tossed aside anti-types because I have a doozy for them. You think it is nothing that Dennis Christensen’s surname points to the one he follows, and his very profession is the same? They are going to twiddle their thumbs on that one, putting equal significance on the second Russian imprisoned for the faith—Mgoyahen Bloggabodidillyvich? Not to worry, though—Kos will pick up and run with it.
I can’t believe how many seem to take for granted that the devil’s gameboard is not rigged, or that his rules of ‘critical thinking‘ should carry the day. They do not see for a moment how flawed the tool is—or perhaps more to the point—how sharp it is on the points for which it has merit, too sharp for its staunch advocates to handle without cutting themselves. It is the words of the prophet Tom Cruise: “You can’t handle the truth!” 
The notion that we are rational creatures is a joke. The heart decides what it want and then entrusts the head to devise a convincing rationale for it. For the most part, people read mainly so as to confirm what they already believe. It is amazing on social media how few are the people who change their minds on anything. Accordingly, for every verse in the Bible about the head, there are ten about the heart. Few of Jesus’ parables would stand up to rigorous critical thought—some of them barely make sense. But they target the heart, which is his goal. 
I also can’t believe how many may be stumbled over what Rulf or any fellow scholar will say—or even what complainers will say. “Well, we could be wrong on that,” I say to almost all of it, and move on. Do they in any case, speak to the fundamental reason that I was attracted to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the first place? “Finally—a religion where the people at the helm are smart and can be counted upon to say nothing wrong!” Did I say that? Does anyone? Of course not! There was religious truth found no where else, and we soon enough discovered (few did not know it already) that it was carried in earthen vessels. This is why whenever persons are ‘stumbled’ over something like Rulf’s input, they are simply seizing on something to justify a decision already made in their heart. Why can’t they just say, “I’m like Demas—I prefer the present system of things?’ Why can’t they say as with from John, “I’m leaving because—I gave it a good whirl—but I’m just not one of their sort?” 
I also note that Rulf has not left the faith, and that he does not declare he intends to. Nor do I take for granted that he will be given the boot, even though he seems think it a foregone conclusion. Maybe—I certainly won’t be shocked if it goes that way—but I’ll take it as a done deal only when it is done.

These days a lot of people who do not have the time, money or wherewithal to become scholars, scientists, journalists, or specialists will still tend to find some vicarious thrill in presenting themselves as "scholars" because they love the actual scholarship of another person. Similarly, some consider themselves vicarious "journalists" (or at least "specialists") on many topics because they have found journalists, or more often "journalistic entertainers," who support their ideologies. (In the USA, this would include persons like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Alex Jones, Chris Cuomo, etc.) The "vicarious thrill" happens especially when a well-known professional scholar, scientist, politician, journalist or entertainer agrees with our own personal ideology or beliefs.
The thrill is slightly higher when it's an unexpected source, as when a climate scientist admits a failure in the climate beliefs of the opposing ideology. Or when a respected academic source, or even "fundamentalist Christian" scholar admits that the Trinity was not a first century Christian belief.
Over the past few years @scholar JW and "Allen Smith"/"Billy The Kid" aka @César Chávez have praised Rolf Furuli to such an extent that I was not the only one who wondered if both "scholar" and "Cesar" were not also enjoying a kind of vicarious thrill of being able to call their own ideological position "scholarly" because an actual academic scholar like Furuli gave them that foundation. And it no doubt appealed to the Watch Tower Society to find a person like Furuli for the same reasons and present his unique take on one of the neo-Babylonian astronomical tablets.
And I would have to admit that for me personally I have sometimes been thrilled to discover that many archaeologists have uncovered items of interest to Bible believers that help indicate the historical accuracy of the Bible in the face of nay-sayers. And when it was first pointed out to me why the doctrine of the "1914 generation" was not supported Biblically, I was thrilled to discover that two members of the GB would admit right in front of me that they also didn't fully support it, and that at least 3 additional GB members had said similar things in writing or told to persons I trusted about that topic. And when it turns out that a Greg Stafford, or a Gerard Gertoux, also agrees in many ways about the 1914 doctrine, it could be seen as adding "authority" to my own beliefs. So, I am definitely not immune to the "argument from authority" which can often turn out to be a logical fallacy. But what happens when Gerard Gertoux is rejected as a scholar due to a position on 1914, or a person like Greg Stafford defends JWs very well for years, but then leaves or rejects the Witnesses altogether?
In the past few years, both "scholar JW" and "Cesar" have been asked what they would do if Furuli stopped believing as he did. Neither answered that question. But both of them, on this forum, seem to have been as supportive as possible of Furuli, up to a point. I don't think "scholar JW" will come back now that he has been asked this question directly, this time by Ann O'Maly. "Cesar" has been slowly weakening in his supportive position, as I'm sure he is discovering that some of the words he thought were being misrepresented were actually a very good representation of Furuli's actual words.
Fortunately, for "scholar" and "Cesar," Furuli has not yet changed his position on 1914, and "scholar JW" immediately found that fact to be advantageous - because Furuli is finally (suddenly) an independent scholar. "Cesar" also still uses vague language to protect and defend Furuli. I believe it's because Furuli's scholarship on 1914 must be protected from his new theological reputation.
As expected, this is not so different from what is done especially by ex-JWs and perhaps even some JWs for R.Franz and C.O.Jonsson for those who agree with their takes on theology or chronology, respectively. Some persons tend to want to overly protect the reputations of those men when it shouldn't matter in the long run. I think that some persons get overly involved in trying to make them out to be great Christians, when they never knew them, and only see through their own eyes "vicariously" through the books those men authored.
This becomes more interesting with Furuli because 1914 is so tied up with the belief in the FDS who were recently identified with the GB (such as it was) back during that same 1914 time period. I don't expect Furuli to weaken any time soon on the 1914 doctrine because he invested his entire reputation on 1914 and scholarship, and it is his own reputation he is apparently trying to salvage among his fellow brothers and sisters. He wants it to be clear that he has never left the religion and that if he is kicked out it was only because some imperfect but sincere men did not like an important anomaly in his theology. The "optics" of that perspective might even save him from being officially kicked out in any formal or public way.
But Furuli is rejecting what has seemed to become the most re-emphaisized "touchstone" of the modern theological themes in the Watch Tower publications: that of obedience to the FDS. It's an old theme but necessarily returning because it's now so much more tangible. Previously, the "obedience" to the FDS was a spiritual obedience through appreciation of an entire spiritual "process" that was intangible. The FDS was a world-wide living remnant of the 144,000 who were somehow (spiritually) supporting a small group of representatives of themselves through the largely unknown (and idealized) teaching and writing and decision-making processes at the Watch Tower's headquarters in NY. The "obedience" of the 144,000 to a core group of anointed, centered around NY Bethel, became a model that the rest of us appreciated, largely for the intangible spiritual factors. (It was even suggested that members of the 144,000 who had died, were still communicating with this small group of representatives of the FDS.)
But then it became more tangible when it was adjusted so that this appointed slave became "8 men" that you could watch and judge for yourselves on your "TV" or internet screens. You can watch them make mistakes right in front of you. You can watch them say questionable things and realize more easily than ever that they themselves are struggling with some issues (finances, legal challenges, "overlapping" generation, changing doctrines). This begins to take away the once intangible spiritual sheen, even though most of what they say is still very much appreciated and there is no need to question it.

Rutherford devised the name, “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and instigated "Jehovah's organization".
So, what happened with the organization’s leaders?  How did they slip so far from Jesus’ teachings spoken through the apostles? 
And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.”  Acts 1:7
I don’t recall a teacher in my elementary school teaching me lies about math and reading fundamentals.
 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it did not collapse, because its foundation was laid on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it collapsed, and its fall was great.”  Matt 7:24-27
 

@TrueTomHarley  quote :-
"The fat lady may not be singing just yet, but she is seriously clearing her throat. We can’t wait too much longer for the ‘true anointed’ to manifest itself out of nowhere."
https://jwsurvey.org/mobile/cedars-blog/governing-body-says-we-are-the-faithful-and-discreet-slave/comment-page-9
Reports are emerging of an announcement at the 128th Annual Meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses now considers itself to be the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class of Matthew 24:45 in its entirety.
Previously it was understood that the Governing Body were merely humble “representatives” of the “Slave Class”, which comprised the 12,000 or more anointed remnant of Christians with a heavenly calling still on earth. Despite claiming to be “representatives” of this group of people, suspicions were raised in the minds of many thinking Witnesses after reading articles such as the Questions From Readers of the August 15th 2011 Watchtower, where it was admitted that the Governing Body has no actual communication with memorial partakers (the “anointed”) and even feels that some of these ones may be mentally imbalanced. (see w11 8/15 p. 22)
Just to show people that the GB made themselves the F&DS in 2012 /2013 
So it is possible that the present GB could be removed, and a new 'body of servants' replace them. Armageddon is not coming tomorrow. Any sensible thinking person will know that. @Arauna has made suggestions as to worldly actions by governments, but this will take time. Plus, I honestly think that there will be a massive ingathering before Armageddon. God does not wish for any to die, but for all to gain 'life'. 
My Harley loves words because he is a writer of books. Hence he makes comments to mislead people. Take this as example :-
" We can’t wait too much longer for the ‘true anointed’ to manifest itself out of nowhere."
Now compare this as I've quoted from above :-
Previously it was understood that the Governing Body were merely humble “representatives” of the “Slave Class”, which comprised the 12,000 or more anointed remnant of Christians with a heavenly calling still on earth.
That was written in 2012. But there are probably still a large number of Anointed here on earth. So, they would not have to 'manifest themselves out of nowhere', because they are already here. Some of those may not even be JWs. 
 
 

When you speaking this way about JW religion, and that's work for other religions too, is moment in which believer expect, need to lean on firm and truthful beliefs and doctrine in own church. What sort of people are satisfied with changing of this sort? What you named as "clarification" as a process is something what we do not expect from God who never change his moral and spiritual standards: “For I the Lord do not change -  Numbers book. 
And now you are here to convince us how this Bible verse about God need appendix and clarification perhaps because past ideology about what is the meaning of this verse is/was error. 
What could be error? Expression that god do not change, or error are human claims how your or mine interpretations about this verse need clarification or are wrong?
Particular problem with JW religion in this issue is not reality of progress in thoughts. Problems are these:
1) Only GB and Helpers are entitled to have advanced, progressive thoughts and to change own and members beliefs system   
2) Only GB and Helpers are entitled to change previous doctrines that was created and "firmly established" under "guidance" of Jesus and God and Bible
3) Only GB and Helpers are in position to blame members because they (members) misunderstand "clear teachings"
4) Every doctrinal error must be obeyed until GB and Helpers decide to be different, otherwise you will be named as apostate
 
 

Rutherford began his own well documented teachings far removed from the first century teachings of the apostles. 
1917 'There will be no slip-up...Abraham should enter upon the actual possession of his promised inheritance in the year 1925' (Watchtower Oct. 15, 1917, p. 6157
Rutherford "made it very clear" that he DID know about the outcome of this prophesy, one of many others by Rutherford.    Neither Russel nor Rutherford purely "reignited first century teachings" of scriptures, but ignited their own falsehoods.  Why write a book against the Prohibition?  What use is that as a teacher under Christ.  The same spiritual blood runs through the veins of each leader in the WT, down to today.  They are not "brothers" sharing the spirit of Christ, since lies would not be tolerated by him.  
How horrible it will be for those
    who string people along with lies and empty promises,
    whose lives are sinful.
19         They say,
            “Let God hurry and quickly do his work
                so that we may see what he has in mind.
            Let the plan of the Holy One of Israel happen quickly
                so that we may understand what he is doing.”
20 How horrible it will be for those
    who call evil good and good evil,
    who turn darkness into light and light into darkness,
    who turn what is bitter into something sweet
        and what is sweet into something bitter.
21 How horrible it will be for those
    who think they are wise
        and consider themselves to be clever.
22 How horrible it will be for those
    who are heroes at drinking wine,
    who are champions at mixing drinks,
23     who declare the guilty innocent for a bribe,
    who take away the rights of righteous people.  Isa 5:18-23
 
 
https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2020/04/discerning-false-christs-and-false.html
 
 
 
 

Pyramidology was not a first century teaching. 

“The current GB is misguided and has lost its way?’
All they have to do is be there when the fat lady sings, and feeding the flock as best they can. No one else is doing so or has anything to show for efforts (or lack thereof).
The fat lady may not be singing just yet, but she is seriously clearing her throat. We can’t wait too much longer for the ‘true anointed’ to manifest itself out of nowhere.

Sure, a person can make a judgment on how he thinks a slave is performing, but it's subjective and his view may not align with that of Jesus when the time comes. And yes, Matt 7:15-20 is pertinent. People can also get used to eating poor quality food and think it's good. That's why the Bible teaches that it's Jesus who has to judge.

However, Jesus did give us guidance to discern a "faithful slave" from a wicked one.
"Food" - Matt 7:15-20
 

“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.- Matthew 24:45-47
WTJWorg study articles shows enough rowing and wondering (wandering too). First they claimed how Jesus and JHVH appointed them in 1919 (who ever that was be in 1919 in WT Company) inside Matt 24:45-47 wording. It looks how appointing was based on idea how Jesus freed Rutherford and Associates from prison and immediately appointed them. WT soon president Rutherford with his helpers releasing was explained  as sort of intervention from Heaven that freed WT from bondage of "Babylon the Great and Political powers". And because of that Jesus gave them special position in earthly Kingdom of His, that is task to serve as food servers. 
It is very likely how act of releasing from prison was EXPLAINED by Administration in later time, as God's intervention (not lawyers efforts) because God want them to be His Representatives on Earth. 
When WT publications speaking about 1914-1919 period they call it "time of testing and refinement".  The only important thing (for our investigation) that was happening in the Society at that time was the Administrative Battle for supremacy and who will control Corporation. 
In 1927 Bible Students reaffirmed "understanding" how Russel alone was not FDS, but how FDS are entire body of faithful spirit-anointed Christians. Even more, "visible agency" (WTS) is FDS, according to Proclaimers book, page 219.
Today WTJWorg teach differently. 8 men in GB were not living in time when Jesus made His first personal appointing of entire body. Well, this looks as: Jesus came many times again, from 1919 to nowadays, for reason to appoint all those who served in Director capacity or today in GB capacity. It seems how Jesus frequently visiting US Branch Bethel and put particular JW members on position of GB. Because that is to be expected, since 1919 marked the way how this have to be done, by Jesus himself, for every new name of FDS aka GB that comes to public. 

Furuli makes a good point after quoting from the Box on p. 25 of the July 15, 2013 WT about the hypothetical 'evil slave' and its comment, "Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave." On p. 79-80 he argues,
"The observations of The Watchtower accord with the grammar. And the conclusion that Jesus did not appoint an evil slave can also be applied to “the faithful and discreet slave” (literally: “the faithful slave, even the wise one”): Jesus did not appoint the “faithful and discreet slave.” In connection with both slaves, there are questions, and this shows that both situations are hypothetical. So the conclusion is that that there has never been “a faithful and discreet slave” in the sense used by the GB. But when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation, there will be many individual faithful and discreet slaves who are doing their job, and who are on the watch. And similarly, there will be many individual wicked slaves who will be punished." [bold mine]
As has long been argued by many before Furuli, Matt 24:45-47 is a parable that poses a question, and is not a prophecy about C.T. Russell (taught till 1927) or class of anointed remnant left on earth (taught till 2012) or an elite leadership at WTHQ (current teaching) that was appointed in 1919. If the 'evil slave' is hypothetical, so is the 'faithful and discreet slave.'
Under current teaching, any declaration that the slave has been performing faithfully and discreetly (or otherwise) is a future one when Jesus 'arrives' to inspect his household and he makes that determination one way or the other. Therefore, at present, the question of 'who really is the faithful and discreet slave ...?' remains unanswered.

@John Houston Quote 'Those 8 men lead, guide us on a path none here could, nor anyone one else could,...'
Do you think you have proof of this ?  
And quote " the merchandise has not been damaged beyond repair."
Some of it has actually. Many have been stumbled, some have committed suicide, many have turned away from God because of mistreated by the CCJW.  
Do you believe that collateral damage is ok then ?  Do you just think in numbers, not people ? 
 

@Srecko Sostar   Yes it all becomes blurred. Recommendations, Rules, Guidance, Doctrines. 
It does not eave much room for a Christian conscience. And then the GB or others at the'top' change the 'rules', guidance, doctrines. 
The beard thing is one. The Blood issue is another. 
There is a rule ( here in UK ) that a brother cannot go on the platform without wearing a shirt and neck tie and a jacket. One elder I would see on the platform had a big electric fan working all the time he was on the platform. But, when he was on the door to door ministry he would wear an open neck shirt and no jacket. It seems he has since been moved to a different congregation.
I personally do not like to see people being 'Westernised' but in most countries now the brothers wear shirts and ties. In my opinion it makes the CCJW look like an 'American religion', whereas it is supposed to be God's 'earthly' organisation ruled over by Christ.  
My opinion about 'doctrine' is that it should be the 'spiritual things'. Truth taught from God's written word. Therefore things believed and lived by.
Rules are more a basic requirement and scripture should not be used. For instance, if the Org say that brothers have to wear a suit and tie to meetings, that is a rule. It has no scriptural backing. Scripture should not be used as an excuse to enforce man made rules. 
But i think there should be a rule book available for a Bible Study person to read before baptism.
Congregants actually know very little about the rules of the CCJW, and the baptism is 'into' the Organisation, like signing a contract. 
Srecko I agree with what you say about doctrine in JW org. It has been brought down to a low level and  as you say, it is changed when they feel like changing it. 

When God had a people chosen on earth they were his organization, am I to believe that line of reasoning? I have to because Jehovah does not change, what works for him in heaven does so on earth. How many carried the mantra 'the Word' in Heavenly realm? Only one, right? Were all the spirit sons seraphs, cherubs? They each had their status and assignments, none doing no more than the other was assigned to do by Jehovah. We may balk at those assigned to lead us while here on earth, because we are in those positions, but Moses led the nation of Israel not the entire nation of people. There were 12 tribes, but only 1 that was assigned to care for the spiritual needs of the entire nation of Israel. What if the other 11 raised up and debated on wanted that assignment? But those even of the very family had assignments, yet wanted to overstep what was meted to them; how were they dealt with?
Those 8 men lead, guide us on a path none here could, nor anyone one else could, so why the beef? One has to be humble, could Peter handle such a global assignment with what he knew then, today? No! He would need much help, just as those older men took care of the spiritual things and let others care for the mundane affairs. But can that very same attitude be taken with the what belongs to Christ now? Again, No! They have to be hands on in all what is going on. Do they make mistakes? Yes, because they are still imperfect human beings, their anointing did not shield them from that. Just as it didn't with the apostles. They are management not owners, so stop thinking for the owners, they will handle everything, the merchandise has not been damaged beyond repair.